Yes, Zionism is at odds with liberal values. But it’s less at odds than the alternative; moreover, it has the capacity to be liberalized almost without limit.
I want to take issue with Joseph Dana’s claim that liberal Zionism is a “dishonest system of thought.” I don’t, however, want to take issue with his statement that “the Zionist ideology, in so far as it privileges one ethnic group over another, is at odds with liberal values.” I won’t argue with that second point because I’m an honest liberal Zionist, and I don’t think any honest liberal Zionist, such as Bernard Avishai or Gershom Gorenberg, would argue with it either, because it’s undeniably true. Zionism privileges the Jews over Arabs and other gentiles, and that’s at odds with liberal values. So if I believe in liberal values, such as civic equality, why am I a Zionist, i.e. why do I want Israel to remain a Jewish state?
Because if Israel stops being a Jewish state it will become a Palestinian state, and on the way to that it will be a state at civil war that will bring on the exodus of the Jews – and that’s even more at odds with my liberal values than Zionism. You cannot have two warring nations in one state, and that’s what the Jews and Palestinians are in this part of the world – warring nations. The only way a state can work is if one of those nations is the stable, unchallenged majority, and there is such a Jewish majority in Israel and it should stay that way. I also believe that the Palestinians have as much right as the Jews to be the clear majority in a sovereign state of their own, and the Palestinians’ state – by right – encompasses the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.
At home, I think the responsibility of Zionism is to realize that it inherently privileges Jewish citizens over Arab citizens, and to rectify all the inequalities and do away with all the discrimination, except in one area – immigration. While Israel has to get rid of its miserable “Jews-only” immigration policy and allow Palestinians and other gentiles to become citizens, it should still gear its policy so that a solid Jewish majority is maintained. It doesn’t have to be 80% like it is now, but if Israel is going to be a Jewish state and not a Palestinian state, the Jewish majority has to stay pretty solid.
Which means, naturally, that I’m against the right of return. I’m against it both on practical grounds, which I think I’ve laid out, and on moral grounds. It’s not just that the Palestinians started the 1947-48 war, it’s that they, too, carried out expulsions in that war, expulsions of thousands of Jews from the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City, Gush Etzion, Kfar Darom and several other kibbutzim and moshavim. As Uri Avnery, a veteran of that war, said in a debate in 2007 with Ilan Pappe: “There can be no dispute that ethnic cleansing took place in 1948 – though allow me to remark, in parenthesis, that the ethnic cleansing was on both sides, and that there was not a single Jew left residing in whatever territory was conquered on the Arab side.” The Arabs were trying to do to the Jews what the Jews were trying to do to the Arabs; the Jews, to be brutally frank, just did it better. So I don’t see that the Palestinians have any right of return, especially since they started the war in the first place.
If there had been a small number of refugees, I personally would have had no objection to letting them come back – not as a matter of right, but rather because there would have been no good reason to refuse. Today, if it would allow the peace to be made, I’d personally agree to let up to a few hundred thousand refugees return to Israel over, say, a 10-year period. But again, not as a matter of right, because I don’t think it is their right.
The above is a capsule version of my idea of liberal Zionism. I don’t see anything dishonest about it.
Related posts on +972:
A sad commentary on the state of liberal Zionist discourse
+972 readers weigh in on Zionism debate
December 7, 2011
3:02 am
Oh Rose, try and assimilate the quotes and links that I presented instead of just ignoring them. But then again, if you ignore them, then please don’t complain if I too ignore some of your minute boring little irrelevancies that a lot of my links/quotes negated.
.
Example:
.
Both sides acknowledged that they were close to agreement. The only thing they could not agree on was the Right of Return. Which in turn renders your complaints about what Israel offered irrelevant. Which bit of that don’t you understand Rose?
December 7, 2011
3:48 am
BasicBosko,
how I could go away. You are so brilliant and full of knowledge that I cannot be apart from you.
Dennis Ross was the appointed KEY MEDIATOR. He himslef was biased and his life testify it. Robert Malley was just a witness and he himself is of jewish origins, does not speak one word of arabic, nor does have any connection with the arab world. If you don’t notice the difference, it is your problem. Moreover, I base my observations on my considerations and not just telling you “read read read Dennis Ross…he is great..yes yes I trust to Condi Rice and not you Rose”.
….
I didn’t find in your post a single word about the settlements or about the following issues:
…….
1) “the lack of contiguity that the settlement blocs cause for a Palestinian state, lack of trust in the commitment and/or possibility of the Israeli government to evacuate the thousands of non-bloc Israeli settlers in the 15-year timeline,
….
2) limited sovereignty for Palestinians in Jerusalem (the historically important Arab neighborhoods such as Sheikh Jarrah, Silwan,and At-Tur would remain under Israeli sovereignty, while Palestinians would only have sovereignty over the outer Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem),
…
3) the lack of Palestinian sovereignty over holy sites in Jerusalem (Palestinians would only receive “administrative control” over their holy sites, and the Old City’s Muslim and Christian Quarters, however Israel was to receive complete sovereignty over Jewish holy sites, and the Old City’s Jewish and Armenian Quarters).
….
..
….
….
You really think to be funny, brilliant and to have a lot of knowledge: as many people wrote you on this site, you are not.
December 7, 2011
10:16 am
The Liberal Zionist response to Dana’s article leaves out one word “justice”. Palestinian Arabs, Muslim and Christian, lived for thousands of years on their land with a minority of their Jewish brethren in peace. The expulsion of 800,000 in 1947, 1948 of Palestinian Muslims and Chrstians was and is a crime of immense historical proportion. The “Jewish” State , Israel, as all other states in this dysfuntional world are supposed to adhere to law, international law, in its dealings with other nations. International law states thet the Palestinian refugees have the right to return to their homeland.No ifs qands or buts. Right to Return, period. Not the right to perpetuate a Jewish majority in Palestine/Israel. Indeed Israel’s recognition as a UN member was on the condition that they allow the rfugees to return. Of course that condition has never been fulfilled. Your ‘generous’ offer of allowing a hundred thousand refugees to return over a decade obviously does not relate in any way to International Law or Justice. The Arab armies, notoriously ill equipped and disorganized did enter the conflict in may 1948 after 3-400,000 Palestinians , Muslim and Christians , werwe already expelled forom their homes and hundreds of their villages wer demolished after being looted and ransacked. These armies came into the terittories that were supposed to be Palestinian under the UN Partition plan and that the Zionist forces ,the Haganah, and the terrorist Irgun and Stern gangs had already seized. The Palestinians themselves were basically an unarmed civilian entity. Your lack of knowledge of Israel’s birth is astonishing. Enough history. Suffice to say , a Zionist cannot be a “Liberal” . Your own words show tis to be true no matter what you may call yourself. Do remeber, one word, when you make your next contribution to 972, JUSTICE. Peace.
December 7, 2011
1:23 pm
Rose: ” ” I don’t think at all that Israel has to be blame for the failure of Camp David. But I do believe that it is a myth and a semplification to blame the counterpart”
.
Oh, Rose, that’s a mighty generous concession of you. What about Taba and Olmert 2008 peace offers then? Is Israel to be blamed for those failures?
.
Oh, and if Israel is not the sole party to blame for the failure of Camp David then it follows that Israel is not the sole party to blame for the occupation, right Rose?