Comments on: The myth of “Good Israel” vs. “Bad Israel”

By: Clif Brown

Clif Brown — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:46:47 +0000

Noam, as a high school kid in the U.S. I cheered and shouted for Israel during the 67 war. I ate up the movie Exodus.

Then, over the years since, puzzling things kept coming up and little by little I learned the history of the place. I started to think maybe the Palestinians might have some valid claims. Then I came to see the occupation as wrong and the settlement project drove that home. So ending the occupation was a goal.

But the more I learn, the deeper I go, I just don’t see how the nation of Israel itself has any justification – the whole thing has been a theft from the start and deliberately so.

I say yes, there is a right to exist for Israel, but only because it would be impossible to undo what’s been done – of course that is the rationale for the settlers grabbing everything they can.

There is no way I would support driving out Israelis even though they have been driving others out as part of the national purpose. I definitely think the state was a mistake that has brought nothing but woe to everyone but the Israelis.

What puzzles me is how there can be such a thing as moderation in Zionism. How does one kick indigenous people out with moderation? Maybe anything short of killing them is moderation? The whole program is one of dispossession, so I wonder if the title of your piece shouldn’t be “the myth of ‘Good Zionism’ vs ‘Bad Zionism’”

It’s taken me decades of reading and following the news but there’s no doubt in my mind that Israel is “The Greatest Story Ever Told” to a credulous world.

By: David

David — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:10:02 +0000

I beg your pardon, Mr. Anti-Israel, but I do not think Rabin was a fascist for not wanting to commit seppuku (it is a Japanese suicide ritual, new knife, white kimono, poem and slashing your own stomach – that part is called harakiri).

In case you do not know, “we Jews” are the aboriginal people of the land of Israel. It is clear you have no idea of our people’s history. Which sadly confirms my point: that people 1) can’t love what they ignore, even when that mean themselves; and 2) Otto Weininger is still alive in some minds.

By: Promised Land » Blog Archive » The myth of good Israel vs. bad Israel (II)

Tue, 11 Jan 2011 16:01:41 +0000

[...] especially from the Jewish-Liberal camp, tend to exaggerate the role the left plays in Israeli politics, and to downplay the racist and anti-…. I guess it makes it easier for them to continue seeing in Israel the model Jewish democracy they [...]

By: anti-Israel

anti-Israel — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 03:04:27 +0000

Hi David. Apart from the signature Israeli hand waving and obscure references to Judaic sacred literature–a laughingstock and childish affront to reason we Jews are still paying the price for after thousands of years, there is little substance to your post, (other than to confirm my claim that Rabin was as much of a fascist as the rest of your unwholesome leaders).

By: David

David — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 02:22:52 +0000

Anti Israel: you really should do some research on the subjects you so lightly talk about before stating thinks such as “hydrogen is indeed heavier than helium” or “the earth is flat”. I recommend old texts, originals when possible, and then progress to newer ones. Research and research, then you will see who stole whose land.

Noam: I wonder how would you consider these ideas today:

[The Palestinian state will] “be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines. ”

“First and foremost, united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma’ale Adumim and Givat Ze’ev — as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty, while preserving the rights of the members of the other faiths, Christianity and Islam, to freedom of access and freedom of worship in their holy places, according to the customs of their faiths.”

“Changes which will include the addition of Gush Etzion, Efrat, Beitar and other communities, most of which are in the area east of what was the “Green Line,” prior to the Six Day War. The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.”

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth. ”

Yitzhak Rabin pronounced these words before the Knesset, shortly before he was murdered.

I consider he was right in all the senses of the word, and that this peace project could bring about a lasting peace with solid foundations. That would be a “good Israel”.

This is my prayer and my hope. (and before attacking me for using such “religious” words, have in mind that those were Rabin’s words too).

By: anti-Israel

anti-Israel — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 14:37:08 +0000

Yitzhak Rabin, Israel’s great “dove” presided over the largest ethnic cleansing in Israel’s history–the mass expulsions from Lyydah and Remleh. Golda Meir declared that “there’s no such thing as a Palestinian. They don’t exist.” Ben Gurion’s plans from day 1 were to expel the Palestinians and steal their land, as the documentary record shows. Nostalgia for a mythical “good Israel” of yesteryear is no less preposterous than the rest of Israeli “history”, full of non-existent “kingdoms” and phony “exoduses from Egypt.”

By: michael

michael — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 08:34:10 +0000

Cries on the loss of the country are just familiar. They were voiced loudly in the first Netanyahu’s term when SHAS’ KM were appearing daily on the screen and it was thought they are going to rule the state. All the “old” MAPAI elites were crying same way as if state is being stolen from them. As saner people were expecting, nothing happened and the state has been flourishing since then with all the social groups involved. As to the Mr. Sheizaf’s sayings on the end of democracy and the preference of Jews over non-Jews in Israel they are all exaggerations. Jews in Israel want to see their state Jewish no more than Britons want to see their state British and French are willing France to stay French. Just as Mr. Sheizaf noted, the subject is not and can’t be discussed. The being of this state Jewish is and had always been a will of total majority of the population. Clearly, there is a contradiction between a being of the state Jewish and the rights of Arab majority. In any case of real conflict court and parliament might be involved in search for solution.

By: The myth of “Good Israel” vs. “Bad Israel” — War in Context

The myth of “Good Israel” vs. “Bad Israel” — War in Context — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 03:31:48 +0000

[...] Noam Sheizaf writes: This is a return to the old “good Israel” vs. “Bad Israel” theory. According to this idea, there are the peace-loving, democratic and liberal Israeli Jews, who represent the “real” values on which the country was born, and there are the “bad”, Sephardic Jews, Ultra-orthodox and Russian immigrants, who are to blame for all the current hiccups what was a model democracy until not that long ago. Goldberg is actually angry with them for taking away “his” Israel. I think he represents many in saying that the Israel that I see today is not the Israel I was introduced to more than twenty years ago. The rise to power of the four groups I mentioned above has changed, in some very serious ways (which I will write about later) the nature and character of the Jewish state. [...]

By: maayan's good friend

maayan's good friend — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 14:46:07 +0000

Interesting analysis, but flawed. You can’t get away from the fact that Israel was founded on Socialist, liberal and universal ideals. These ideals influence all of Israel’s politicians and reflect the nature of the country and many of its governmental functions. For example, Israel subsidized both Haredi and Arab families with 3 or more children (that is, virtually all of these families) for many decades.

If what you mean is that Israel has always leaned to the right regarding its conflict with the Arabs, I think Menachem Begin would have some choice words for you about this notion. The problem is not that Israel has always leaned right, it is that even the leftists recognized that in order to survive as a state, wars needed to be fought, fighters needed to be “raised” by the society, and certain measures of control needed to be in place for the populations that would seek to harm Israel.

In addition to this, you need to consider that neither your analysis or Goldberg’s takes into account that Kadima ran on a platform of leaving Judea and Samaria, perhaps unilaterally, and won more seats than the Likud. Kadima, Labor and Meretz did not gather as many votes as the rightist parties, but you have to take into account that Knesset politics are not about large blocs but about narrow interests. People vote for the small party that best represents their interests, which means that you can’t really determine, for example, where that Shas voter stands on certain issues because Shas represents him on other issues.

By: Tahel Ilan

Tahel Ilan — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 14:26:29 +0000

Basically saying what a small amount of us feel- that there isn’t a “silent majority” that when push comes to shove will put their foot down.
When Meretz didn’t come out to oppose what was happening in Gaza 2 years ago, I think the ‘asimon’ dropped for a lot of those who back then described themselves as “left” but realized maybe they’re more “center” or that, if this is Left, they’re way beyond that.
Last week it dropped for Jeffrey Goldberg.