Fundamentalism
There is no common sense, says Amira Hass, the great Israeli journalist, about Israel’s latest atrocity on the high seas.
This is true. But why is Israel behaving in this way? Why doesn’t it care about the international community?
In part it can be explained by America’s protection, but there are other factors too, internal to the country – the solipsism of extremism, coupled with a militarised society, and the effects of occupation. Predicted long ago, the years of repression are changing Israel.
… Yeshayahu Leibowitz, one of Israel’s leading moral voices… [said] that the occupation corrupted the occupiers and rotted the fabric of Israeli society. (Baruch Kimmerling)
The writer David Grossman expresses similar concerns in the Guardian. However, his framing of the issue incorporates the same kind of thinking as the Israeli government.
Yet, a small Turkish organisation, fanatical in its religious views and radically hostile to Israel, recruited to its cause several hundred seekers of peace and justice, and managed to lure Israel into a trap, because it knew how Israel would react, knew how Israel is destined and compelled, like a puppet on a string, to react the way it did.
Extreme, irrational, seeing enemies everywhere… A more realistic assessment is given byJuan Cole:
Raw video posted to Youtube from the initial phase of the Israeli boarding of the Turkish vessel, Mavi Marmara demonstrates that as the Israeli commandos approached the ship, they were laying down suppressive fire and at that point killed two individuals aboard the ship. Even after the ship ran up a white flag, the Israelis continued to use live ammunition along with stun grenades and tear gas…
It is unclear why the commandos behaved in this way with regard to the Mavi Marmara in the first place, but it is possible that they believed their own propaganda. The Turkish aid ships were supported by a Muslim fundamentalist charity in Turkey, IHH, that has been accused of being sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood and to Hamas, and in Israeli eyes that orientation would make them terrorists. So perhaps the commandos assumed they were boarding a ship full of Hamas operatives. In reality, it was just idealistic humanitarians. But even they could be provoked to active resistance if they thought they were about to be shot down. (my emphasis)
Fanatics tend to filter out the world outside – everything confirms to their pre-determined view. Is this Israel now?
Grossman condemns the closure of Gaza, but appears to link it to the imprisonment of an Israeli soldier:
The crimes of the leaders of Hamas, who have held the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit captive for four years without once allowing the Red Cross to visit him, and who fired thousands of rockets from the Gaza Strip at Israeli towns and villages, are acts that must be firmly dealt with, utilising the various legal means available to a sovereign state. The ongoing siege of a civilian population is not one of them.
Is the siege of Gaza really to do with Gilad Shalit? Chomsky and Juan Cole give far more plausible alternatives: to punish the Palestinians for voting for Hamas in a free election; and to force the Palestinians into Egypt (Cole says that this may have been one of motives behind the Gaza invasion, prevented by the Egyptian government). And for the rockets see Amira Hass’s acid comments on Democracy Now!
I mean, everybody was talking about the rockets, and I think that the—let me ask you, you know the city of Sderot, right? You are familiar with this. Do you know Ben-e Have you ever mentioned in your program the village Bani Suhaila? How many people know about Beit Hanoun? How many people knew about Abasan? All these—how many people know—knew about Zeitoun? All these Palestinian neighborhoods and villages which were a victim of Israeli attacks. We only know about Sderot.
Is there any hope?
There’s a good article in the New York Review of Books about recent trends in Israel and the American Jewish community. It suggests some possiblilities.
In Israel Peter Beinart notes the increasing power of parties favouring irrationalism and extremism; and with it the rise of religious fundamentalism, and intolerance towards the Palestinians. Thus there are calls from members of the government for transfer and expulsion (not only from the West Bank, but Israel proper). These are not new opinions, even within the Israeli establishment; but what is new is their prominence; and their public avowal.
Hebrew University Professor Ze’ev Sternhell is an expert on fascism and a winner of the prestigious Israel Prize. Commenting on Lieberman and the leaders of Shas in a recent Op-Ed in Haaretz, he wrote, “The last time politicians holding views similar to theirs were in power in post–World War II Western Europe was in Franco’s Spain.” With their blessing, “a crude and multifaceted campaign is being waged against the foundations of the democratic and liberal order.” Sternhell should know. In September 2008, he was injured when a settler set off a pipe bomb at his house.
While in America he highlights a divide between the Jewish establishment, together with the Orthodox, and the wider Jewish community. For Beinart, as Israel becomes more repressive to the Palestinians, there is a conflict between the community’s traditional ties to Liberalism and Zionism. For the Jewish establishment Zionism is what counts; but Liberalism is more important for younger Jews.
Most of the students, in other words, were liberals, broadly defined. They had imbibed some of the defining values of American Jewish political culture: a belief in open debate, a skepticism about military force, a commitment to human rights. And in their innocence, they did not realize that they were supposed to shed those values when it came to Israel. The only kind of Zionism they found attractive was a Zionism that recognized Palestinians as deserving of dignity and capable of peace, and they were quite willing to condemn an Israeli government that did not share those beliefs….The only kind of Zionism they found attractive was the kind that the American Jewish establishment has been working against for most of their lives. (my emphasis)
Since 1967 the American Jewish establishment has become the Israel lobby. WithMearsheimer and Walt’s book this became for a while part of mainstream debate. The best discussion, to my mind, was Norman Finkelstein’s: he disagrees with their thesis that the Lobby controls American foreign policy – there is a convergence of interest -, but agrees that it dominates US policy on the Palestinians. Because the Palestinians have no value for American power the Lobby can yield great influence – it doesn’t cost a senator very much to vote against the Goldstone report. However, it would cost him a great deal to vote for it.
He explains, quite accurately, a generational shift in American Jewish support for Israel – the secular young turning away from a country to which their parents are emotionally tied.Norman Finkelstein gives a rich historical context for these changes – citing the change in Israel’s role, to become a close partner of the USA following victory in the 1967 war. A significant factor in the community’s shift towards Israel was that the war removed the old fear of “dual loyalty” – the canard which has reinforced much prejudice against the Jews. After 1967 there was no dual loyalty – to support Israel was to support America; while the country became a model in how to deal with Third World regimes. Beinart’s reason is less compelling, relying on the myth of that war – the existential threat to Israel’s existence.
The facts are somewhat different:
President Lyndon Johnson… told Eban that it was the unanimous view of his military experts that there was no sign that the Egyptians were planning to attack Israel and that if they did attack, the Israelis would “whip the hell out of them.”
Both Shlaim and Sholomo Ben-Ami agree that the Six Days War was a defensive one. However, we need to understand what Israel’s leaders meant by that:
Should he [Nasser] be allowed to prevail and win a political profit for his aggressive moves, Israel could no longer intimidate her neighbours and would lose their respect in a way that was tantamount to losing her ability to survive in a region that rejected the very legitimacy of her existence. (my emphasis)
The justification here is interesting – it suggests a certain paranoia, which appears as a consistent mindset within Israeli establishment circles. Understandable in the first years of the country’s existence, but less so now, when it’s been the regional superpower for over a quarter of a century. The justification, however psychologically accurate, is highly debatable – neither the failures of the Yom Kippur War, or the Lebanon War of 1982, led to the destruction of the country.
Leaving aside the historical analysis, the article is illuminating. Its prediction has the ring of truth: that support within the American Jewish community, if present trends continue, will be nearly all from the Orthodox; thus reinforcing the extremism and insularity. That is, the American Jewish establishment will be further at odds with the Jewish community at large. This suggests tensions will increase, and it could make it harder for that establishment to function. Given that Israel’s hold on the Occupied Territories depends on US support, this trend could be very significant. Especially as wider pressures are beginning to bear on Israel. Not from states, but from civil society – the hope for a just solution to the conflict, according to the United Nations Human Rights Rapporteur in the Occupied Territories, Richard Falk.
This is true. But why is Israel behaving in this way? Why doesn’t it care about the international community?
In part it can be explained by America’s protection, but there are other factors too, internal to the country – the solipsism of extremism, coupled with a militarised society, and the effects of occupation. Predicted long ago, the years of repression are changing Israel.
… Yeshayahu Leibowitz, one of Israel’s leading moral voices… [said] that the occupation corrupted the occupiers and rotted the fabric of Israeli society. (Baruch Kimmerling)
The writer David Grossman expresses similar concerns in the Guardian. However, his framing of the issue incorporates the same kind of thinking as the Israeli government.
Yet, a small Turkish organisation, fanatical in its religious views and radically hostile to Israel, recruited to its cause several hundred seekers of peace and justice, and managed to lure Israel into a trap, because it knew how Israel would react, knew how Israel is destined and compelled, like a puppet on a string, to react the way it did.
Extreme, irrational, seeing enemies everywhere… A more realistic assessment is given byJuan Cole:
Raw video posted to Youtube from the initial phase of the Israeli boarding of the Turkish vessel, Mavi Marmara demonstrates that as the Israeli commandos approached the ship, they were laying down suppressive fire and at that point killed two individuals aboard the ship. Even after the ship ran up a white flag, the Israelis continued to use live ammunition along with stun grenades and tear gas…
It is unclear why the commandos behaved in this way with regard to the Mavi Marmara in the first place, but it is possible that they believed their own propaganda. The Turkish aid ships were supported by a Muslim fundamentalist charity in Turkey, IHH, that has been accused of being sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood and to Hamas, and in Israeli eyes that orientation would make them terrorists. So perhaps the commandos assumed they were boarding a ship full of Hamas operatives. In reality, it was just idealistic humanitarians. But even they could be provoked to active resistance if they thought they were about to be shot down. (my emphasis)
Fanatics tend to filter out the world outside – everything confirms to their pre-determined view. Is this Israel now?
Grossman condemns the closure of Gaza, but appears to link it to the imprisonment of an Israeli soldier:
The crimes of the leaders of Hamas, who have held the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit captive for four years without once allowing the Red Cross to visit him, and who fired thousands of rockets from the Gaza Strip at Israeli towns and villages, are acts that must be firmly dealt with, utilising the various legal means available to a sovereign state. The ongoing siege of a civilian population is not one of them.
Is the siege of Gaza really to do with Gilad Shalit? Chomsky and Juan Cole give far more plausible alternatives: to punish the Palestinians for voting for Hamas in a free election; and to force the Palestinians into Egypt (Cole says that this may have been one of motives behind the Gaza invasion, prevented by the Egyptian government). And for the rockets see Amira Hass’s acid comments on Democracy Now!
I mean, everybody was talking about the rockets, and I think that the—let me ask you, you know the city of Sderot, right? You are familiar with this. Do you know Ben-e Have you ever mentioned in your program the village Bani Suhaila? How many people know about Beit Hanoun? How many people knew about Abasan? All these—how many people know—knew about Zeitoun? All these Palestinian neighborhoods and villages which were a victim of Israeli attacks. We only know about Sderot.
Is there any hope?
There’s a good article in the New York Review of Books about recent trends in Israel and the American Jewish community. It suggests some possiblilities.
In Israel Peter Beinart notes the increasing power of parties favouring irrationalism and extremism; and with it the rise of religious fundamentalism, and intolerance towards the Palestinians. Thus there are calls from members of the government for transfer and expulsion (not only from the West Bank, but Israel proper). These are not new opinions, even within the Israeli establishment; but what is new is their prominence; and their public avowal.
Hebrew University Professor Ze’ev Sternhell is an expert on fascism and a winner of the prestigious Israel Prize. Commenting on Lieberman and the leaders of Shas in a recent Op-Ed in Haaretz, he wrote, “The last time politicians holding views similar to theirs were in power in post–World War II Western Europe was in Franco’s Spain.” With their blessing, “a crude and multifaceted campaign is being waged against the foundations of the democratic and liberal order.” Sternhell should know. In September 2008, he was injured when a settler set off a pipe bomb at his house.
While in America he highlights a divide between the Jewish establishment, together with the Orthodox, and the wider Jewish community. For Beinart, as Israel becomes more repressive to the Palestinians, there is a conflict between the community’s traditional ties to Liberalism and Zionism. For the Jewish establishment Zionism is what counts; but Liberalism is more important for younger Jews.
Most of the students, in other words, were liberals, broadly defined. They had imbibed some of the defining values of American Jewish political culture: a belief in open debate, a skepticism about military force, a commitment to human rights. And in their innocence, they did not realize that they were supposed to shed those values when it came to Israel. The only kind of Zionism they found attractive was a Zionism that recognized Palestinians as deserving of dignity and capable of peace, and they were quite willing to condemn an Israeli government that did not share those beliefs….The only kind of Zionism they found attractive was the kind that the American Jewish establishment has been working against for most of their lives. (my emphasis)
Since 1967 the American Jewish establishment has become the Israel lobby. WithMearsheimer and Walt’s book this became for a while part of mainstream debate. The best discussion, to my mind, was Norman Finkelstein’s: he disagrees with their thesis that the Lobby controls American foreign policy – there is a convergence of interest -, but agrees that it dominates US policy on the Palestinians. Because the Palestinians have no value for American power the Lobby can yield great influence – it doesn’t cost a senator very much to vote against the Goldstone report. However, it would cost him a great deal to vote for it.
He explains, quite accurately, a generational shift in American Jewish support for Israel – the secular young turning away from a country to which their parents are emotionally tied.Norman Finkelstein gives a rich historical context for these changes – citing the change in Israel’s role, to become a close partner of the USA following victory in the 1967 war. A significant factor in the community’s shift towards Israel was that the war removed the old fear of “dual loyalty” – the canard which has reinforced much prejudice against the Jews. After 1967 there was no dual loyalty – to support Israel was to support America; while the country became a model in how to deal with Third World regimes. Beinart’s reason is less compelling, relying on the myth of that war – the existential threat to Israel’s existence.
The facts are somewhat different:
President Lyndon Johnson… told Eban that it was the unanimous view of his military experts that there was no sign that the Egyptians were planning to attack Israel and that if they did attack, the Israelis would “whip the hell out of them.”
Both Shlaim and Sholomo Ben-Ami agree that the Six Days War was a defensive one. However, we need to understand what Israel’s leaders meant by that:
Should he [Nasser] be allowed to prevail and win a political profit for his aggressive moves, Israel could no longer intimidate her neighbours and would lose their respect in a way that was tantamount to losing her ability to survive in a region that rejected the very legitimacy of her existence. (my emphasis)
The justification here is interesting – it suggests a certain paranoia, which appears as a consistent mindset within Israeli establishment circles. Understandable in the first years of the country’s existence, but less so now, when it’s been the regional superpower for over a quarter of a century. The justification, however psychologically accurate, is highly debatable – neither the failures of the Yom Kippur War, or the Lebanon War of 1982, led to the destruction of the country.
Leaving aside the historical analysis, the article is illuminating. Its prediction has the ring of truth: that support within the American Jewish community, if present trends continue, will be nearly all from the Orthodox; thus reinforcing the extremism and insularity. That is, the American Jewish establishment will be further at odds with the Jewish community at large. This suggests tensions will increase, and it could make it harder for that establishment to function. Given that Israel’s hold on the Occupied Territories depends on US support, this trend could be very significant. Especially as wider pressures are beginning to bear on Israel. Not from states, but from civil society – the hope for a just solution to the conflict, according to the United Nations Human Rights Rapporteur in the Occupied Territories, Richard Falk.
Comments
Post a Comment