Editor's note: To us in the West, the biggest challenge for Israel is to end the Occupation, abandon the Strategy of Domination and embrace the Strategy of Generosity, become an embodiment of Jewish values, but also make sure that Judaism is saved by clearly separating state and synagogue. SO it's valuable to hear the perspective of a progressive living in Israel (he was one of the most supportive people when Tikkun did its Israel conference in 1991). Yossi Yona teaches at Ben Gurion University in Be'er Sheva.
The Return of Israel to the Middle East: Hommage to Eliahu Eliachar:
A speech delivered at the Zionist Congress, Jerusalem, 16th of June, 2010
I want, first, to thank the organizers for inviting me to address this
important gathering. The Zionist Congress is convening this year,
celebrating Herzl's 150th birthday. This is a time for assessment of the
project Herzl envisioned, its success, its shortcomings and the
existential challenges it faces, especially nowadays when Israel is
gradually becoming the international community's Pariah. In the preamble
to the program of this year's convention, the organizers stated "that
today's convention is of historic significance. Delegates from all
corners of the world will address the challenges facing the Zionist
movement, the State of Israel and the Jewish communities. The main topic
is: "Zionism in the process of permanent rejuvenation." This is indeed a
tall order. To accomplish it, old solutions ought to be jettisoned and
courage should be regained so that new and creative solutions are allowed
to march to the fore.
No one can deny – friends and foes of Zionism alike - that the Zionist
project deserves accolades for its impressive achievements – resulting in
the revival of the Hebrew language, enjoying astounding economic
strength, possessing remarkable military might, registering extraordinary
technological achievements, and creating a culturally vibrant society.
Yet the project is still beset by major problems posing strategic threats
to the continuous existence of Israel as a sovereign state.My understanding of these problems and the way I propose to address them
is inspired by the late Eliahu Eliachar. Actually, my presentation here
is hommage to him and to his philosophy. Eliachar, to remind you, was
born in Jerusalem in 1899 and died in 1981. He was a descendant of a
glorious Rabbinate Sephardic family. Just imagine the regrettably
unimaginable nowadays! He studied law in the American University of
Beirut and Medicine in Cairo during the Ottoman Empire. He served as a
doctor in the Ottoman army during the First World War. He was a member of
the Knesset between the years 1949-1951, and more important for our
current meeting, he was a member of the 14th and 15th Zionist Congress,
back in the years 1925-1926. He was a brilliant Intellectual and
polyglot, trading easily on different cultural terrains. He was a
Levantine, in a truly praiseworthy sense, a real cosmopolitan. Eliachar
is mostly known for advocating the idea that the Zionist project should
seek harmonious integration within the Middle East and its cultural
heritage, not renouncing of course its European values and ideals. He was
seeking a propitious synthesis between East and West. His courageous and
visionary ideas were mostly gathered in his two books, published in 1975,
titled: To Live with Palestinians, and To Live with Jews (1981). I find
it astonishing how pertinent they are to our time.
The thoughts I want to share with you - inspired by Elichar's book - are
not the ones you usually hear, at least not on occasions such as this
one. They are mostly critical. Yet they emerge from a deep and sincere
concern with the future of this place. You may disagree with what I have
to say, yet I implore you to listen patiently, remembering the familiar
expression gleaned from the book of the Bible, Proverbs, chapter 27:
"faithful are the wounds of a friend". I want to discuss then four major
challenges that the Zionist project ought to face, the failure of which
may threaten the stability and sustainability of Israel.
The First challenge:
Renouncing Israel's self-Perception as an integral part of the West
The first challenge is the one relating to the self perception of Israel
as an integral part of the West. This perception, I believe, is nothing
but an exercise of symbolic self-expulsion from the Middle East. It
feeds, consequently, a desire for physical self- expulsion from the
region. Let me explain. At the beginning, the encounter of the Zionist
project with the East witnessed ambivalence and vicissitude: negation vs.
affirmation, repulsion vs. attraction, inclusion of the East and its
cultural heritage in the Zionist ideology vs. exclusion of the East from
this ideology. As the Israeli-born sociologist Gil Eyal, teaching at
Columbia University, puts it, "once the encounter with the East was
multi-dimensional, capable of accommodating contradictions and
inconsistencies. This encounter," he continues, "was primarily an
experience of open identity and open horizon, of transfiguration and
interplay between identities" (2004, 23-24). But if in the very
beginning, ambivalence and vicissitude precipitated this encounter, this
is no longer the case. If there was ever a possibility of the Zionist
project becoming an integral part of the region, it has been proven
increasingly utopian with time. That is, over the years we are left with
a set of one-dimensional negative attitudes towards the East. It includes
negation of the East, repulsion from the East and its cultural and
exclusion of the East from the way we perceive our collective identity.
These attitudes, as Eyal rightly argues, attest to a gradual
"disenchantment of the Orient". Eliachar noted this orientation, quoting,
for instance, Penchas Sapir, the legendary treasury minister of Israel.
"Israel," stated Sapir, "belongs to Europe in the cultural, political and
economic sense, despite its location - geographically – in the Middle
East" (p.211). He also quoted Moshe Dayan's condescending dictum that
"there is nothing we can learn from the Arabs" (there). Elichar warned
against this shortsighted cultural orientation, believing it dooms Israel
to the status of a foreign element in the Middle East, a crusader castle,
reinforcing the conviction of our neighbors to view a foreign element to
be altogether extricated from the region. "We have tied," he wrote, "our
destiny exclusively with the West, although our origin is in the East.
Displaying arrogance that has no reason and no justification we closed
ourselves within this narrow attitude (1942). And indeed, with time, this
attitude has given rise to the self-perception of Israel not only as
foreign element in the Middle East, but also as a state morally and
culturally superior to its neighboring countries. Many of us view Israel
as an enlightened castle in the heart of a dark and wild Middle East. In
the words of Ehud Barak, our relentless Minister of Defense, "Israel is a
villa in the Jungle". Needless to say what is the nature of those
inhabitants, on his view, populating the menacing environment, the Jungle
surrounding the villa.
The eradication of this mindset is, of course, long overdue, but my
concern here lies elsewhere. I believe that the desperate desire, the
deeply-seated wish, to belong to the West, shooting
through the ethos of Zionism, amounts to incessant and symbolic
self-expulsion from the Middle East, from Israel itself. And this
symbolic self-expulsion may have grave consequences. One cannot but
speculate the affinity between symbolic self-expulsion and physical
self-expulsion. Symbolic self-expulsion manifests itself, after all, in a
kind of yearning, unspoken wish to go somewhere else, to live somewhere
else, in London, Paris, Berlin, New York, Loss Angeles and elsewhere.
Rabbi Yhuda Halevi wrote: Libi bemezrah vani bfati marav. "My heart in
the East but I am at the very edge of the West. The familiar line from
his poem has expressed best the aching aspirations of generations over
generations of Jews who had yearend to come to this place. But something
odd has transpired since Jews have managed to follow their hearts. We
witness now the opposite aspiration: Our hearts are in the West but we
are in the East. One is tempted to speculate, again, about what a person
wants to do most if his or her heart is in the West? The answer is
clear – to follow again one's heart! If the inner-most desire dwelling in
our hearts is the orientation towards the West, then why not go ahead and
dwell – body and soul - in the West. Many in Israel nowadays are
seriously entertaining this option and others continue to adopt it - they
leave.
If this is not an inevitable telos of the Zionist project - to follow our
hearts, to be 'westbound pioneers' – we must adopt a different attitude
towards the region in which Israel dwells. In the words of Eliachar, "as
long as the ruling opinion remains that Israel is not part of the Middle
East, and that it is essentially part of Europe – there will be no true
revival to our nation" (p. 279). It is unfortunate that Israeli political
and cultural elites have continuously refused to heed his warning. Recent
events attest to how deeply rooted is this myopia. Just think of the
shiver went through our leaders upon listening to Obama's speech in
Cairo, in which he declares "that the United States had no quarrel with
Islam." And why should this statement be a cause for panic among us?
Well, we felt at home when President Bush, for example, declared a
crusader war on Iraq; but we feel estranged when the new president no
longer sees matters though such apocalyptic lances. Obama rejects the
worldview that divides the world between the enlightened West and the
fundamentalist East. And this does not sit well with the way we view and
experience the world. We gleefully take on board Huntington's depiction
of global political affairs, locking them narrowly and inescapably within
the tentacles of the 'clash of civilization'. Thus, when president Obama
challenges this worldview we rush frantically to correct him, to explain
to him that he is wrong, that he cannot deprive Israel of the traditional
role it ascribes to itself in the clash between Judeo–Christian tradition
and Islam. We are offended that he refuses to accept the grain- offering
we bestow upon the West. It is indeed unfortunate that we see matters in
this light. It is unfortunate that we fail to see that our future, only
future, lies in the fresh and revolutionary outlook promoted by President
Obama. The challenge then is to rise to the occasion, to grab this
historic-turn-of-the-leaf opportunity, and to realize its enormous
potential.
The Second Challenge:
The failure to the reach the phase of inner consolidation:
The second challenge relates to Israel's failure to determine its final
borders. Failing to do so, Israel is unable to transcend the first phase
of the nation-building project experienced by national movements fighting
to secure themselves autonomous and sovereign states. That is, this
project includes usually two consecutive phases. The first aims at the
control of given territories and fixing the borders of the nascent
nation-state; the second aims at the consolidation of the nation-state
within these borders. This consolidation means the establishment of a
well-ordered and just society, enjoying economic and cultural prosperity.
The war of independence and its results seemed to successfully conclude
the first phase, and the years that followed witnessed major efforts
aiming to achieve the second phase. The war of 67 put an end to the
possibility of moving gradually from the first to second phase. Since
1967 till now Israel has been regressing, going back to the first phase
of its nation-building project. Thus it diverts and decreases efforts
towards inner consolidation of Israeli society around noble ideals and
values
This diversion has nefarious consequences. Having no fixed borders, the
lingering and protracted Israeli-Arab conflict is expectedly perceived by
Israelis as belonging to the first phase in the Zionist nation-building
project. That is, it is perceived as an existential conflict,
"an-all-or-nothing" conflict. Here is an amusing yet sad example from
recent days. Participating traditionally in the Eurovision, the
European-based music contest, - the cultural terrains on which Israel
likes to trade, of course - Israel had to face an embarrassing incident:
The hosting country, Norway, chose, intentionally so it seemed, not to
show the map of Israel. It showed instead some amorphous image, having
little resemblance to the real physical contours of Israel, and even this
image was shown very briefly, transiently. More than that, instead of
showing a postcard of Jerusalem, our capital, a post card of Tel Aviv was
shown. The Israeli ambassador to Norway angrily protested. "It makes no
sense," he lamented, "that Israel is the only state having no physical
dimensions, appearing as if it is an amorphous entity." But why Norway
cannot do what we exactly to ourselves for quite long time, too long?
Since 1967 we are reluctant to define our borders. We choose to be an
amorphous entity. And here lies the crux of the matter. As Yossi Sarid,
the former head of the Mertz party succinctly puts it: "Only in places
where there are no well-defined borders, the struggle is about existence,
about survival" (Haaretz, June 11, 2010, p. 30). It is again tempting to
speculate that the failure in itself to fix such borders contributes to
the eruption of existential fear, anxieties and of paranoia among us,
Israeli Jews. It is like living in a house having no outer walls, a
situation that bounds to threaten the sense of security of its
inhabitants. Those on the far right might readily endorse this insight,
concluding that an annexation of the occupied territories is a must, thus
securing Israel's walls. I vehemently disagree, for reasons repeatedly
elaborated by many on the peace camp in Israel, and there is no point
repeating them here again. Thus the second challenge facing Israel is
clear, reaching a peace agreement securing itself clear- cut borders.
The Third Challenge:
Social Justice and the Integration of Israel Society
The fact that Israel is failing to direct its full efforts towards inner
consolidation is readily manifested in the unfortunate fact that it
figures the deepest economic gaps between poor and rich in the Western
world. This is how Herzl imagined his dream-society: it is a society
that "cares for every sick and needy applicant," in which "education is
free
from the kindergarten through the university" and in which women
enjoy equal rights. For many Israelis, too many of them, actually over
1600000 of them, who live under the poverty line, this dream has turned
into a daily economic nightmare. Worse yet, even work, once a revered
undertaking in Zionist ideology, is not an effective tool for salvaging
them from the trap of poverty. In the last two decades, the rate of
workers whose salaries put them under the poverty line has increased
dramatically. Again, we talk about workers. Almost 30% of wage earners
earned minimum wage and even less than that. Among the families making
their living out of work, 33.0% are poor. This is indeed a cause for an
outrage, especially when we witness how senior directors of publicly
owned companies pull outrageous, skyrocketing salaries, while low echelon
workers are asked to be contended with meager income. Thus these workers
are doomed to life of destitute and their children predestined to limited
opportunities for self- realization.
Worse yet, the gaps between poor and rich carry distinct ethno-
demographic characters. Hence, these gaps challenge the very idea that
the different Jewish Diasporas gathered in Israel constitute, after
shading the exilic garbs they had gained during their protracted sojourn
in foreign lands, an organic whole. This is how Ben Zion Dinur, a
prominent Zionist historiographer, who is responsible more than any other
Zionist historiographers for the manner Jewish history has been taught in
Israeli schools, perceived the matter. "Despite the liquidation of the
Historic Jewish state, and despite the earthquakes that frequently shook
the Jews, causing them to be dispersed among the many nations and to be
integrated among the various kingdoms, the unity of the Hebrew nation had
not ceased. True, the conditions of its life and its existence had been
altered", he continued, "but its might and its essence remained intact."
Like many Zionists, then, Dinur believed that the gathering of the exiles
within the budding Jewish state would result in a necessary process: all
Jews, irrespective of cultural diversity, will cast off their exilic
cultures and become reunited with their essential and ancient identity.
Now some may believe in this primordial unity and other may doubt it, but
one thing is certain - the failure of Israel to secure social justice to
its citizens definitely undermines the efforts to cultivate a homogenous
national community. For the distinct demographic nature of the economic
gaps characterizing Israeli society leads to its disintegration and to
the consolidation of various ethno-cultural groups. Thus the phase of
consolidation has been taking an ironic twist: instead of consolidating
itself around a shared Jewish core culture and historic heritage, the
Israeli society witnesses the consolidation of its sub-groups, each
cultivating its unique culture and heritage. Again, this development
proves to be a serious blow to the Zionist dream of "the integrating of
the exiles" within a homogenous national collective. The challenge then
is clear: to halt the disintegration of Israeli society into rigid
sub-societies, radical redistributive steps are urgently needed.
The fourth challenge: The status of Israeli Palestinians
The failure to direct efficient efforts towards inner consolidation is
manifested also in the case of Palestinian minority. Indeed, Israeli
Palestinians are inextricably connected historically and culturally with
their brethren living in the occupied territories. Thus I do not know if
there ever was a real option to integrate members belonging to this
minority as full citizens within Israeli society, defining itself as
Jewish state. However, this option became obsolete since 1967. Open
borders has encouraged closer cultural ties and increased the sense of
common destiny between Israel Palestinians and the Palestinians residing
in the occupied territories. Thus their display of support of the
Palestinian cause has been accordingly intensified. This is natural. As
much as Israel seeks the moral and material support of Jewish diasporas
every where on the globe, the he Palestinians in the occupied territories
seek – and received – the support of their co-patriots everywhere,
including those live in Israel. I am talking, of course, only about moral
and material support – not military. And so, as much as Jews of the
Diaspora are often caught up in the trap of double loyalty, thus the
Israeli Palestinians are caught in the same trap. The solution to this
problem is not the one poorly advised by the bellicose and world's
pariah, Israel's foreign minister, Evat Lieberman and his party, Israel
Betenu: "no loyalty no citizenship". Imagine a proposal to impose this
principle, for instance, on American Jews. It would result, God forbid,
in the expulsion of them from the USA. The solution then to this
intricate problem lies elsewhere. It should be viewed as an integral part
of a comprehensive peace treaty with the Palestinians, securing therein
the collective interests and rights of Israeli Palestinians. We should
admit it – for long time now Israel is conducting against Israeli
Palestinians a war by other means, mainly through land and immigration
policies. Lieberman's policies, taking on board virulent rhetoric and
advocating harsh policies against them may be seen as a culmination of
this tacit war.
In this case, it is not possible to talk about simple accommodation of
the Palestinians within Israeli society, securing them basic citizenship
rights, but about a peace treaty that should include them as part of a
comprehensive peace treaty with the Palestinians in general. It seems
that there is no better way to secure the loyalty of Israeli Palestinians
to the state of Israel than the one that secures their collective rights
within the Jewish state. After all, this is part of Jewish heritage and
it should be a part of the Zionist heritage. As the Bible decrees: And
thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of
Egypt.
The overwhelming majority of Israelis fervently reject this solution.
Their articulate spokespersons cite a lesson from history to buttress
this position. Back in the time of the French Revolution, in the year
1789, the count Clermont–Tonnerre, stated, in his speech to the National
Assembly, that "we must refuse everything to the Jews as a nation and
accord everything to Jews as individuals. Echoing this position,
approximately 200 years later, in 1976, the Late Issac Rabin declared
that "the individuals of the minority are entitled to equal rights as
individuals
with respect to
to their different religion and culture,
but nothing more than that.”[1] This is however not an appropriate
analogy. We should recognize the fact that non-Jews in Israel can not,
formally and materially speaking, become full members of the Jewish
state. This is not the case in Franc despite the systematic
discrimination displayed against French citizens who are descendents of
Third World countries. Besides, Israeli Palestinians constitute and
indigenous group, not immigrants to be integrated among a hosting
society. And indeed there is a growing understanding all over the world
that multicultural arrangements, securing the collective rights of
indigenous and national minorities, is the most effective and just path
to include them as full members of the societies in which they reside. As
I suggested, in the Israeli case, such a solution should be part of a
comprehensive peace treaty with Palestinians in general. This is then the
fourth major challenge facing the Zionist project.
To conclude, the four challenges I cited above, attest to lingering major
problems besetting the Zionist project. Most of these problems are
maladies inherited by the project from the time of its infancy. The
solutions to them, no matter how painful, can no longer be postponed, for
the future of the Jewish state hinges upon them. They require then
courageous and resolute leaders. And this is yet another challenge facing
the Zionist project – brave leadership. Let these leaders appear, let
them be modest, as the wise man, Eliahu Eliachar once advised. Let them
renounce, as he said, any false pretense of moral and cultural
superiority and let them declare that Jews and Arabs can help each other
in the cultivation of the region, turning it into prosperous heaven to
the interests of all parties concerned (p. 242).
Professor Yossi Yonah
Ben Gurion University of the Negev/Van Leer Institute of Jerusalem
yyona@bgu.ac.il
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] A speech delivered before high-school graduates in Tel Aviv’ 6th of
May, 1976. (Quoted in Daniel Gootenmacher, “The Right, the Religious and
Democracy,” Native 6 (1996), pp. 43-49).
