It’s
starting to look more and more like Bibi Netanyahu will keep his job after the
next election. Polls indicate that he seems
to have regained a lead among the only voters who count, despite being easily
one of the least popular statesmen in the world. Apparently,
Bibi’s nine year tenure as leader of the Jewish State is not enough for the
Israeli people. There is something about
the way he spits in the face of Hamas, Fatah, Iran, America … or should I say
that there is something about Bibi’s brand of intransigence, intolerance and
wagon-circling that makes Jewish-Israelis feel secure. He claims to give them a “Bibi-sitter.” I suspect they see him as a needed patrol
officer in a very tough neighborhood.
Fair
enough. Bibi can have his tenure-track
job. But something happened during this
election cycle that gives me hope. Bibi’s
opposition assumed a new mantle, and I love it.
They have coalesced around the term “Zionist Camp.” Composed of both the Labor and Hatnua
parties, this center-left coalition is making a point that is being heard not
just in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv but around the world. To be a Zionist today, they claim, is to be
a political liberal. When it comes to
Zionism as a movement with a future, the argument continues, the two-state
solution is the only one remaining – and to the extent Bibi has effectively
given up on that solution, he has demonstrated that his commitment to Zionism
is temporary and superficial, at best.
Does
that message sound crazy? At this point in
time, it still might. But I suspect that
it will increasingly gain steam over the next several years as the views of
those outside the “Zionist Camp” are unmasked.
Everyone can see that the Hard Left
– by which I include such Jewish-American groups as Jewish Voices for Peace –
are anti-Zionist. In these circles, Zionism is seen as a
primitive, tribalist, colonialist ideology that is essentially just a form of cultural
(or religious) fundamentalism. Those
who subscribe to this ideology have no problem identifying themselves as
opponents of Zionism. Indeed, as I have
witnessed, when they join the peace movement and speak to Palestinians or other
Arabs, they speak with disdain not only for the policies of a particular
Israeli Administration but for the whole concept of a “Jewish State.” For the Hard Left, the idea of Israel as a
Jewish State is as offensive as the idea of America as an explicitly “Christian
State.”
But what about Bibi and his
boys? How does the “Zionist Camp” get
off suggesting that Bibi is no Zionist?
Unlike the Hard Left, doesn’t he proclaim his devotion to Zionism? Doesn’t he, in fact, see himself as a
staunch protector of the Jewish State who is consistently elected to make sure
that the bleeding heart liberals don’t lower Israel’s shields and welcome those
who are poised to destroy her? If that
narrative is correct, how can anyone say that Bibi doesn’t belong at the heart
of the Zionist Camp?
Consider that Bibi represents a
coalition of secular and religious people who, for a variety of reasons, want
Israel to expand deeper and deeper into pre-67 Palestine. Their expansionist policies, if permitted to
continue, would effective remove the prospects of a viable Palestinian State
side-by-side with Israel (unless you include the Kingdom of Jordan, which is
composed largely of historically-Palestinian people, but which is not the kind
of democratic, Palestinian state that would satisfy the residents of Gaza and
the West Bank). To be sure, Bibi has paid lip service to his
support of a two-state solution, but his actions and even some of his rhetoric
suggests that he has given up on the possibility of such a solution. Perhaps Bibi doesn’t believe that the
Palestinian Arabs can truly behave as partners for peace, or perhaps he has the
same kind of manifest-destiny expansionist impulses that once fueled the growth
of the United States. Whatever his
thinking, the result is clear: he wants
Israel to grow to the point where there can be no viable Palestinian state, and
he is willing to live with the prospect that ultimately this “one state” will
be faced with the prospect of being composed primarily of Arabs rather than
Jews. Given that democracy seems to be
the wave of the future, argues the “Zionist Camp,” Bibi is putting Israel in a
position where eventually it will either be a pariah and Apartheid state, or a
primarily Arab democracy, neither of which should be acceptable to a true
Zionist.
What’s more, many of Bibi’s
supporters are revealing that their desire to expand into the West Bank doesn’t
stem at all from an interest in preserving the security of the Jewish
State. They want that land simply
because they want THAT land. If you look
at particular places that are identified most with the stories of the Bible,
far more of that Land is in the West Bank than in pre-67 Israel. Some of the most religious Jews care less
about preserving the right for Jews to have autonomy over Tel Aviv than they
care about ensuring that Jews can settle in such West Bank cities as
Hebron. In other words, they would
rather have all Jews and Palestinians living together in a single state with an
Arab majority, than to have two states for two peoples, as long as in the One
State their ability to settle in the holiest of (West Bank) places is enhanced.
Already, I see signs that folks
from both the Hard Left and the Religious Right can envision a “win-win” – the
walls are torn down, the Palestinians return to Haifa, and the Jews return to
Hebron. Let there be dancing – single-sexed
dancing, in many cases – throughout the land!
You won’t hear Bibi advocate such a vision publicly, but what is notable
is the folks who share such a vision include members of right-wing, religious
parties, and ultimately, it’s those parties who help Bibi form his
coalitions.
My friends, I totally buy the theme
of the so-called Zionist Camp. I too see
“Liberal Zionism” as the only Zionism that is true to the origins of the movement
and the only Zionism that can possibly have staying power. I recognize that “Liberal Zionism,” also
known as “Two-State-Solution” Zionism, is not a romantic vision. It is a vision of divorce, not of marriage,
and divorce is always somewhat ugly. But
let’s face it; the Middle East has been somewhat ugly now for a long, long
time. It’s time to create a lasting
peace in which every person in the region can be a citizen of an independent
state. Personally, I don’t see that as
possible without at least some degree of divorce. And frankly, I want the Jewish people to have
their own peaceful state and not to have to live as minorities all over the
world, including throughout the Middle East. I think that makes me a Zionist.
No comments:
Post a Comment