A Response to Accusations of Fighting a Colonialist War

“…to a large extent the impact of the war, including displacement of Gazans, is due to its urban nature and Hamas’s choice to embed among civilians. It’s true that going into Rafih much earlier would have most likely avoided the length and the scale of the impact, and we hold Bibi accountable for that. But it would not have been avoided entirely.

Regarding colonialism. Israel vacated the Gaza Strip over a decade ago. Despite what a vocal minority of thugs want, there are no plans to return. Even if security and/or political control was retained by Israel, it still wouldn’t be colonialism.

Furthermore. Western Leftists need to stop throwing around colonialism as if they actually understand it in its full ugliness and start seeing the nuanced ways in which their suppositions about the world conflict with it. Islam is foreign to this land and was spread here by colonizers. Despite the influence of the colonized (!) diaspora, Israel’s presence here goes back 3000 years and has been characterized more by an agenda of self-determination and self-defense than one of colonization. We don’t represent a foreign power or culture here and even the military occupation of the West Bank (which followed the Jordanian ethnic cleansing and occupation of the same area) is driven by internal issues, not foreign policy.

Regarding the issues you raised:

1) we already have large reserves of natural gas. This war is not about plunder. The Gaza Marine will most likely be developed by Gulf partners with local Gazan leadership and will hopefully finance much of Gaza’s reconstruction.

2) Putin is definitely involved with Hamas. He is definitely a factor in the war’s prolongation but if you’re assuming he’s on the Israeli side, you’re looking at it upside down.

3) there’s an antisemitic canard about Jews (and/or the Jewish state) having undue influence on American politics. Let’s not go there. The American Left is messed up because of its own problems with theory and praxis (and because Americans are extremely susceptible to propaganda).

…. You know it’s a world of lies. But here’s to Bibi being replaced, Harris beating Trump, Gaza being rebuilt, and the occupation ending. If we have no hope, then we have nothing.”

Some Controversial Opinions

A controversial opinion: As long as I can call this country Yisrael in Hebrew, I don’t mind if you call it Falastin in Arabic. Who cares what we call it in English. Call it Israel, call it Palestine, just don’t call it Canaan. 🤦

A controversialer opinion: The national anthem is an alternative version of a nice poem set to an Ashkenazi tune that forces us to mispronounce almost every word. And it speaks only of a Jewish soul where it should at least be speaking of a Hebrew soul, if not the soul of every child of Adam. If we want to get Zionistic about it: The goal is ultimately to build a place of prayer for all people (which of course requires a truly just society, which of course requires safety for Israel, etc). Surely we can sing a song that reflects that goal?

Even controversialer opinion: We’re eventually going to need to draft everyone who lives here (I’ve rethought my position on the draft). Everyone. And personally, I’m okay with an Islamic or Christian prime minister… so long as we have a constitution that limits the power of the government and its institutions over the citizenry, and a strong separation between the domain of the current parliament and the domain of the Torah. In order for Zionism to succeed, it needs to grow beyond the reductive vision of state-sponsored identity and into its own as a fully expressed Torah-infused society, which can not be threatened by a popular leader’s personal opinions or practices. Our society must escape the shadow of its great men.

The controversialest opinion: Political parties should be banned in government.

Diplomacy Gone Bad: A Response and a Rant

This damned war is continuing not because of diplomatic cover and arms for Israel but for Hamas. It would be over in a day if Hamas was not still being propped up as an active threat (!) to Israel seven months into Hamas’s failed war (waged in violation of local ceasefire agreements and of international law).

Meaningless photo ops like the Irish, Norwegian, and Spanish politicians’ paper recognition of a state with no contiguous borders, no independent monetary policy, no actual army, and no functional popular government, are simply divorced from reality – the reality of state-building and the reality on the ground.

1948 was the last year an independent Palestinian State could have emerged. That ship sailed long ago and it doesn’t help Palestinians to pretend it still would be a viable option but were it not for Israeli obstinacy.

For a long time I’ve thought that people advocating a 2 State Solution are generally (but innocently) working against Palestinian interests, out of ideological bias. This impression was understandably strengthened by the USA’s injection of 2 State discourse into strategic talks during this war (as if establishing a paper state will prevent a new generation from taking up Hamas’s banner for Iran) and is confirmed by this latest episode of European “diplomacy” in attempting to reshape the Middle East (as if their new policy will change any facts on the ground and end the various conflicts in this region).

Enough of the endless foreign meddling and paper-pushing – and of trying to fit ourselves and our situation into the cultural categories and geopolitical theories of the West. Regardless of how the agents of imperialism and colonialism distort our histories and our identities, we are one people with one common destiny. Time to return to what we know.

“The Beginning of the Sprouting of Our Liberation”

What do we call this state, when we pray for its survival?

Even when I was anti-Zionist, the words still caught my ear and made me think:

ראשית צמיחת גאולתנו

Not yet the final liberation from the idolatrous world of hierarchy, empire, and colonialism…

Not even the full blossoming of that liberation, a bright dawn after the longest night…

Just the very beginning, the start of it all.

Here’s to the past 76 years, in which the story of that beginning has unfolded around us and through us.

Here’s to the next 76 years; may they bring us the full bloom of a new day, may they bring us the peace and justice promised to us by our prophets, may they finally bring us all home, to Zion.

Here’s to good dreams that should never – will never – die.

לחיים

A Controversial Thought on the Jewish Present

Diaspora Judaism is an anachronistic extension of the experience of exile, and lacking both a stable national existence (let alone the social institutions of a nation) and a coherent collective identity, can not hope to adequately address itself to the full condition of humanity. Land Judaism was revived in the image of Diaspora Judaism and while it arguably includes a stable national existence and some modern national institutions, ignores the bulk of its collective heritage and has yet to develop a coherent collective identity of its own. Idolizing either Judaism in its present form is a path beyond continuing irrelevance to eventual national suicide.

What it means for the Jewish future:

A holistic Judaism must re-emerge in order to address the full human condition and for Israel to resume its place in the human family. The Diaspora must find its collective identity and stability in the Land, and the Land must find a coherent identity not only of its own but that includes the reality of the Diaspora. The Diaspora must become an organic extension of the reality of the Land and the Land must breathe political, intellectual, ethical, and spiritual life into the Diaspora.

Perhaps the ingathering of the tribes, a necessary part of Israel’s process of decolonization, can be described in this light, as part of the natural act of respiration – inhale. Exhale. Inhale…

Palestinian Voters in a Jewish State

Morning thoughts:

Sometimes solutions present themselves when you consider problems from alternate angles.

Scared of how millions of Palestinians will vote, given the chance?

Make sure your democracy is constitutional with a robust institutionalized system of checks and balances (that include the military), in which its democratic nature is preserved against populist hijacking – and make sure your citizens are educated with a modern curriculum that celebrates civics instead of martyrdom, and agree to choose the ballot over the bullet.

Make sure what makes the state Jewish – essentially, historically, timelessly, truly Jewish – is not reducible to expressions of mere ethnocentrism or jingoism, that can (and maybe דווקא should) be threatened by the very proposition of either a modern society embracing the separation of synagogue and state on the one hand, or a shared ethical monotheistic society with the daughters of the Hebrew Bible, Christians and Muslims, on the other.

But I digress.

I don’t see two (or three or four or a million) states as a viable option, for all the reasons. I see a chance for us to make it through this together in one, Israeli/Palestinian, state of all its citizens.

When you really think about it – it’s not as bad as the movie in your head. 😉

Who is Indigenous?

Who is indigenous?

The people of Israel speak the language of this Land, follow the calendar of this Land, retell the myths and stories of this Land, tend and protect this Land, and have considered this Land their ancestral home for 3200+ years.

Most of their descendants were heavily colonized by the empires that came to this Land.

Some of their descendants were exiled from this Land but kept their language, calendar, and religion.

(Are they not indigenous?)

Some of their descendants were allowed to stay on this Land but were forced to adopt their colonizers’ language, calendar, religion, and politics.

(Are they not indigenous?)

Today I met a Native American woman of the Eastern Keresan in what is today called New Mexico, a student of her people’s traditions and an activist on their behalf – who speaks English (while studying Keres), uses the Gregorian calendar (and observes her traditional calendar), and believes in Christianity (as compatible with what she’s been taught of her people’s beliefs).

(Is she not indigenous?)

Hmmm…

A Short Meditation on International Law and Policy

The UN is a spectre in Israeli society and a byword among Israelis.

For its part, the UN has maintained a persistent and consistent critique/condemnation of all Israeli policies vis-a-vis Palestinians. On the receiving side, the common perception among Israelis is that the UN is a shield for organizations and even entire states that have declared themselves our mortal enemies.

The truth is somewhere in between. Some of the UN’s criticism of the Israeli state is legitimate, some of Israeli society’s response is legitimate. Much of both is reductive bluster misrepresenting the facts of history and recent events (recent from any vantage point in time, in fact).

But I think that one undeniable outcome of the UN’s endless, obsessive, and condemnatory rhetorical focus on the Israeli state, has been a general weakening of the Israeli public’s trust in international institutions.

In another reality, we might have avoided this war entirely by successfully petitioning for the extradition of Hamas’s leadership at all levels to stand trial for war crimes and by uniting the international community against Iran’s funding of genocidal organizations that train to commit war crimes.

If that alternate reality sounds as ludicrous to you as it does to me – ask yourself why that route wasn’t taken to begin with.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr Spoke Candidly on Israel

In 1968, ten days before he was murdered by a white supremacist, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr of blessed memory was asked some rather direct questions:

“What steps have been undertaken and what success has been noted in convincing anti-Semitic and anti-Israel Negroes, such as Rap Brown, Stokely Carmichael, and McKissick, to desist from their anti-Israel activity?”

“What effective measures will the collective Negro community take against the vicious anti-Semitism, against the militance and the rabble-rousing of the Browns, Carmichaels, and Powells?”

“Have your contributions from Jews fallen off considerably? Do you feel the Jewish community is copping out on the civil rights struggle?”

“What would you say if you were talking to a Negro intellectual, an editor of a national magazine, and were told, as I have been, that he supported the Arabs against Israel because color is all important in this world? In the editor’s opinion, the Arabs are colored Asians and the Israelis are white Europeans. Would you point out that more than half of the Israelis are Asian Jews with the same pigmentation as Arabs, or would you suggest that an American Negro should not form judgments on the basis of color? What seems to you an appropriate or an effective response?”

He answered:

“Thank you. I’m glad that question came up because I think it is one that must be answered honestly and forthrightly.

First let me say that there is absolutely no anti-Semitism in the black community in the historic sense of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism historically has been based on two false, sick, evil assumptions. One was unfortunately perpetuated even by many Christians, all too many as a matter of fact, and that is the notion that the religion of Judaism is anathema. That was the first basis for anti-Semitism in the historic sense.

Second, a notion was perpetuated by a sick man like Hitler and others that the Jew is innately inferior. Now in these two senses, there is virtually no anti-Semitism in the black community. There is no philosophical anti-Semitism or anti-Semitism in the sense of the historic evils of anti-Semitism that have been with us all too long. I think we also have to say that the anti-Semitism which we find in the black community is almost completely an urban Northern ghetto phenomenon, virtually non-existent in the South.

I think this comes into being because the Negro in the ghetto confronts the Jew in two dissimilar roles. On the one hand, he confronts the Jew in the role ofbeing his most consistent and trusted ally in the struggle for justice in the civil rights movement. Probably more than any other ethnic group, the Jewish community has been sympathetic and has stood as an ally to the Negro in his struggle for justice.

On the other hand, the Negro confronts the Jew in the ghetto as his landlord in many instances. He confronts the Jew as the owner of the store around the corner where he pays more for what he gets. In Atlanta, for instance, I live in the heart of the ghetto, and it is an actual fact that my wife in doing her shopping has to pay more for food than whites have to pay out in Buckhead and Lennox. We even tested it. We have to pay five cents and sometimes ten cents a pound more for almost anything that we get than they have to pay out in Buckhead andLennox Square where the rich people of Atlanta live.

The fact is that the Jewish storekeeper or landlord is not operating on the basis of Jewish ethics; he is operating simply as a marginal businessman. Consequently the conflicts come into being.

I remember when we were working in Chicago two years ago, we had numerous rent strikes on the West Side. And it was unfortunately true that the persons whom we had to conduct these strikes against were in most instances Jewish landlords. Now sociologically that came into being because there was a time when the West Side of Chicago was almost a Jewish community. It was a Jewish ghetto, so to speak, and when the Jewish community started moving out into other areas, they still owned the property there, and all of the problems of the landlord came into being.

We were living in a slum apartment owned by a Jew in Chicago along with a number of others, and we had to have a rent strike. We were paying $94 for four run-down, shabby rooms, and we would go out on our open housing marches in Gage Park and other places and we discovered that whites with five sanitary, nice, new rooms, apartments with five rooms out in those areas, were paying only $78 a month. We were paying twenty percent tax.

It so often happens that the Negro ends up paying a color tax, and this has happened in instances where Negroes have actually confronted Jews as the landlord or the storekeeper, or what-have-you. And I submit again that the tensions of the irrational statements that have been made are a result of these confrontations.

I think the only answer to this is for all people to condemn injustice wherever it exists. We found injustices in the black community. We find that some black people, when they get into business, if you don’t set them straight, can be rascals. And we condemn them. I think when we find examples of exploitation, it must be admitted. That must be done in the Jewish community too.

I think our responsibility in the black community is to make it very clear that we must never confuse some with all, and certainly in SCLC we have consistently condemned anti-Semitism. We have made it clear that we cannot be the victims of the notion that you deal with one evil in society by substituting another evil. We cannot substitute one tyranny for another, and for the black man to be struggling for justice and then turn around and be anti-Semitic is not only a very irrational course but it is a very immoral course, and wherever we have seen anti-Semitism we have condemned it with all of our might.

W e have done it through our literature. We have done it through statements that I have personally signed, and I think that’s about all that we can do as an organization to vigorously condemn anti-Semitism wherever it exists.

On the Middle East crisis, we have had various responses. The response of some of the so-called young militants again does not represent the position of the vast majority of Negroes. There are some who are color-consumed and they see a kind of mystique in being colored, and anything non-colored is condemned. We do not follow that course inthe Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and certainly most of the organizations in the civil rights movement do not follow that course.

I think it is necessary to say that what is basic and what is needed in the Middle East is peace. Peace for Israel is one thing. Peace for the Arab side of that world is another thing. Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all of our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel, and never mind saying it, as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land almost can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality.

On the other hand, we must see what peace for the Arabs means in a real sense of security on another level. Peace for the Arabs means the kind of economic security that they so desperately need. These nations, as you know, are part of that third world of hunger, of disease, of illiteracy. I think that as long as these conditions exist there will be tensions, there will be the endless quest to find scapegoats. So thereis a need for a Marshall Plan for the Middle East, where we lift those who are at the bottom of the economic ladder and bring them into the mainstream of economic security.

This is how we have tried to answer the question and deal with theproblem in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and I think that represents the thinking of all of those in the Negro community, by and large, who have been thinking about this issue in the Middle East.”

(Originally printed in “Conservative Judaism,” Vol. 22 No. 3 © 1968 by the Rabbinical Assembly)

The Government Needs a Plan

Neutralizing Hamas’s military capacity is the stated goal of this war (Bibi’s jingoistic propaganda aside).

Achieving that goal is necessary and while I have a lot of Questions, I don’t have access to nearly enough information to armchair quarterback the IDF in this war. So as long as the IDF is aiming to keep civilian deaths to a minimum and unless they actually cross red lines according to international law, I support their effort to achieve the stated goal.

But

Neutralizing Hamas’s military capacity is not a plan to neutralize Hamas’s political standing.

It’s not a plan to neutralize the ideology behind Hamas.

It’s not a plan to address the social, economic, and political factors that draw people to that ideology.

It’s not a plan to address its financial sponsors.

It’s not a plan to prevent Hamas from rising in another five years to continue their genocidal war against Jewish people in Israel.

It’s the first step. It’s a necessary step. But we need a government that is taking the rest of the steps and the clock is ticking.