JULY 2004
-By Gilad AtzmonŠ10.7.04
Since the earliest days of Zionism, the question of polarity between right-wing and left-wing
Zionism has been more than a little
confusing. Where Zionism is concerned, it is difficult to
determine who is the dove and who is the hawk. It
was Ben Gurion, the legendary labour leader who led the
ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population of
Palestine in 1948. It was Menachem Begin, the legendary
hawk who signed the peace deal with Egypt in 1977. It was
Rabin, the labour minister of defence, who ordered the
Israeli platoons to break the arms and legs of
Palestinians (first intifada). And now, it appears, it is
the Israeli 'Peace Now' movement who support Sharon's
unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. Many of the elder doves
support the separation wall, which is unsurprising
considering the fact that it was Haim Ramon, a labour
minister who was the first to come up with the idea of
such a wall. At the end of the day, Jewish peaceniks love
the two state solution. More than simply loving peace,
they actually want to live in peace.We should ask ourselves whether there is any substantial difference between Israeli left and right. Many Middle Eastern commentators raised this question many years ago. As a matter of fact, Israeli Left / Right polarity is no more than a virtual concept. In his book, 'The Iron Wall', Avi Shlem
argues that, in practice, the Israeli 'Left' leadership adopted hard line right wing philosophy since the 1930s. A paper published few days ago by Israeli political scientist Neve Gordon, explains the current emerging alliance between Peace Now and Sharon. Here is what he says: "In terms of militarist ideology, certain elements within Peace Now hold views that are in many ways similar to Sharon's." According to Gordon, Peace Now are in fact endorsing a Zionistic nationalistic interpretation that is utterly "non-universalistic". Within this very discussion, it is crucial to mention
that even Uri Avnery and Gush Shalom, the most vocal humanist voices of the Israeli Jewish population, support the two state solution. In fact they argue that the two peoples should be separated. As it appears, the only real debate within the Israeli left is how high the separation wall be. If these are the Israeli doves, who needs Jewish warmongers?
So is there any difference between right and left in Israel? I would argue that if there is any difference, it is more of a cultural one. It is a form of speech and dress-code rather than a substantial philosophical or ideological dispute. Although the ideological differences between the two camps are barely marginal, it is crucial to show that in fact it is the Israeli Left's practice that is far more harmful for the Palestinian interests. While Israel's Left pushes towards the transformation of Palestine into a list of Bantustan-like isolated patches (Barak at Camp David), it is the right wing expansionist views that lead both Israelis and Palestinians to acknowledge the possibility of a one-state reality.
| Ehud Barak was guided
by three principles. First was a deep antipathy
toward the concept of gradual steps that lay at
the heart of the 1993 Oslo agreement between
Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization.
In his view, the withdrawals of Israeli forces
from parts of Gaza and the West Bank during the
preceding seven years had forced Israel to pay a
heavy price without getting anything tangible in
return and without knowing the scope of the
Palestinians' final demands. A second axiom for
Barak was that the Palestinian leadership would
make a historic compromise—if at all
—only after it had explored and found
unappealing all other possibilities. An analysis of Israeli politics led to Barak's third principle. Barak's team was convinced that the Israeli public would ratify an agreement with the Palestinians, even one that entailed far-reaching concessions, so long as it was final and brought quiet and normalcy to the country. But Barak and his associates also felt that the best way to bring the agreement before the Israeli public was to minimize any political friction along the way. Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin had paid a tremendous political (and physical) price by alienating the Israeli right wing and failing to bring its members along during the Oslo process. Barak was determined not to repeat that mistake. Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors,By Hussein Agha, Robert Malley New York Review of Books |
It appears that, within the internal Israeli Left's
discourse, Jewish Peaceniks identify with secularity,
rationality and sanity. In their eyes, these elements are
the voice of reason. They would argue that right wing
Zionism is messianic. They would equate it with
irrationality and insanity. In response, right wing
Zionists would argue that, considering the very real
threat to the existence of the Israeli state, the
Left's behaviour appears to be irrational, even
suicidal.
Let me state loud and clear, within the general
parameters of Zionist discussion, the right wing argument
is quite rational. Very much like the Palestinians, the
right wing have noticed that Left Zionists have no
intention of addressing the Palestinian cause. The
Israeli Left camp never acknowledged the 1948 mass
expulsion of the Palestinian population. The Israeli Left
denies the Palestinian right of return and avoids the
issue of Jerusalem. In practice, the Israeli Left
supports peace with the Palestinians as long as the
latter are left out in the desert. Moreover, if we
look into Left Zionist philosophy, we find out in fact
that it is no less messianic or irrational than its
counterpart. Even if we accept the bizarre assumption
that Jews are a nation and are entitled to piece of land,
it doesn't necessarily imply that this land should be in
Palestine (Zion). As a matter of fact, it was Left
Zionism that invented the notion of the colonialisation
of Zion. It was Left Zionism which transformed the Bible
from being a spiritual text into a legal document (a land
registry). If this isn't messianic, then the notion of
messianism should be redefined. Since it is Left
Zionism that invented the notion of 'redemption of
the land', the American settlers who flood the West
Bank in the name of their Jewish God are, in practice,
the real followers of the Left Zionist school.
So where exactly is the political dispute? Apparently,
Left Israelis amended their world view in the last
decade. They would still argue that the land of
Zion should be redeemed but they'd agree to be far more
flexible when referring to the definition of Israeli
territory. While the right wing would talk
enthusiastically about the redemption of the whole of
greater Israel, left wing Zionists adopted a more
moderate take on the subject. For the Peacenik, Israel is
where he lives, i.e. within the 1967 borders. The
Peacenik would roll his eyes arguing that there is indeed
room for the two peoples on this land (as long as he
stays in Tel Aviv and the Palestinian stays in Gaza). He
would propose to erect a separation wall, and shred the
Holy Land into Bantustans. Of course, he would turn
a blind eye to the blatant fact that the vast majority of
pre 1967 Israel is in fact confiscated Palestinian lands.
Israeli doves refuse to admit that the vast
majority of the Palestinian people are in fact
dispossessed refugees. They live in complete denial of
their present and past. They are happy with the
concept of peace as long as they determine its terms and
conditions. Funny
enough, for Sharon and his unilateral withdrawal,
following that very philosophy.
While trying to analyse Sharon's acts we should
remember that the big man himself grew up in the
Israeli Left. Much like his mentors, Sharon adopted
an offensive military doctrine. He believes in the
Israeli power of deterrence. He believes in a Jewish
democratic state rather than a state of its citizens,
He believes that it is Israel that should
dictate the fate of the region. This is the story
behind his plan of unilateral withdrawal. This is the
story behind his separation wall. This is very much the
essence of Left Zionism.
This leads us to the absurd realisation of the
Israeli political environment. While the Israeli
Left endorses the most radical nationalistic and
supremacist interpretation of Zionism, it is actually the
Jewish right wing expansionist philosophy that pushes
towards a one state solution. In fact it is the
settlers from Brooklyn who are going to help the
Palestinians to establish a multi cultural society
throughout the whole of Palestine. It is the American
Jewish zealots who make this wet dream into reality. This
is where the settlers become so vital for the chance of
the Palestinian future.
As it appears, the one state solution is the only viable
option from now on.
www.glasbergen.com/ office.html
http://www.gilad.co.uk