Dave Goldberg wrote:
Tom,What angers me is not critisism of Israeli policies, or accusations of
religous separatism in the state of Israel, but rather Jimmy Carter's
apparant intellectual dishonesty.Please see What Would Jimmy Do?, Jeffrey Goldberg, Washington Post Book
World, December 10, 2006.Dave Goldberg (no relation to the author)
Springfield VA
Saw the piece and think it's fine. Doesn't change my post whatsoever though. I don't make a case for Carter's book, but for his basic criticism, which I see as quite sound.
Saying he's somewhat partisan (not emphasizing Arab rejectionism enough, for example) doesn't make the crux of his argument invalid. It just makes his book weaker. I didn't offer a book review, just commentary on the debate and what I liked about where Carter focused his critique. Carter's argument needs to be dealt with head on, not seemingly discredited on the basis of factual errors and interpretations.
But I liked the piece so I'm happy to cite in the blog.
In the end, Israel's biggest long-term problem is that its nationalism is race-specific in a globalizing world where such state-sponsored "affirmative action" comes off as hopelessly discriminatory, whether you're talking Muslims in Tel Aviv or Paris or Los Angeles. By asking the Middle East to integrate itself truly with globalization, we commit them to ending such religious/racial discriminations in their countries. Ultimately, the same gets asked of Israel, and that's where I think U.S. support will falter, because I think the bulk of Israelis remained committed to keeping Israel a fundamentally closed club built to promote the interests of a single race.
I understand that desire, even as I reject the premise philosophically.
Then again, I'm an American.
| Permalink |
Comments (2)
Tom,
With all due respect, the "closed club" you describe is religious, rather than racial, as underscored by numerous Israeli operations conducted from 1977-1991, where over 14000 Ethiopian Jews were resettled into Israel.
And despite the inequities faced by Arab-Israelis, polls conducted at the time when negotiations came tantalizingly close to acheiving an agreement on a Palesitinian state indicated that the vast majority would rather remain in Israel, rather than emigrate.
The Arab media is far more focused on the occupied territories. A review of the MEMRI.org website (www.memri.org) shows virtually no discussion on Arab citizens of Israel.
Which is not to say there is no problem. IMHO, the Israeli government will look inwards once its security posture is resolved.
Posted by Dave Goldberg | January 2, 2007 8:17 PM
I was in Israel for 5 weeks this summer (during the Hezbollah situation). The feeling I got while I was there is that the next generation of Israelis are much less ethnocentric than the post-Holocaust European emigres.
Younger Israelis are asking themselves what it means to be Israeli, and what it means to be a Jew -- and if the two are truly the same thing. The idea of Jewishness as an ethnic characteristic is becoming completely untenable -- you see this immediately when walking around Jerusalem, seeing blonde-haired, blue-eyed Russian Jews standing next to jet black Ethiopian Jews.
It's also difficult to consider Israelis to be Jewish religiously, as there are many Christian, Muslim, and Druze Israelis, not to mention that younger people do not always take the religion of their parents.
It's unfortunate that the Hezbollah nonsense occurred -- it disrupted the momentum of the unilateral disengagement movement and the reformist motivations (especially re: Arab rights) of the Kadima party. Israelis are aware of the problems inherent in the Israeli state's existence; the question is whether those neighbors who actively advocate for the destruction of Israel will continue to be supported -- actively or tacitly. All that does is lend support to the settlers and the extreme orthodox types that advocate for all sorts of ridiculous solutions like transfer.
Posted by Dan in B-more, hon. | January 2, 2007 11:43 PM