Two Jews are having an argument about Israel , and I
am not going to settle it for them. Instead, I shall draw lessons that might be
useful when dealing with the subject of the Middle East .
The article I am looking at is that of David Harsanyi; it
came under the title: “Is Israel
good for the Jews?” It was published on September 21, 2014 in the New York
Post. This was Harsanyi's response to a piece that Richard Cohen had written in
the Washington Post some time ago which then became a book. Harsanyi begins
with the question that is the title of his own article, and responds by saying
that the answer is no-brainer. But he says that things are not as simple to
those on the “left.”
He explains that Richard Cohen wrote an op-ed in 2006 in
which he said that the greatest mistake Israel could make was to forget it
was a mistake, and he was stunned by the reaction. What troubled Cohen most,
says Harsanyi, “were the congratulations he heard from his friends, colleagues
and acquaintances.” Intrigued by that, Cohen wrote a book around the question …
something that Harsanyi finds problematic. It is that Cohen never answers the
question, he says – not even close.
Before proceeding with a critique of the book, Harsanyi
drops a little secret. He says the book was going to be titled “Can Israel
Survive?” But there too, Cohen does not answer the question, says our author.
And this is where he throws his first barb at Cohen. He says the title of the
book could just as well have been “Random thoughts Richard Cohen has recently
had regarding Israel
and the Jews.” And this is because the book has nothing to do with Israel 's
current predicament or the pitfalls that Zionism poses for Jewry, he asserts.
He now tells what the actual title of Cohen's book is: “Israel :
Is It Good For the Jews?” He says there is plenty of history in it which he
seems happy with, but it lacks context, he goes on to say. He explains that
Cohen makes “crude assertions” about Theodor Herzel and Menachem Begin to fit
his rickety narrative. He does not like him saying that Herzel was antagonistic
towards religious Jewry, or that Begin was “a terrorist, a militant, and an
extreme Jewish chauvinist.”
Well, my friend, I did not study this history in any formal
way, only as an erstwhile student of history. I am not old enough to remember
Theodor Herzel either, but I am old enough to remember Menachem Begin. And if I
must pass judgment on him, I would say he was a terrorist, a militant and an
extreme Jewish chauvinist – exactly how Richard Cohen describes him. This being
the case, I am now biased in favor of Cohen's narrative, but I shall try to
remain neutral in Harsanyi's dispute with him.
Here is another mistake of the kind that is usually made by
those who think of themselves as rightists. They call a mistake of the left
that which they seek to sweep under the rug and forget about. In this case,
Harsanyi chides Cohen for viewing the entire Zionist project through what he
says is “the prism of the leftist.” Leftist? What makes it leftist? Here is
what makes it leftist: “He refers to the Jewish State as a last-gasp of
colonial enterprise.” Oh yes, colonial. That's the word which makes the
rightists cringe. In their view, there has never been a thing called
colonialism. Britain , France and the
other European nations never colonized the world; they were only civilizing it.
As to Israel , it is not
colonizing Palestine ;
it is defending itself.
With the customary Jewish sleight of hand, Harsanyi rejects
what he calls the tiresome and unsophisticated accusations of colonialism, and
goes on to say: “They offer nothing of value on the question of contemporary
Zionism.” And get this: “Even most of Israel 's
neighbors have come to terms with the reality of Israel .” Apparently Harsanyi never
talked to a Palestinian living under occupation, or read any Palestinian
publication.
Now writing about Cohen, he says this: “Sometimes you get
the feeling that he's about to answer the book's question with a 'no.'”
Harsanyi goes on a tangent for a while, then comes back to say this about Jews:
“No matter what the proposition, our first reaction is to ask, “but is it good
for the Jews?” And he says that Cohen “in a long and winding way, says: sort
of. Maybe.” And this is why he feels compelled to answer the question of the
book for him, he says.
To this end, he begins by saying that Israel is
inhabited by ordinary humans, not saints; and that Zionism is imperfect but is
evolving. He then goes on to cite the traditional Jewish talking points to
justify not only the establishment of Israel as a state but also its
conduct. He says that the Jews have reclaimed their historical and religious
homeland. He does that without explaining how it is that a recent convert to
Judaism whose ancestors never set foot in the Middle East, has a bigger claim
to the land than a Palestinian whose ancestors lived there since the beginning of
time.
Another point he cites is that Jews need to escape the next
Nazis because anti-Semitism seems to always erupt somewhere. But he does not
say why the Palestinians should pay the price for the inability of the Jews to
get along and live in peace with anyone on this planet.
David Harsanyi then makes the fatal mistake of talking like
a colonial master without having the credentials that the authentic colonial
masters had. He says this: “Israel
has become one of the most impressive technologically advanced and liberal
society in the world.” This is what the colonial powers said about themselves,
having started the Industrial Revolution.
The fact is that the Jews can carry on with this fake
narrative because they remain – in their mind – in denial of the fact that
their enclave is a pathetic and artificial colony. And when you have a colony
in which you bring people from such advanced places as Germany, Austria,
Hungary, France, Poland, Benelux and the rest of Europe, you ought to be
advanced – especially after something like a trillion dollars had been poured
into your economy. But the fact remains that nothing is produced in Israel today
which is equal, let alone more advanced than anywhere else. In fact, without
the support that Israel
receives from everywhere, its economy would collapse in a few months.
As to Israel being a liberal and democratic society, the way
to attract people into an enclave is to tell them they will have the right to
vote on how to treat the people under occupation without the latter having the
right to determine their own destiny. If this is liberal democracy, then
liberal democracy is the stuff that sewers are full of. Keep it to yourselves
and don't try to shove it down the throat of others if you don't want to feel
someone's boot in your rear end.