|
|
By Ted Belman
August 28, 2006
In the early seventies I read Israelis and Jews: The Continuity of an Identity by Simon N. Herman. One didn't have to read the book, much less write it, to understand that the more religious one is, the more one identifies as a Jew and the more secular, the more Israeli. At that time, this distinction had little impact on the direction and nature of the Jewish state. But over time this distinction began to tear the country apart.
The distinction manifested itself in existential issues and so the society became polarized. The Israelis gave rise to "post-Zionist" revisionism, to the making of a state like any other state, to the peace process, to the notion that the occupation is the problem not the solution and finally to charging that the settlers (Jews) are the enemy of the good. The Israelis grew very powerful starting from their roots in Kibbutzim and in the socialist ethos. They dominate the press, the academia, the courts, the administration of Justice and for the most part, the government.
Unhappily for them, the Jews increased in number faster than the Israelis due to immigration and a much higher procreation rate. Thus the Israelis could see that they were increasingly up against it at the ballot box.
It would be wrong to see this schism as only one between the secular and the religious. There are many religious Jews who support Labour and the peace process and many secular Israelis who side with the Jews not only because of their Jewish identity and but also because of their negative view of the peace process.
One thing both sides agree on is the desirability of peace. The Israelis believe that a peace deal with the Arabs is possible if only Israel makes enough gestures and concessions; land for peace. The Jews believe that peace is only possible through strength, and strength requires Israel to hold onto land and to strengthen Jewish identity.
The Israelis don't trust religious people, arguing that they cling to G-d's word as their gospel without thinking. This prevents them from being realistic, the Israelis think.
On the other hand, the Jews can't understand how the Israelis can cling to their gospel; land for peace, no matter how much history proves them wrong or the Arabs call for their destruction. They complain that the Israelis are not realistic.
For the Israelis, the Lebanon debacle argues for the necessity to negotiate with Syria a land for peace deal and to seriously embrace the Saudi Peace Plan. Whereas the Jews believe it teaches just the opposite, that land must not be ceded.
The Israelis share the views of the European Socialists and the American Democrats whereas the Jews are closer to the views of the Christian Right and the neo-cons ensconced in the Republican Party.
At the moment, the Lebanon debacle has strengthened the Jews but they must be able to form the next government to solidify their gains. Olmert is clinging to power for as long as he can and the protest movement has not coalesced into a mass movement. More is needed to bring down the government.
There are a number of looming issues that must be dealt with while Olmert is still in power. As for Hezbollah and Res. 1701, no provocation or watering-down has been enough for Olmert to reject either. The Iranian nuclear threat is looming and must be dealt with. The IDF must be revitalized to meet all challenges. Finally, the Arab League has announced its intention to relauch the Saudi Peace Plan in September. Fortunately Olmert is too weak to lead this revitalization.
Olmert represents the culmination of the bankruptcy of the Israeli regime. The time has come for the Jews to overthrow the Israeli regime and seize the reins of government.
Once in power, the Jews must make far reaching changes by adopting a constitution which strengthens representative government (constituency elections), the Knesset at the expense of the Courts, and the Government and the Jewish character of the state.
Only then can Israel deal with the Arabs in and out of the territories. Israel must decide if it can maintain the status quo and resist all "peace" initiatives or whether it is best served by a peace initiative of its own. The one I favour is to expand Jerusalem to include all settlements around it both Arab and Jewish and to annex the land. As a second stage it could annex all lands in Area C per Oslo. To justify the annexation it could hold a plebiscite among the inhabitants to accept or reject the annexation as a matter of self-determination.
And now to overthrow the government.
Views expressed by the author do not
necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.
 
|
|
|
|
Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the  icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.
|
|
| |
|
|
