Objecting to my previous comment about Mazin Qumsiyeh’s appearance in Brookline, Hillel Stavis of the Boston-area David Project wondered about my use of the term “right-wing Zionist” when I didn’t describe Palestinian society as fascist. Here I touch on several related issues.
I generally use “right-wing Zionist” as a short-hand distinction from “left-wing Zionist” even though I know exceptions exist to any generalization. Still, as I see it, right-wing Zionists are those whose support for a Jewish state tends to outweigh any other political or, arguably, moral consideraton. They support policies endorsed by Israel’s more conservative nationalist and/or religious elements despite horrendous consequences for Palestinians or indeed for any other non-Jews. We could call this approach hard-core tribalism. Left-wing Zionists, on the other hand, feel bad, even guilty, that Israel’s creation, expansion, and survival hurts others. They try to balance their Jewish-state support with some concern for the victims. Maybe this could be called humanistic tribalism. At least that’s how I learned to look at it four decades ago, when I was a left-wing humanist Zionist myself.
Although they generally deny it in public, honest Zionists on both left and right often acknowledge privately, especially in Jewish-only settings, that the balancing act between Jewish and democratic statehood is unresolvable. It seems to me they are more likely to do this when they actually live in Israel than when they merely support it from afar. Those on the left feel bad about this state of affairs and, like liberals elsewhere, wander back and forth between two irreconcilable poles, unable to pick one over the other; as I’ve noted many times on this blog and elsewhere, this interplay between tribal and universal values forms the heart of Israel’s inability to reach a reasonable reconciliation with Palestinians.
Zionists on the right, on the other hand, generally don’t feel so bad. Finding it easier to simply blame Palestinians for everything, they are more willing than left-Zionists to conclude that democracy isn’t a Jewish value and that a Jewish life is worth more than any other. The distinction between these left- and right-Zionist attitudes is abundantly clear to anyone who reads Israeli newspapers, court decisions, or Benny Morris.
Stavis’s depiction of Israeli and Palestinian society is filled with inaccurate descriptions and questionable value judgments, but I’m willing enough to agree that a Hamas-led government would be far from ideal and likely repressive. Fatah, too, is no paragon of political virtue. But Stavis is clearly wrong to assume most Palestinians will happily live in a repressive theocratic anti-Jewish state. Indeed, the speaker Stavis protested the other night, Mazin Qumsiyeh, criticized both Hamas and Fatah, as did many others I met during my two recent visits to the West Bank. Hamas and Fatah may be the big guys in town, but enough independent secular democrats exist in the highly educated Palestinian society to make a real difference if a Palestinian state ever comes into existence — if the state is viable and if its citizens’ justice-based needs are met. Of course, these independent secular democrats are just as insistent as Stavis’s devils that justice counts.
The real problem for Zionists is not that Palestinians don’t care about justice and fair treatment, but that they care so much. So long as Zionists of both right and left use a tribal standard rather than a universal one, a viable Palestinian state will be impossible. Also impossible will be any chance that the conflict will end.
I think I remember now. Is this the same Dennis Fox who was a reporter for The Brookline Tab? What occasioned your departure, Dennis? Judging from your writings post-employment, anyone would conclude that your objectivity in reporting on events in The Middle East (and their local implications) for that paper might have been somewhat biased. But I digress.
I once discussed Palestinian nationalism (let’s remember that “nationalism” is the bogeyman of all committed progressives – except when it involves Palestinian Arabs, of course) with Karen Armstrong, the unofficial PR mouth for militant Islam. I asked her, if, indeed, Palestinian nationalism was the goal, then, why, during 19 years of Jordanian “occupation” )actually, illegal annexation, unrecognized by the UN, did not a single instance of Palestinian nationalism express itself, either politically, socially or artistically (you can search in vain for a Darwish poem decrying the oppressive rule of the foreign Hashemite tribe). She stumbled for a moment and then blurted out, “Oh, uh, it was
Sorry for the hiatus in my response. Blame it on the word processor. Here’s the conclusion:
…EMERGING!” Of course, when I asked her for any concrete examples of this “emergence”, she turned on her heel and left the room.
In a similar way, Dennis, when faced with an apparently insoluble answer to an obvious question (the demonstrative fascist theory and practice of much of Palestinian society) you answer with an evasion: “but I’m willing enough to agree that a Hamas-led government would be far from ideal and likely repressive.”
Flash! – HAMAS became the legitimately (according to The Jimmy Carter Center) and popularly elected government of the Palestinians a year ago. Dennis, please revise the verb, “would” and change it to “is.” “Likely repressive?” The body count produced by both HAMAS and FATAH during the past year has exceeded by far those Palestinians killed by Israel. I guess in your lexicon that means “likely.”
And, if “enough independent secular democrats exist in the highly educated Palestinian society” then why did they enthusiastically elect a genocidal, theocratic, fascist government? Oh yes, I know the answer: The vote was a vote against corruption, not one for genocide. Hmmm. The Reichstag election of 1933 was justified precisely on those grounds (actually, HAMAS received 4% more popular votes than the Nazis did).
What is the name of the secular, Palestinian political party, Dennis? What is the organization that is the counterpart of Peace Now? I don’t recall their names.
Despite your absurd attempts to dress up the fascist, genocidal ACTUAL segments of Palestinian society, you can’t take them to the dance. Allegra Pacheco, Radcliffe’s “Peace Fellow”(pardon my giggles) in 2002 predicted that (after condoning the lynching of 2 reservists in Ramallah) in a few years, Palestine would resemble Switzerland in its peaceful and democratic nature.
Reports of Ismail Haniyeh practicing yodeling have been greatly exaggerated.
In answer to your first question, I was a part-time columnist for the Brookline TAB on and off for several years. I was not a reporter. I was paid to express my opinions about issues of interest to Brookline residents, not to cover events as a supposedly objective journalist. This blog has pretty much the same approach; I try to be accurate about events and issues, but the purpose is to express a reasoned point of view, not just to “report.” In any case, I stopped the TAB column in early 2006 because I got busier doing other things. Perhaps I’ll resume it at some point if my other projects ease up.
I began this blog three years ago after deciding to return to Israel and the West Bank more than 30 years after my previous visits. Although I occasionally write about other things, I’ve mostly focused on my two extended visits since then and on a range of related issues. Anyone who reads through my earlier blog entries and also the articles I’ve published elsewhere (posted on my main website) will be able to judge for themselves my struggle to come to terms with the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians as well as with Israel’s internal issues, a topic that concerns me partly because of my own history as a Zionist youth activist, partly because I still have good friends and close relatives living in Israel, and partly because I don’t think Israel can ever allow a viable Palestinian state to exist without resolving its dilemma about whether to be a Jewish state or a democratic state.
I’ve also written in this blog about Mustapha Barghouti and other Palestinians who have been organizing toward a secular democratic Palestine despite intense Israeli opposition. And I’ve repeatedly noted the long history of Palestinian non-violent protest, most of which Israel has strenuously tried to repress and the mainstream media has tried to ignore.
I’ve also never expressed enthusiasm for nationalism of any kind, Palestinian, Israeli, or US for that matter. I just don’t care what flag flies overhead, though I’d rather there be none. But despite my anti-statist and anti-party views, I think that any accurate depiction would recognize internal divisions even within Hamas as well the efforts, many of them put into motion by Israel, to push Palestinian society into disarray.
It seems to me ridiculous to trumpet the failures and extremism of a shell of a Palestinian government under conditions of occupation by a stronger power determined to see it fail. As with Israel’s long-open intention to create enough “facts on the ground” to make a Palestinian state impossible, it boggles the mind to ignore Israel’s role in fomenting Palestinian disorder.
Hillel, I doubt you or others who share your commitments will ever approach these issues with an open mind, free of assumptions and conclusions. Those who do want to get beyond very tired stereotypes and propaganda will find a huge literature on and off the Internet, some of which I link to here and on my website. For now I’ll recommend, especially to those new to the issue, a book by another Brookline resident, Alice Rothchild’s Broken Promises, Broken Dreams: Stories of Jewish and Palestinian Trauma and Resilience. I’ve blogged about that, so you can search for her name to see more details.
I’m trying to understand your point of view, Dennis. Let’s see. Whatever genocidal, fascist actions and policy of the Hamas government, you see the evil, hidden hand of the Jew. Israel vacates Gaza, permits the Palestinians to elect a theocratic, Islamist government and voila! – You see the nefarious Jew behind it all. I think I understand.
I guess the world would be better off if the Jews (aka the Israelis) ceased to exist, because whatever atrocity is committed in the world, we all know whose behind it all.
Have you found a way of pinning the Darfure genocide on the Jews, yet? I’m sure your friend, Alice Rothchild will come up with a plausible motive. That’s the same Alice Rothchild who declared a few years ago (in a speech she gave at The Newton Public Library) that she disapproved of Palestinian terror attacks because they were politically unproductive.
You’ve really descended to the depths. This conversation is ended.
Hillel,
I never conflate The Jews with Israel, as you do in your last comment. And I don’t blame The Jews or even Israel for every Palestinian problem. But there is usually something between all or nothing, though that territory seems to have escaped you.
I also don’t know what Alice Rothchild said in Newton a few years ago, but I do know from several years acquaintanceship that whatever she had to say must have been more contextual, more complex, and more humane than anything you’ve said in these exchanges.
If what you wanted is a real conversation we could always get together for coffee. However, there’s nothing in what you’ve written so far that makes me think you really want to understand my point of view beyond trying to tear holes in what you think are its vulnerabilities. Conversation implies some willingness to listen to the other person, not just waiting for something to pounce on once you twist it to suit your preconceived notions.
[...] when he went to see what they were up to. The guy with the camera in the second and third photos is Hillel Stavis. He was pretty obnoxious, even cutting off people on his own side, who he clearly doesn’t [...]