In his article, “Beyond Zionism – will an alternative Judaism emerge”, Steven Robins joins some dots to come up with an inflammatory conclusion: that from “the ashes of the Gaza genocide” an alternative Judaism will emerge to displace “the violent and illiberal” Zionist legacy of Meir Kahane, a far-right-wing Israeli ideologue.
This response will unpack each of these dots, to see if they make sense, and assess if the conclusions drawn are justified. There are four threads to the argument: first, there has recently been a “genocide” in Gaza. Second, that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and far-right zealots have “betrayed principals of decency and liberal democracy”, as evidenced by this supposed genocide. Third: that the “genocide” proves the only voice in Israeli politics is the extreme right wing and therefore Israel is an extremist country.
And, finally: Even Vladimir Jabotinsky, a founding father of Zionism generally viewed as a right-wing hardliner who was in favour of a militarily strong Israel, was of the opinion that as soon as the Arab leadership passed to moderate groups happy to discuss mutual concessions, Israel should shift from a hyper-vigilant defensive mode to peace mode. The right wing in Israel is thus depicted as being even more right wing than Jabotinsky.
It follows from all this, therefore, that Israel is a hotbed of right-wing extremism. An extreme Israel, therefore, equals an extreme Judaism.
How nice it would be if Judaism could return to its rightful place as a bookish group of people within which liberals and left-leaning academics could feel comfortable.
We have become so used articles of this nature that most of us read them unquestioningly.
But imagine a parallel title such as “Beyond Palestinian Nationalism – will an alternative Islam replace violent, illiberal Talibanism”. Such a heading would have provoked outrage, with very good reason. Anyone reading such a title would rightly ask, why is Palestinian nationalism being conflated with Islam (a religion), and how on Earth did the author arrive at the conclusion that Islam in all its multifaceted glory is today synonymous with Talibanism?
The author of the above article only gets away with this because he has picked on those people – Jews – who are currently the world’s whipping boy.
I am a Jew, and I am therefore motivated to point out some of the errors, since the article is not just something the great majority of Jews anywhere would find offensive. It actually poses a danger to Jews, here, in South Africa!
I will explain why.
Every one of the above points is highly problematic.
First, has a genocide indeed occurred in Gaza? The top legal minds in the world at the International Court of Justice have not come to that conclusion. If Israel has genocidal intent and genocidal capabilities (which it does) why has actual genocide not in fact occurred? I don’t agree.
Genocide is a great sweetener, for softening up the readership by appealing to their emotions, so that seems to have been a convenient “fact” to start with.
The author’s next point: “Netanyahu and far-right zealots have betrayed principles of decency and liberal democracy, as evidenced by the Gaza genocide.” Really? It is very difficult to wage even the most just of wars, trying to destroy bad people and downgrade their capabilities while actively displaying decency and liberal democracy. It is very challenging to imagine a liberal, decent, democratic way of killing terrorists.
Having said that, there are countless reports of Israeli troops being magnanimous on the battlefield, supplying fuel to hospitals at great risk to their own lives, and conducting pinpointed ground operations, rather than blunter aerial operations, to save civilian lives. The Israel Defense Forces even have a dedicated legal division to assess in real time whether operations are proportionate. Many operations are aborted, when it is assessed that the civilian cost would be too high.
But all this is irrelevant to Israel’s academic detractors. They get very upset when Jews defend themselves. They would rather that we read a book or write a research paper, even as our enemies come to kill us.
Since its inception Israel has been a vibrant democracy. Here’s a point to remember that you will find nowhere in the article being responded to: Arabs in Israel have more democratic rights than Arabs in Arab countries. It is difficult to overstate the range, and the volume, of the many voices that have been heard in Israel during the war, from all corners of the political spectrum. Groups pushing for a swift end to the war have demonstrated in great numbers, and blocked intercity highways. Left-wing commentators in the press have pushed their message. Their message has been heard and has had a real impact on outcomes.
This is the democratic process at its finest!
In Gaza, and in most other Middle East countries, such street protests would have been brutally crushed, and any off-message journalists would have been incarcerated. There were indeed violent reprisals against those Gazans who did protest against the war.
Next theme. The “reasonable conservative”, Jabotinsky, motivated for peace with Arabs when there would be acceptance by the Arabs. The author blames Israel for continuing to look for war when the “Jabotinsky moment of peace” arrived a while ago. If the truth be told, Israel has exactly followed the Jabotinsky line, on multiple fronts, resulting in the Abraham Accords. Five Arab states which previously would not have dreamt of making peace with Israel have now recognised Israel, and by so doing have been able to enter into agreements with Israel which promise peace and prosperity. Several other Arab states have a de facto relationship with Israel, which works well for both sides.
The Gazan Palestinians, by contrast, are still ruled by Hamas, which shows no signs of recognising Israel and has not watered down its demands for the destruction of Israel. Something which they have repeatedly demonstrated, which is not conceptual dogma, but an actual plan.
So, the answer is no. Israel is not at that Jabotinsky moment with the Palestinians at this point. It is ridiculous to suggest that Jabotinsky would be pushing for a peace deal with Gazans now, since they are looking for peace. Because it is obvious that they are not.
Even if the author is correct in his assertion, that Israel in all its diversity is one homogenous extreme entity, by what right does he equate Israel with Judaism? Israel is a country. Judaism is a religion. And this perhaps is his most dangerous and least-defensible error. What this serves to do is to give a licence to people to conflate Israel with Judaism. By doing so, anyone who has a grievance with Israel (and there are many such people) is effectively invited to expand their enemy group to include Jews, since they are the people associated with Judaism.
This is not just theoretically dangerous. It is actually dangerous. Last week’s terrorist attack on a Chanukah gathering at Bondi in which 15 people were killed shows why.
A few months ago, in the UK, where I was born, a synagogue was attacked on Yom Kippur, the holiest day on the Jewish calendar (not the Israeli calendar). The synagogue is a Jewish house of worship, attended by Jews. Two Jews died as a result of the terrorist actions. They were not Israelis.
This could have happened in New York, London or Johannesburg. In a goodly number of countries, particularly in Europe, similar murderous attacks have indeed taken place. The victims could easily have been the booky, liberal type of Jew whom the author seems to admire.
Regrettably, Robins has opted for a very specific and decontextualised view of an incredibly nuanced conflict, for whatever reason. That is his choice.
But he really did not have to export that toxicity around the world. DM
Daniel Beider is a former investment banker active in the Jewish community nonprofit sector.
This debate is now closed, thank you to the contributors – The Editor