Very well written, Herb. Unfortunately, most, maybe all, states that gain power over others abuse it. The US certainly has. Now Israel is doing it. So while Judaism may have maintained a clear moral core, it was never as a state actor. I consider myself part Israeli, having lived key years there. But the idea that Israel would somehow rise above has long seemed unlikely to me. The pressure of survival anxiety is too easily manipulated politically. Both Netanyahu and Hamas have played that card and continue to. You're right that as Jews we should be able to call out Israeli actions that are wrong. But states act in what they perceive to be their interests. That is the only real hope of a peaceful settlement.
Points well taken. Seems to me, however, that the link between national self-interest and a peaceful settlement is contingent upon a (new) generation of leaders with new visions for the future, unbound by past grievances. Problem is, I see no evidence of who those visionaries on either side are.
Nicely turned phrase: 'Doctrine of Moral Immunity.'
The historic goal of Zionism has been to reclaim the whole of historic Israel, including Judea and Sumeria where lots of non-Jews live now. Bibi, et. al. are determined to accomplish that goal. And if that requires application of a term from the '90s, ethnic cleansing, so e it.
I fear your carefully nuanced and precisely argued discussion will be lost on the 'I want, I take' mentality of those currently in power in Israel.
It's true that Zionism isn't monolithic. It has encompassed a wide spectrum of perspectives from cultural and liberal Zionism to religious and territorial maximalism. And, in principle, you're right that the ideology isn't identical to administration.
That said, governments aren't neutral vessels. When a particular strand within Zionism repeatedly dominates electoral outcomes, coalition formation, and state policy, it's clear that that particular strain is being operationalized in practice. No distinction at that point.
The peace movement collapsed. It was driven by Zionists. They still hold their beliefs but have been defeated politically in recent decades. Lot of reasons for that.
Excellent work! Thank you, Herb!
Disagreeing with Netanyahu and Israel’s strategy regarding Palestine or settlement expansion is not antisemitism.
Correct, in principle. The problem lies in the content and phraseology of that disagreement that has helped to fuel antisemitism.
Very well written, Herb. Unfortunately, most, maybe all, states that gain power over others abuse it. The US certainly has. Now Israel is doing it. So while Judaism may have maintained a clear moral core, it was never as a state actor. I consider myself part Israeli, having lived key years there. But the idea that Israel would somehow rise above has long seemed unlikely to me. The pressure of survival anxiety is too easily manipulated politically. Both Netanyahu and Hamas have played that card and continue to. You're right that as Jews we should be able to call out Israeli actions that are wrong. But states act in what they perceive to be their interests. That is the only real hope of a peaceful settlement.
Points well taken. Seems to me, however, that the link between national self-interest and a peaceful settlement is contingent upon a (new) generation of leaders with new visions for the future, unbound by past grievances. Problem is, I see no evidence of who those visionaries on either side are.
Well said. I think more people need to hear this point of view.
Nicely turned phrase: 'Doctrine of Moral Immunity.'
The historic goal of Zionism has been to reclaim the whole of historic Israel, including Judea and Sumeria where lots of non-Jews live now. Bibi, et. al. are determined to accomplish that goal. And if that requires application of a term from the '90s, ethnic cleansing, so e it.
I fear your carefully nuanced and precisely argued discussion will be lost on the 'I want, I take' mentality of those currently in power in Israel.
I can only hope that some take to heart the implications of these excesses.
There are many attitudes within Zionism. Not all of them are maximalist by any means.
Are any of them ascendent in the current government of Israel?
No, but there is a distinction between Zionism and an administration.
It's true that Zionism isn't monolithic. It has encompassed a wide spectrum of perspectives from cultural and liberal Zionism to religious and territorial maximalism. And, in principle, you're right that the ideology isn't identical to administration.
That said, governments aren't neutral vessels. When a particular strand within Zionism repeatedly dominates electoral outcomes, coalition formation, and state policy, it's clear that that particular strain is being operationalized in practice. No distinction at that point.
The peace movement collapsed. It was driven by Zionists. They still hold their beliefs but have been defeated politically in recent decades. Lot of reasons for that.
Would be interested in your thoughts as to what reasons.
This was a very good way to conclude your series. Thanks for these Herb. Very thoughtful.