This is not an Extraordinary Insight

Do I really want to spend the rest of my life nitpicking arguments with fanciful or incompetents commentators of Israeli politics? A negative answer raises severe doubts about this blog project, both in English and in Hebrew. An affirmative answer seems to be damnation of an exercise in futility, one that I should not succumb to voluntarily. Let them write what they will, and I’ll believe as I wish, a voice in me says. As it is I have no delusional pretentions of changing the course of history. At most, I am seeking understanding through dialogue. But since few seem to share my presuppositions, this venture may have little prospects of success. At times I think that my blogs can only be useful (to me, if not to others) if I engage in larger, fundamental questions which overshadow Israeli politics, such as issues of identity, Judaism as nationalism and as a religion, the constructions of space, or the historical components of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On the other hand, I am compelled to acknowledge that any discourse about such a topic will be drenched with suppositions based on my analysis of recent history, founded on my values as a human being, and assuming much disputed data as established facts. It is this acknowledgements that drives me time and again to argue against the common wisdom regarding current events, in a helpless attempt to illuminate the incredulity of how some affairs are being analyzed as they are happening, and how these misrepresentations, be they in good faith or not, disserve any understanding and hence any possibility of a fruitful and insightful discussion of current events. However, in doing so, I confine my blogs to elaborate and detailed analysis of trifle debates which are soon forgotten. The spewed trail of such analyses that droops behind me as I look over three years of blogging is, in brief, fatiguing.

And here, ironically, I cannot step any further without providing such an example from current events: Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s speech in the UN has stirred quite a commotion in Israel, with repeated calls for the Prime-Minister to relieve him of his office. I read the speech (English; Hebrew), and failed to find the terrible, embarrassing phrases that would serve as cause for resignation or dismissal. This is not to say that I agreed with every sentence, or that I found it to be an inspirational speech. Lieberman is not a great orator, but in his brusque, laconic manner, he stated his views quite clearly, and they are not as remote from Israeli consensus as some would have them. Let us examine together the decisive paragraph:

Thus, the guiding principle for a final status agreement must not be land-for-peace but rather, exchange of populated territory. Let me be very clear: I am not speaking about moving populations, but rather about moving borders to better reflect demographic realities.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is not an extraordinary insight, and is far less controversial than some may seek to claim. In fact, precisely this notion – that a mismatch between borders and nationalities is a recipe for conflict – has long been accepted as a virtual truism in the academic community.

Of course, one is free to dispute or even reject Lieberman’s claims to "virtual truisms." Postmodern academia is rather apprehensive of such notions. But what do we have here? Neither a call for transfer, Lieberman makes an effort to stress this; nor an objection to relinquishing Israeli sovereignty in some territories. Furthermore, there is no objection to the principal of the Two-State Solution which the Israeli Government is committed to in various forms (the road map, the Annapolis summit, the Bar-Ilan speech and more).

Lieberman is only saying that the basis for the partition should be demographic rather than territorial, unarguably alluding to the Green Line. Now, how does this differ from left-wing spokesmen such as Yossi Beilin and Gidon Levy, who consider the Two-State Solution to be a necessity for demographic reasons? The Palestinian right to self-determination is not constituted by the Six-Day War, and not even by the Rhodes armistice agreement. The foundation for this right of Palestinians (in terms of international law, not historical or claims of national ethos) is based primarily on the UN resolution 181, which was a partition plan based on demographics.

I am not arguing practicalities here, I am stressing principle. Perhaps 181 will never be implemented, perhaps it is easier to base a solution on the Green Line. If all agree that the solution is a two-state solution, then its legal foundation is resolution 181. If Beilin and Levy and Akiva Eldar, and Eldad Yaniv and Gadi Taub and Yair Lapid agree that they do not want to live in a country with an Arab majority, why such a strong opposition to re-aligning the border, so it will not reflect the Rhodes armistice, but the reality today? Furthermore, let us keep in mind that most of the aforementioned supporters of a Two-State solution also support corrections of the border, to accommodate the inclusion of the large settlements in Israel. If we can change the Green Line in one direction, why not in another?

One of the arguments against such rhetoric is that a country cannot disown its citizens and naturalize them to another state. This is a slogan that ignores the facts on the ground. The denial of the Palestinian identity of Israeli Arabs has long been untenable. In commemorations for the 2000 riots yesterday, Palestinian flags were proudly waved all over. The old common-sense duck adage, proves truthful also here: if someone speaks a Palestinian dialect, claims he is a Palestinian, and waves the Palestinian flag, he is probably a Palestinian. And just as it is clear to most two-state proponents that those who speak Hebrew, consider themselves Israeli, and wave the Israeli flag should be on the Israeli side when the partition is implemented, so it should be clear that those who claim they are Palestinian would ideally be on the Palestinian side. "Ideally" – because there would be too many problems with implementing this. So some compromise can be made. Not all Palestinians, perhaps not all Israelis. But why the harsh opposition to Lieberman’s suggestion, as if it were racist? Nationalism and patriotism, especially when heightened, can sound like racism. But if we are going to use as a premise that a national identity is a healthy, legitimate element of the human experience, then why so much apprehension of he claim that Palestinians belong in Palestine? What demons are people afraid Lieberman is letting loose?

That was a deplorably elongated discussion of two paragraphs in an unremarkable speech. But my disappointment did not stop at the reports of the speech itself. Reporters and pundits were apparently so enthralled by their own proposal to fire Lieberman, that they forgot the most elementary component of their trade: facts. Reality. Instead of decreeing Lieberman’s removal, and then being forced to explain why the Prime-Minister is refraining from this action, I would suggest reversing the order: did the Prime-Minister fire Lieberman? Good, so now go back to the speech to see if there really was even a single quote that you can point to in which Lieberman contradicted the official government stance. Failure to do so, and then hypothesizing on the reasons Netanyahu is afraid to fire Lieberman, transmits the pundits to a fantasy-world, one where the Prime-Minister and the Foreign Minister are worlds apart, but still stick together for no apparent reason. This hypothesis has been quite stable for the most part of this government’s term, despite the lack of any evidence.

So we have a fictionalized reality, one that most Israelis subscribe to. In this reality, Haaretz journalists are pluralist liberals, and Lieberman is a terrible racist. Left-wingers only want peace, and right-wingers don’t care about human rights. If you hear a left-winger like Gidon Levy intimidating people that they will need to suffer co-existence with Arabs, that’s a good point for your next argument with your hardliner neighbor, just forget where you heard it, it won’t fit with you perception of him. Things that have been printed time and again are forgotten and ignored. Lieberman’s speech will be evoked here and there as a reminder to the perils of hardliners in the Foreign Office. Few, if any, will bother to read the speech themselves, and ask the questions I’ve raised here: what was so terrible about it? Where does it differ from the government or from Israeli consensus regarding relationships with Palestinians?

With such a never-never land rhetoric, is there any hope to understand the political reality as it truly is?