The Myth of the Israeli Left

The Separation Wall and The Myth of the Israeli Left-Gilad Atzmon

10.7.04

Since the earliest days of Zionism, the question of polarity between
right-wing and left-wing Zionism has been more than a little confusing.
Where Zionism is concerned, it is difficult to determine who is the dove and
who is the hawk. It was Ben Gurion, the legendary labour leader who led the
ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population of Palestine in 1948. It was
Menachem Begin, the legendary hawk who signed the peace deal with Egypt in
1977. It was Rabin, the labour minister of defence, who ordered the Israeli
platoons to break the arms and legs of Palestinians (first intifada). And
now, it appears, it is the Israeli 'Peace Now' movement who support Sharon's
unilateral withdrawal. Many of the elder doves support the separation wall,
unsurprising considering the fact that it was Haim Ramon, a labour minister
who was the first to come up with the idea of such a wall. At the end of the
day, Jewish peaceniks love the two state solution. More than simply loving
peace, they actually want to live in peace.


We should ask ourselves whether there is any substantial difference
between Israeli left and right. Many Middle Eastern commentators raised this
question many years ago. As a matter of fact, Israeli Left / Right polarity
is no more than a virtual concept. In his book, 'The Iron Wall', Avi Shlem
argues that, in practice, the Israeli 'Left' leadership adopted hard line
right wing philosophy since the 1930s. A paper published few days ago by
Israeli political scientist Neve Gordon, explains the current emerging
alliance between Peace Now and Sharon. Here is what he says: "In terms of
militarist ideology, certain elements within Peace Now hold views that are
in many ways similar to Sharon's." According to Gordon, Peace Now are in
fact endorsing a Zionistic nationalistic interpretation that is utterly
"non-universalistic". Within this very discussion, it is crucial to mention
that even Uri Avnery and Gush Shalom, the most vocal humanist voices of the
Israeli Jewish population, support the two state solution. In fact they
argue that the two peoples should be separated. As it appears, the only real
debate within the Israeli left is how high the separation wall be. If these
are the Israeli doves, who needs Jewish warmongers?


So is there any difference between right and left in Israel? I would argue
that if there is any difference, it is more of a cultural one. It is a form
of speech and dress-code rather than a substantial philosophical or
ideological dispute. Although the ideological differences between the two
camps are barely marginal, it is crucial to show that in fact it is the
Israeli Left's practice that is far more harmful for the Palestinian
interests. While Israel's Left pushes towards the transformation of
Palestine into a list of Bantustan-like isolated patches (Bark at Camp
David), it is the right wing expansionist views that lead both Israelis
and Palestinians to acknowledge the possibility of a one state reality.


It appears that, within the internal Israeli Left's discourse, Jewish
Peaceniks identify with secularity, rationality and sanity. In their eyes,
these elements are the voice of reason. They would argue that right wing
Zionism is messianic. They would equate it with irrationality and insanity.
In response, right wing Zionists would argue that, considering the very real
threat to the existence of the Israeli state, the Left's behaviour appears
to be irrational, even suicidal.


Let me state loud and clear, within the general parameters of Zionist
discussion, the right wing argument is quite rational. Very much like the
Palestinians, the right wing have noticed that Left Zionists have no
intention of addressing the Palestinian cause. The Israeli Left camp never
acknowledged the 1948 mass expulsion of the Palestinian population. The
Israeli Left denies the Palestinian right of return and avoids the issue of
Jerusalem. In practice, the Israeli Left supports peace with the
Palestinians as long as the latter are left out in the desert. Moreover, if
we look into Left Zionist philosophy, we find out in fact that it is no less
messianic or irrational than its
counterpart. Even if we accept the bizarre assumption that Jews are a nation
and are entitled to piece of land, it doesn't necessarily imply that this
land should be in Palestine (Zion). As a matter of fact, it was Left
Zionism that invented the notion of the colonialisation of Zion. It was Left
Zionism which transformed the Bible from being a spiritual text into a legal
document (a land registry). If this isn't messianic, then the notion of
messianism should be redefined. Since it is Left Zionism that invented the
notion of 'redemption of the land', the American settlers who flood the
West Bank in the name of their Jewish God are, in practice, the real
followers of the Left Zionist school.


So where exactly is the political dispute? Apparently, Left Israelis amended
their world view in the last decade. They would still argue that the land
of Zion should be redeemed but they'd agree to be far more flexible when
referring to the definition of Israeli territory. While the right wing would
talk enthusiastically about the redemption of the whole of greater Israel,
left wing Zionists adopted a more moderate take on the subject. For the
Peacenik, Israel is where he lives, i.e. within the 1967 borders. The
Peacenik would roll his eyes arguing that there is indeed room for the two
peoples on this land (as long as he stays in Tel Aviv and the Palestinian
stays in Gaza). He would propose to erect a separation wall, and shred the
Holy Land into Bantustans. Of course, he would turn a blind eye to the
blatant fact that the vast majority of pre 1967 Israel is in fact
confiscated Palestinian lands. Israeli doves refuse to admit that the vast
majority of the Palestinian people are in fact dispossessed refugees. They
live in complete denial of their present and past. They are happy with the
concept of peace as long as they determine its terms and conditions. Funny
enough, Sharon and his unilateral withdraw, following that very philosophy.



While trying to analyse Sharon's acts we should remember that the big man
himself grew up in the Israeli Left. Much like his mentors, Sharon adopted
an offensive military doctrine. He believes in the Israeli power of
deterrence. He believes in a Jewish democratic state rather than a state of
its citizens, He believes that it is Israel that should dictate the fate
of the region. This is the story behind his unilateral withdraw. This is the
story behind his separation wall. This is very much the essence of Left
Zionism.


This leads us to the absurd realisation of the Israeli political
environment. While the Israeli Left endorses the most radical
nationalistic and supremacist interpretation of Zionism, it is actually the
Jewish right wing expansionist philosophy that pushes towards a one state
solution. In fact it is the settlers from Brooklyn who are going
to help the Palestinians to establish a multi cultural society throughout
the whole of Palestine. It is the American Jewish zealots who make this wet
dream into reality. This is where the settlers become so vital for the
chance of the Palestinian future.

As it appears, the one state solution is the only viable option from now on.