David Landau looks at Israel today and the work of Yachad
27th April, 2012
Mick Davis, the salient figure among today’s Anglo-Jewish leadership, stirred emotions more than a year ago when he warned that Israel would end up like South Africa if the occupation of the Palestinians continued indefinitely.
In some ways, writing on our 64th Independence Day, one feels like South Africa has already arrived.
Not, God forbid, in terms of racism. We are not racists. None of us. Our conflict is not a racist conflict. Our discrimination is not racial discrimination.
Nor – yet – in terms of demographic balance. The Jews of Eretz Yisrael are still ahead, though not by much and the gap is steadily closing.
The feeling of ‘South Africa now’ stems, rather, from the thickening atmosphere of Pompeian denial that pervades our public life.
The conflict itself, much less its resolution, is hugely absent from our public rhetoric. Our prime minister devotes almost all of his considerable power of rhetoric to Iran – I am not among those who condemn him for citing the Holocaust in this context – and almost none of it to peace.
At a reception at the UN on Independence Eve, Ambassador Ron Prossor’s speech was a paean to Israel’s success in so many fields of endeavour, with barely a word about the elusiveness of peace, or indeed about the desperate need for it.
Beyond the existential threat from Iran, the government’s message, domestic and foreign, is suffused with the smugness of faux normalcy and vaunted democracy, with no reference to the selectivity of that democracy. It is a celebration of prosperity, of technological genius, of entrepreneurial resourcefulness. Of all the many good things in Israeli life – and there are indeed many – with a determined downplaying of the poverty and social gaps and a blithe indifference to the ongoing occupation and to what devastation it is doing to Israel’s ethos, its morality, its society, and its name among the nations.
Similar themes – ‘bastion of the West’, ‘island of democracy’, prosperous society, strong economy, quality of life – were prevalent in the public diplomacy of the South African government in the last years of apartheid. They reflected, and concealed, blindness. They helped white South Africans persist in their unrealism and deny reality.
It is in this dangerous milieu – dangerous because the denial is so very poignantly human – that Yachad has powerfully made its mark. This young but mature movement denies denial. It denies the right of Jews, in the Diaspora as much as in Israel, to shut their eyes to the reality closing in on the Jewish state. It insists on their responsibility, their duty, to help Israel take the course that will preserve its democratic character and ultimately its sovereignty.
The work is not easy. Hannah Weisfeld, at the helm of the movement, demonstrates courage, wisdom and tact every day, with ever-increasing recognition and support.
Yachad has already made a deep difference. And as more and more Anglo-Jews, especially young Jews, hear and see its message, its influence will grow. That is a beacon of hope on a troubled horizon.
Harvey, I think you are being politically naive, maybe deliberately so. Politicians have to say things for domestic consumption in order to protect their position but in Abbas’ case I think that what he would agree to in final negotiations and – more importantly – be able to sell to his constituents would be different.
Why? Because if he is able to deliver independent statehood to his people, the chances of them being prepared to make difficult compromises in order to achieve that are much greater then they would be at present.
Tell the Palestinian people now that they will never return to their former homes and they will understandably say why should we not continue to pursue that goal. After all, the current Israeli government is not even prepared to give us statehood based on the 49 armistice line(maybe with negotiated land swaps.)
If he was, however, able to give them statehood in return for them giving up the R-of-R, it will be far easier for him to deliver his message and it stands far more chance of being accepted.
Politics is a cynical game and one has to read not just the lines but between the lines. In this conflict those who are less supportive of a 2-state settlement obviously find it easier to bolster their position if they decline to do this.
You are so dangerously wrong in your appraisal .
Make no mistake ,no matter how much you are prepared to hand back to the Palestinians and no matter how far you are prepared to go in the interests of an irrevocable peace accord , it will never be enough . It is not enough now for Hamas who openly declare that any treaty is null and void or at best a very short term solution before a continuation of war .
They have made it clear that all of Palestine ie pre 67 Israel is declared an Islamic Waqf . There will be no Jews except those few perhaps pre 48 as a concession . Dhimmi Jews .
Abbas has made it clear , that any settlement does not negate the RoR for Palestinian refugees to their former homes . They will not be permitted Palestinian citizenship.
In your desperate head long drive to commit effective national suicide , you overlook the small point that there was no so called occupation and no settlements prior to 67 .
Why then , did the Palestinians fail to declare their much vaunted quest for statehood between 48 and 67 . A rhetorical question . Two states was never the goal . Then as now , the objective is the taking back of everything .
It’s natural for rational , intelligent liberal individuals to believe those qualities are reciprocated by their adversaries . They are not . Your every concession is a sign of weakness and a reaffiation of the holy justice of their cause . Yours is the mentality of the Weimar Jews , who believed their culture and perceived superiority over the lesser Polish Jews , the unter Menchen separated themselves from the fate that was to come .
You are no different . Instead of concessions , ask the Palestinians what they are prepared to concede in the interests of lasting peace . None will be forthcoming .
You are playing with Israels security .
Netanyahu has said that Israel’s international image would improve if it improved its hasbara and focused on promoting Israel’s many achievements since its inception. He is wrong. Israel is judged on its policies. Hasbara can do nothing to change these.
Thank you David for your thought provoking piece. You are certainly right about Mick Davis.It is a pity that there are not more Anglo Jews like him who while loyal to Israel do not allow that loyalty to blind them to reality.
A thought – provoking, challenging debut blog. I may not agree with all his analysis (that’s NEVER going to happen, is it?!) but I feel that this is a brave and important contribution to an incresingly urgent debate.
Time is running out.