Perpetuating a hoax


By Joe Millis
June 22, 2011
Share

The settlers think they have convinced people that they are vital for Israel's future. However, as Avirama Golan points out here what they have actually done is defeated realistic Zionism in the hope of perpetuating the conflict.

How do they explain the fact that Netanyahu, when he was finance minister and a downsizing reformer, gave young people like them, but living in the Jordan Valley, free tuition and rent, while in Hadera and Kiryat Gat they could only dream of such things?

The answer to this question is not political but sociocultural. It's in the settler hoax that depicts Israel as a ghetto, the territories as frontier zones drenched in Jewish sentiment, and the Arab-Israeli conflict as a bloody, eternal struggle, cut off from space and time, in which every non-Jew is out to get every Jew. This is the discourse that has vanquished realistic Zionism. Otherwise how can we explain the sweeping support for Netanyahu's hollow declarations about the Jordan Valley or some other "rock of our existence"?

It's Israel as a Jewish and democratic state within more or less the 67 lines or it's Hamas nightmare. It can't be both. And the sooner the Israeli population stops acquiescing in their own suicide by letting the settlers get away with whatever they want the better for all Jews.

COMMENTS

Advis3r

23 June, 2011 - 10:20

Rate this:

0 points

Millis let me explain it to you by quoting a paragrapgh from The Settlers by Gadi Taub:

"The inner faith-based circle of religious settlers perceived the state as but an instrument for the fulfillment of the commandment to settle the Land of Israel. . . . It was a struggle between two kinds of Zionism: on one side stood mainstream Zionism, for which self-determination -- the political independence of Jews as embodied in a democratic national state -- was the goal and foundation of Zionism; on the other side stood a religious movement, for which Eretz Israel -- the Land of Israel -- was the center of the Zionist project. According to the former -- a Zionism of state -- the settlement of the land was a means for establishing sovereignty, while for the latter -- a Zionism of land -- sovereignty was a means for settling the land."

That is the difference. It does not need you to call us toxic to see that we each have the legitimate right to see fulfillment of the Jewish dream in a different way - I do not question the legitimacy of your view which sees the stablishment of the State as the final aim equally I do not accept that you can question the legitimacy of my view that the State is the emans to ultimate aim which is the setlement of all the land we beieve was given to us and which has thousands of years of Jewish history to support it.


Joe Millis

23 June, 2011 - 11:45

Rate this:

0 points

But the "settlement of the land" beyond a well-defined demographic line causes the demise of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. Even realists in the Likud see this (Meridor, Rivlin and the Likudniks in Kadima). The illegal settlement enterprise in the occupied territories has to be curtailed and the settlers told that they have been used as pawns by successive governments who abused their idealism. And those who went there because of financial inducements have to be told the same. The question is whether there is going to be a leadership in Israel that has the political courage and will to do that.
The settlements have poisoned the debate within Israel as to what a Jewish and democratic state means. They have also contributed greatly to a disconnect between Israel and diaspora Jews.
It's great to have a history, but it's better to have a future. As Thomas Jefferson said: “I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.”


amber

23 June, 2011 - 11:51

Rate this:

0 points

millis, on another thread, you ignored my question regarding your bold assertion that Israel should give Judea and Samaria to "the Palestinians" - whoever they are.

Which "Palestinians" - Fatah or Hamas?


amber

23 June, 2011 - 11:52

Rate this:

0 points

JC, I note you moderate my comments, but allowed millis' libel that I am Jonathan Hoffman to go without censure.

Why?


Joe Millis

23 June, 2011 - 11:54

Rate this:

0 points

Unless they have something constructive or sensible to say - like Advis3r - I do not answer to every cough and fart of people who hide behind pseudonyms.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.