Israel’s Relentlessly Growing Illiberalism

Israel’s future: Democracy and territory in the holy land | The Economist

A FEW days back, reflecting on Jeffrey Goldberg’s fears that Israel may at some point choose Judaism over democracy, Kevin Drum called attention to the opening of Benjamin Wallace-Wells’s recent profile of Martin Peretz, the ardently Zionist publisher of the New Republic, who has been living in Israel for several months. Mr Peretz apparently finds that the only part of Israel he still really loves is the cosmopolitan centre of Tel Aviv; he disdains Jerusalem’s religious population and the “super-patriotic” Russian Jews. Mr Drum takes the geographic shrinkage of Israel’s liberal zone to mirror the general political situation: “Israel will finish its transformation into a Jewish Saudi Arabia and even the chimera of peace will disappear. Whether Tel Aviv survives as sort of a semi-tolerated Dubai-like entertainment zone in the middle of a grim and relentless theocracy is anyone’s guess.” Matthew Yglesias thinks this overstates the significance of the “Tel Aviv bubble” phenomenon:

How much does my dad get around in the United States of America? Well, you could chart its perimeter on a map of New York City. It doesn’t include Staten Island. It doesn’t include the Bronx. It doesn’t include Queens. It doesn’t include Brooklyn. It really doesn’t include the Upper West Side, either. There’s a swathe of the city ranging from his apartment on East 79th Street down to the Village where we used to live and where his office is, and that includes the theaters and Madison Square Garden in between. I guess he also goes to Mets games.

There’s a certain parochialism that’s common to cosmopolitan intellectual types in all the major cosmopolitan cities of the world. I’m not sure there’s really anything unusual about Tel Aviv in this regard.

Good point. You might even stretch it further, in a literary rather than empirical mode, and hazard that this kind of parochialism runs particularly strong in New York Jewish culture. There are a huge number of wandering Jews in Manhattan whose wanderings are mainly confined to the area between Columbia University and Zabar’s deli. The famous New Yorker cover in which two blocks of Manhattan dwarf the rest of the country is the work of Saul Steinberg, and there’s something halachic about the boasts commonly made in the old downtown Manhattan scene, before the artistic centre decamped to Brooklyn, regarding the maximum northern latitude to which one would ever deign to travel. (For most, 14th Street was still kosher, but ultra-orthodox hipsters might consider anything above Houston treyf.)

But I also think this too quickly waves away the geographic element of Israel’s relentlessly growing illiberalism. For a great illustration of how Israeli militarism, expansionism and theocracy are caught up with geography, read Rajah Shehadeh’s “Palestinian Walks: Notes on a Vanishing Landscape“. Mr Shehadeh, a Palestinian lawyer, traces eight walks he began taking in the West Bank’s scrubby terraced hills and desert in the 1970s, and how they have been mutilated by thirty years of settlement development, highway construction, and finally the construction of Israel’s anti-terrorist barrier wall. As Palestinian farmland is confiscated, highways linking Jewish hilltop settlements slice the landscape into islands, and eventually barricades render it impossible to take the nature walks Mr Shehadeh once took from his home in Ramallah to other family members’ land, or along millenia-old trade routes into desert wadis. The political determination to create Jewish settlements necessitates segregation of Jewish and Palestinian populations; the segregation renders it impossible for Jews even to see the Palestinians they live next to, and vice versa; and that invisibility breeds oppression, fear, mutual hatred and violence.

 


WordPresser
Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

2 comments on “Israel’s Relentlessly Growing Illiberalism

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Related

Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins

Categories

Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins