Following Israeli FM Avigdor Lieberman's address at
the UN last week, Aluf Benn wrote (1) in Haaretz:
"During the past few weeks, Netanyahu invested a great
deal of effort in trying to convince the leaders of
the world that he is serious about peace with the
Palestinians. He asked them to ignore the resumption
of settlement construction, and convinced Palestinian
Authority President Mahmoud Abbas not to quit the
negotiations.
Now comes Lieberman, Israel's most senior diplomat,
and tells all those leaders that… Netanyahu is faking.
Even worse: the foreign minister is implying that
Netanyahu's demand that the Palestinians recognize
Israel as a Jewish state is merely cover for the
expulsion of Arab citizens."
Netanyahu, Barak and many other Israelis are often
‘outraged' by FM Lieberman. I guess that Israelis
grasp that their senior diplomat exposes the Israeli
ploy: when Israelis talk peace -- what they really
mean is war with no end. When Israeli government
spokesmen insist that Lieberman "misrepresents Israeli
Government's policies" -- what they really mean is
that he fails to repeat the Israeli official lies. As
it stands, Lieberman's UN speech few days ago, conveys
not only Israeli cabinet vision, it is also a
devastating glimpse into the Israeli mindset,
worldview and spirit. Lieberman is a transparent image
of the Israeli desire for racial and cultural
homogeneity. Many Israelis claim to detest him and his
ideas: but my guess is that they grasp that Lieberman
is actually their true mirror. Otto Weininger wrote in
"Sex & Character" that people hate in others that
which they detest in themselves. Many Israelis
ostensibly oppose Lieberman because he reminds them of
the bigot whom they can't stand in themselves. Some
people do not like to look in the mirror; others are
devastated when the mirror gazes back at them with
pity.
"We, the Israelis are united", Lieberman told the UN
assembly (2) , "now we have a stable coalition, stable
government and we have the support of a majority of
Israel's citizens." Lieberman is obviously correct:
the Israelis are now more united than ever. In fact,
there is no political opposition in Israel except from
the Arab parties. Yet, "we are not ready to compromise
our national security or the vital interests of the
State of Israel" Lieberman continued.
This says it all : unlike the rest of humanity who
regard the concept of peace as a means towards
reconciliation and harmony, for Lieberman -- and in
fact for every Israeli politician I can think of --
the word ‘peace' only translates as ‘security for the
Jews'
Lieberman is no fool. Unlike the Israeli so called
‘peace camp' who rally for Israeli withdrawal to
pre-1967 lines, the Israeli Foreign minister knows
that occupation alone is not the root of the problem.
He also understands that a further Israeli withdrawal
won't significantly change anything. Rather, Lieberman
fully understands that the right of return is actually
at the heart of the Palestinian cause, yet he is not
willing to discuss it. Instead, Lieberman insists that
"recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the
Jewish people" is of the essence, because he basically
wants Israel to be a ‘Jews only' club. And it is
crucial to admit here, that this point is also totally
vital for Israelis and Zionist Jews around the world
too.
But here, there is a shocking twist: whilst we
understand that Zionists insist on operating within a
‘Jews only' club -- the Jewish anti Zionists are
apparently not much different. For some reason, the
Jewish opponents of Israel also insist on operating in
what seem to be just more Judeo-centric tribal
dissident political cells. It is pretty obvious that
the ‘Jewish boat to Gaza' was a Jews only vessel. I
can only assume that ‘Jews for Peace', ‘Jews for
Palestine', and ‘Jews against Zionism' are then, all
simply different exercises in a Jewish national and
tribal politics that is also racially orientated, or,
at the very least ethno centric. For some reason
‘Political Jews' do not like to mix with others,
whether it is the Likud party, ‘Yisrael Beiteinu or
‘Jews for Peace in Palestine'.
Lieberman was actually totally honest in the UN when
he admitted: "we should focus on coming up with a
long-term intermediate agreement, something that could
take a few decades." It is completely obvious that the
Israelis are not ready for peace. It may, indeed, take
decades before they encompass the notion of harmony
and reconciliation. One may also wonder at this stage,
if the Jewish left is any different? How many years
will it take before ‘Jews for Peace' understand that
solidarity with Palestine is a universal humanitarian
cause? Is not 200 hundred years of Jewish
assimilation* enough time for Jews to join the battle
for humanism as ordinary participants? I myself would
love to believe that even a day is more than enough.
Clearly the facts suggests otherwise.
Lieberman admits that "the guiding principle for a
final status agreement must not be land-for-peace but
rather, exchange of populated territory". This idea
obviously appeals to most Israelis -- because it
emphasizes and expresses the true meaning of a Jewish
affinity towards segregation.
Embarrassingly enough, this affinity toward isolation
is also inherent within the Jewish left. On the one
hand, we have the Global BDS Movement (Boycott,
Divestment and Sanction for Palestine) (3), a movement
driven by a universal and ethical call to boycott
Israeli Goods -- yet on the other hand we have also
the J-BIG (Jews For Boycotting Israeli Good) (4) who
rally for the exact same cause -- but would accept
Jews only. For some reason, even the ‘good Jews' (
those who oppose Israel and Zionism ) refuse to share
political space with the Goyim. One may also wonder at
this stage, how can anyone ‘boycott as a Jew'? What is
implied by this ethno centric political call? Do they
really refuse to buy Caterpillar boots or Motorola
phones -- ‘as Jews'? I was a Jew for the first four
decades of my life, and I somehow, never managed to do
a single thing solely and exclusively ‘as a Jew'.
Along the years I have challenged a few secular Jewish
anti Zionists : I ask them why do they insist on
operating politically as Jews -- especially
considering the fact that they claim to be secular, or
even atheist? What do they actually mean then, when
they say, ‘as a Jew I support X or oppose Y'. I have
never yet heard an answer that was decent enough to
report.
I am afraid that Lieberman is brave enough to provide
an answer : He does speak ‘as a Jew,' and it seems he
is at least consistent and coherent, though somewhat
deluded. Expressing it as ‘historical truth', he
speaks of "almost 4000 years during which the Jewish
People were born in the Land of Israel, while
developing the corpus of ethical and intellectual
treasures that have been instrumental in giving rise
to Western Civilization." Lieberman goes on to claim
that "2000 years of forced exile, and interim conquest
by Byzantines, Arabs, Mamelukes, Ottomans and others,
cannot, and never will, impair the unbreakable bonds
of the Jewish People to its homeland. Israel is not
only where we are. It is who we are."
Evidently, Lieberman regards the Bible as a historical
text. He believes in a Jewish continuum. He seems to
consider that the Old Testament's ‘eye for an eye' is
the spiritual foundation of Western Civilization. He
is obviously wrong : he is probably not familiar
enough with Athens. Lieberman also fails to realize
that Jesus' preaching for universal brotherhood was
actually an attempt to counter, revise and amend
Hebraic tribalism.
Yet, Lieberman is at least crystal clear in his
vision. He believes in an ‘eternal bond' between
‘spirit' and geography: Israel is not ‘just where we
are' -- it is also ‘who we are'. This statement is
actually crucial for an understanding of what is
assumed by Zionists to be a ‘magical' power inherent
within their world view.
However, Lieberman is clearly misinformed -- a brief
reading of Shlomo Sand's The Invention of the Jewish
People would help him trace his Khazarian ancestors.
And yet, Lieberman is at least articulate . His
identity assumes meaning, because it cements Jewish
contemporary existence with Talmudic supremacy. It
sets out to frame the ‘here and now' within an
historical context. It bonds the current robbery of
Palestine with a very similar Biblical tale of
plunder. I guess that these facts alone explain why
Lieberman is a major political player in the Jewish
state. It also explains why the Israeli government
followed and approved his demand for a ‘Loyalty oath'
to the Jewish state.
If we want to understand Jewish political identity; If
we want to understand the depth of Israeli belief in
racial supremacy (or alternatively why nine brave Jews
insist on breaking the siege on Gaza in a ‘Jews only'
yacht), Lieberman is a key figure. It is actually
Lieberman the right wing hawk who helps us to
understand the insular ‘Jews for Palestine', J-BIG and
J- Street.
Lieberman is becoming more and more popular amongst
Jews and Israelis. He is a key member in the Israeli
coalition. Jewish anti Zionism, on the other hand, is
far from being popular amongst the Jewish masses. If
we talk in terms of numbers, it is not even marginal.
True, it is loud, occasionally verging on noisy, but
it is far from being clear about what it is trying to
achieve. It is inconsistent and still apparently
founded on a misleading myth of ‘Jewish universal and
ethical tradition'. The truth of the matter though, is
devastating: There is no coherent Jewish secular value
system; instead, there are just different modes of
Jewish political exceptionalisms.
For some peculiar reason, the Jewish left refuses to
intermingle within the rest of the solidarity
movement. Instead of grasping, once and for all, the
true dynamic meaning of universalism, pluralism and
ethics, it is there to exchange symbolism. ‘We want to
show', they seem to be saying, ‘that there are some
good Jews around'.
I guess however, that Jewish leftists are too
intellectually lame to grasp that such a statement is
actually the ultimate form of anti Jewish racism :
because it says to the world that ‘the rest of the
Jews' are indeed, little more than reactionary
Zionists.
It refers to ‘the rest of the Jews' then, as a non
ethical collective.
I do realize that many of us detest Lieberman, but the
truth must be said -- the Israeli Foreign Minister is
an eloquent glimpse into contemporary Jewish politics
and identity politics.
* On September 29, 1791, France became the first
country in the world to emancipate its Jewish
population. By 1796, Britain, and the Netherlands had
granted the Jews equal rights with gentiles. Napoleon
also freed the Jews in areas he conquered. By the
beginning of the 20th century Jews were emancipated
throughout Europe. And yet, for some reason, Jewish
left has failed to assimilate. It operates as an
exclusive political cell.
Add Comments