I like the essay, though I don't know enough about Israel's internal politics to comment on contemporary details.
I think the core conflict between a liberal state respecting minority rights vs an illiberal majoritarian state was present at the beginning, reflecting a heated debate among Zionists in the 1930s and before. The swing away f…
I like the essay, though I don't know enough about Israel's internal politics to comment on contemporary details.
I think the core conflict between a liberal state respecting minority rights vs an illiberal majoritarian state was present at the beginning, reflecting a heated debate among Zionists in the 1930s and before. The swing away from a liberal perspective was energized by massive immigration from Russia (beginning in the 1970s) and from other countries that lacked a historical tradition of liberal democracy. I first visited Israel in 1974, and was already concerned then by a sense of nascent apartheid thinking. Israel today seem in danger of making decisions that will irrevocably damage its future. I am particularly appalled by what to me seems an obscene political alliance that has been forged with extreme US Christian fundamentalists.
I have to disagree with your first point. Zionists in the 1930s were more or less agreed that the putative Jewish state would be a democracy with equality for non-Jews. In fact the most outspoken supporter of a *more* liberal Jewish state was Vladimir Jabotinsky, the father of what became the Israeli right. It's true that 'illiberal' ideas towards the Arabs were commonplace in Zionism of the time, but the context was an existential national conflict against those same Arabs. We know from records of meetings from the time that, even while fighting was ongoing between Jews and Arabs in pre-state-Palestine, David Ben-Gurion was drawing up plans for a state which he assumed would include a significant Arab minority, to be afforded the same government services as the Jewish majority.
By contrast, I agree with your last point. Unfortunately, many American Evangelicals who claim to 'love' Israel, tend not to care one iota about whether it remains a democracy or not.
My knowledge of pre-1948 Zionism is rudimentary; I'm glad to accept your better-informed view. I however believe the existential nature of the national conflict before 1948 is somewhat distorted. The environment of the Middle East in 1900 was hardly a model of tolerance and modern liberal democracy. It took a long time before European Zionists decided that the ancient land of Israel was THE place for their new homeland.
I like the essay, though I don't know enough about Israel's internal politics to comment on contemporary details.
I think the core conflict between a liberal state respecting minority rights vs an illiberal majoritarian state was present at the beginning, reflecting a heated debate among Zionists in the 1930s and before. The swing away from a liberal perspective was energized by massive immigration from Russia (beginning in the 1970s) and from other countries that lacked a historical tradition of liberal democracy. I first visited Israel in 1974, and was already concerned then by a sense of nascent apartheid thinking. Israel today seem in danger of making decisions that will irrevocably damage its future. I am particularly appalled by what to me seems an obscene political alliance that has been forged with extreme US Christian fundamentalists.
Hi Richard,
I have to disagree with your first point. Zionists in the 1930s were more or less agreed that the putative Jewish state would be a democracy with equality for non-Jews. In fact the most outspoken supporter of a *more* liberal Jewish state was Vladimir Jabotinsky, the father of what became the Israeli right. It's true that 'illiberal' ideas towards the Arabs were commonplace in Zionism of the time, but the context was an existential national conflict against those same Arabs. We know from records of meetings from the time that, even while fighting was ongoing between Jews and Arabs in pre-state-Palestine, David Ben-Gurion was drawing up plans for a state which he assumed would include a significant Arab minority, to be afforded the same government services as the Jewish majority.
By contrast, I agree with your last point. Unfortunately, many American Evangelicals who claim to 'love' Israel, tend not to care one iota about whether it remains a democracy or not.
My knowledge of pre-1948 Zionism is rudimentary; I'm glad to accept your better-informed view. I however believe the existential nature of the national conflict before 1948 is somewhat distorted. The environment of the Middle East in 1900 was hardly a model of tolerance and modern liberal democracy. It took a long time before European Zionists decided that the ancient land of Israel was THE place for their new homeland.