A new Zionist left

[shira]

Was there ever a left wing in Israel? Yes, between 1967 and 2000 there was a dovish and courageous Zionist left. It took shape on the seventh day of the Six-Day War, when a small but farsighted group quickly grasped the moral significance of what had been conquered. At a time when the public was swept away by triumphal euphoria, that small avant-garde saw clearly that there was calamity bound up with the victory.

Although it was castigated, the Zionist left was not deterred. It foresaw the Yom Kippur War, warned against the repercussions of the settlements and tried to block the center-right's march of folly. Gradually, reality proved that it was right, and the narrow circle expanded. In 1992 the party of the Zionist left, Meretz, won 12 seats and in 1993, prime minister Yitzhak Rabin adopted its stance in Oslo. From an inspiring but inconsequential group of bohemians, the Zionist left fostered a mainstream movement that shaped the national agenda.

In the 1990s, problems arose. Just when the left's program was broadly accepted it turned out there was a wide gap between its beliefs and reality. Against expectations, Yasser Arafat wasn't Nelson Mandela. Against hopes, the Palestinian national movement's conduct was not patterned on the deeds of Mahatma Gandhi. However, the Zionist left stood firm and did not allow the facts to get in its way. With admirable resolve, it refused to distinguish between its justified view of the occupation and its mistaken view of the prospects for peace. It continued to presume - and to promise - that because occupation was doomed, peace was inevitable.

The truth struck home in the summer of 2000. Ehud Barak proposed the establishment of a Palestinian state and the partition of Jerusalem, but the Palestinians rejected the offer out of hand. It struck again in December 2000, when Bill Clinton made the Palestinians a peace offer they couldn't refuse but they did, and again in January 2001 at Taba, when Yossi Beilin made Israel's ultimate offer, and the Palestinians said no once more. The fourth time that the truth struck home was in September 2008, when Ehud Olmert offered the Palestinians everything, and they simply disappeared. Over eight years, four attempts to end the occupation peacefully failed. Four decisive attempts that tested the left's concept of reality simply proved them wrong.

more...
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1153836.html

[ProgressiveMuslim]

1. Boo hoo!

Wah wah wah... those bad Palestinians destroyed the progressives in Israel by rejecting a bad offer?

Wow.

[shira]

2. it would be nice if there were a Palestinian left

And if the offer was so bad, why did Arafat regret rejecting it after the fact?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jun/22/israel

The offer by Olmert in 2008 was significantly better than what Arafat regretted rejecting. Why make excuses for Abbas rejecting an even better offer?

[mrdmk]

3. That is about it ProgressiveMuslim

What a bunch of tripe and making excuses for almost 50 years of expansion policy.

There was an assassination of Yitzhak Rabin during a critical stage of the Oslo accords that ended the Labor Party's push for peace in 1995.

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Rabin

<snip>

Yitzhak Rabin (Hebrew: יִצְחָק רַבִּין ‎) (1 March 1922 – 4 November 1995) was an Israeli politician and general. He was the fifth Prime Minister of Israel, serving two terms in office, 1974–1977 and 1992 until his assassination in 1995. In 1994, Rabin won the Nobel Peace Prize together with Shimon Peres and Yasser Arafat. He was assassinated by right-wing Israeli radical Yigal Amir, who was opposed to Rabin's signing of the Oslo Accords. Rabin was the first native-born prime minister of Israel, the only prime minister to be assassinated and the second to die in office after Levi Eshkol.

<end of snip>

The Oslo Accords came so close in achiveing peace, yet the right-wing claimed Rabin was a traitor and put an end to the Oslo Accords.

The Oslo Accords explained in length

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords

Somehow the Haaretz article forgot this little piece of history.

Edit: to address the proper person

[shira]

4. Barak and Olmert's offers in 2000 and 2008 were significantly more than what Rabin was offering

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x291767#291811

Just some info. for those who believe Israel hasn't been a serious partner for peace since Rabin.

[mrdmk]

5. Excuse me, as for Israel being a serious partner in peace, I do not have time for that discussion

As for the article you posted, it is missing some important history, deal with that...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. What Israel desperately needs is an anti-zionist left.

There's a far better article than this one, by Gideon Levy, that ProgressiveMuslim has recently put up on DU.

What Israel desperately needs is a left-wing for whom delegitimisation is not a dirty word, who have the courage to admit that the founding of their state was a crime against humanity, that it is by its nature colonial, and that acknowledging its permanence will be a massive and painful concession for the Palestinians and the other Arabs, not something that can be taken for granted, and that Israel should be asking for legitimacy apologetically rather than demanding it like a wronged innocent.

[Jim Sagle]

7. We could call it "The David Duke Left" after its inspirational leader.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[LeftishBrit]

9. Anti-Zionists are not all like David Duke in their attitudes

Some are. The rest, whether secular anti-nationalists like Donald, certain ultra-Orthodox Jews, or some Arab nationalists, are just mistaken and unrealistic on this issue, IMO.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. Oh, I'm totally realistic, sadly.

I see no chance whatsoever of anything I advocate ever happening.

On the other hand, there's no chance of what even the much less ambitious pro-peace campaigners advocate happening either. The unrealistic ones are the people who talk about one-state solutions vs two-state solutions and building bridges vs BDS and violent vs non-violent resistance as though those are things that actually have a chance of working.

I acknowledge that there is no chance of peace coming to the Middle East, and so I talk about "what I think should happen, ideally" rather than "here is a path that might lead to peace, in the real world" - the latter attitude is the genuinely unrealistic one, sadly.

[Jim Sagle]

12. Just a little hyperbole to lighten the mood.

;)

[LeftishBrit]

8. Do you seriously think that will ever happen?

The UK, the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc. are not about to state that the founding of their states was a crime against humanity (actually in all of the above cases, it was); or that it is a massive concession of the rest of the world to allow them to exist. Neither will Israel.

The other countries mentioned have had significant reversals of policy (giving up the British Empire, ending Jim Crow, etc.) and have apologized for previous outrages -but not for their very existence.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. Not a chance.

The significant difference between Israel and all the other countries you list is that in some cases the victims and perpetrators of the crime you mention, and in a great many cases their children and grandchildren, are still alive.

Legitimacy comes from continuity of legitimage possession. Israel has enough of that to justify its continued existance, but little enough that it is more impingent upon it that upon other countries to apologise for its crimes.

As you imply, though, there is no chance whatsoever of that happening. As you say, all the other countries above at least acknowledge that they have to some extent behaved badly; in Israel Nakba denial is near universal.

[FarrenH]

13. ^ that

Arafat may not have been Mandela, but the Israeli left that fails to acknowledge the colonial nature of Israel's foundation doesn't match up to the White, Afrikaans boys who, under Apartheid, rejected a cultural mythology that Afrikaners' historical victimhood (of the the Brits) and concerns about cultural survival somehow trumped black aspirations, and "went native", fully embracing indigenous grievances and culture and making no excuses about it.