There is a familiar refrain that has been coming out of Israel for some time, and it was on display during Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit to the U.S. last week. The refrain is that Israel must maintain the status quo – sometimes referred to in shorthand as “conflict management” – despite its desire to have peace because outside events beyond its control are hemming it in. The Palestinian refusal to negotiate without preconditions, the risk of the West Bank turning into a terrorist enclave akin to Gaza, threats to regional stability from a variety of state and non-state actors, European sympathy for the Palestinians, and the resurgence of jihadi terrorism all combine for an antediluvian environment in which Israel cannot afford to take any risks lest the flood waters come rushing in. It is a picture that portrays Israel as an ark in a stormy sea, an island of stability whose actions are constrained because of its environment.
In many ways, this picture is an accurate one. All of the above factors exist to one degree or another, and they all impact Israel’s security and economy. This notion that to act in the face of such a threat matrix would be to assume unmanageable risks was nicely explicated by Natan Sachs in Foreign Affairs recently, where he described Netanyahu’s strategy as anti-solutionism emanating from a belief that there are no current fixes for Israel’s myriad challenges. The Zionist project becomes an inward looking one that tries to passively fend off threats, rather than an outward looking one that attempts to actively solve problems. I have many quarrels with Netanyahu’s leadership of Israel, but perhaps the largest one is that I find this general philosophy to be fundamentally at odds with the Zionist ideal. The strategy of sitting back and waiting for the universe to present a more propitious moment would be unrecognizable to Israel’s founders and iconic leaders, and it reveals a Zionism of excuses rather than actions.
Like many American Jews of my generation, I was raised on a diet of stories about the Panglossian wonder of Israel. The narrative went from Israeli pioneers braving malaria and draining the swamps of Palestine, to building the institutions of a future state despite hostility from the British and the Arabs, to the unimaginable diplomatic accomplishment of having the two opposing Cold War superpowers both vote in favor of partition, to the successive military miracles of beating back the invading armies of 1948 and then achieving an unthinkable victory in a mere six days in June 1967, to the modern successes of Israel in a variety of economic and technological spheres. This was a wholly sanitized narrative that avoided many contradictions and unpleasant truths, but the running thread throughout was that Zionism meant taking action and working to better your circumstances, no matter how insurmountable the challenges may appear. Zionism did not wait for the world it inhabited to change; it changed the world it inhabited.
While the above story is an incomplete one, the point about Zionism was correct. The yishuv in Mandatory Palestine did in fact face huge challenges and nearly impossible odds, and those odds did not terribly improve with the establishment of Israel. Zionism was the personification of a can-do attitude and creating your own positive reality, and it is no accident that Israel was widely admired as a plucky underdog. The Zionist project was something to be admired because it represented the ultimate victory of hard work and persistence, and above all it was a philosophy of doing.
What Netanyahu now peddles is the polar opposite. After listening to Netanyahu last week in the U.S. and spending this week in Israel meeting with various Israeli officials and politicians, I can’t help but sink under the weight of the ingrained pessimism and various pretexts for inaction. To listen to the Israeli government is to hear about an Israel at the mercy of its military and diplomatic adversaries, an Israel that cannot act because the barely functioning Palestinian government is outmaneuvering it, an Israel that has a litany of excuses for why it is dependent on the good will of others in order to improve its own situation. If only Mahmoud Abbas would drop his preconditions for negotiating, if only Palestinians would stop incitement, if only the Palestinian Authority would acknowledge that Israel is a Jewish state…if, if, if. I am not suggesting that these are not legitimate complaints, only that to allow them to bog you down and be held hostage by their very existence conveys a complete lack of imagination and confidence. It is a betrayal of Zionist ideals, pure and simple, and one that makes Israel look weak rather than strong.
It is accepted conventional wisdom that the solutions to the various elements of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are known to everyone, and it is just a matter of getting both sides to say yes. I think a better way of formulating this is that the solutions are simple, but they are not easy. They will involve painful concessions and even more painful actions, and neither side is going to come out of this with everything they want. The difference between the Zionism of the 20th century and Netanyahu’s 21st century Zionism is that the former understood that hardship is not the same thing as impossibility, whereas the latter conflates the two at the drop of a hat. I know which version of Zionism I favor.
This post is completely on target. But then it stops. No thoughts on viable strategies. So much of what I am reading is like this except maybe for Caroline Glick. Israel looking more & more like a punching bag. This is not the Zionism I remember either.
I agree, but I would use stronger language: the doctrine of “manage the conflict” in perpetuity is actually a form of a hitherto undefined rightist non-Zionism: not only is the Jewish state dependent on circumstances, but also on the choices of another nation, the Palestinian one.
Netanyahu’s management strategy has never changed. He has always been a nay sayer (including inciting the jewish crowds against Rabin when he was still alive–and some including Alpher indirectly blame Bibi for creating an environment where it was OK to assassinate Rabin).
Bibi has always hated and not trusted his Arab neighbors and would much rather stay status quo rather than taking a risk for peace (and failing) or being blamed for giving up territory. He is the opposite of visionary and is hated through the world. His predecessor Arik Sharon was hated as well, but feared. Does anyone fear Bibi? Not even Hamas fears Bibi, even though their actions have led to 3 and probably a fourth war.
Not that Bibi is completely wrong–Syria is a mess, the Palestinians can’t trust one another, and Iran is a complete wild card…but he has done nothing to shape a society except to let Settlements grow, and to let the world around him go unshaped. It is a shame but too predictable. And yet, he keeps getting elected
The “settlements” haven’t grown in decades. Last I saw they were approx 1.3% of The WB.
What “painful solutions”? The Palestinians have rejected very, very painful solutions and it’s very unlikely they would settle for anything less than surrender.
Netanyahu reminds me of my sister – “Someday everyone will realize I was the successful one”. If he continues his present trajectory,Israel will enlarge her real time territories and reduce the presence of what she views as enemies both within and on her borders in order to form a protective first defense barrier.
Netanyahu is not trying to maintain the status quo. He is actually taking actions that he feels will change Israel’s situation on the ground. He is extremely cautious about taking risks that might change Israel’s apparent position on the board,but he takes every opportunity to move the whole table the board rests on. He invests where his vision lies – the settlements and acquiring territory. At every opportunity that he can use,he pushes the narrative that Israel should occupy greater land to ensure security – Lebanon/ the Golan Heights,even hinting that Israel may need to reoccupy Gaza.
Whether his vision of Israel/Zionism has changed the character of Israel/zionism is different than whether he is afraid to take action.He is not the creative thinker of Israel’s founders,but he is dogged within his narrow narrative. He knows where he wants to take Israel and I think he just may get there.
“Like many American Jews of my generation, I was raised on a diet of stories about the Panglossian wonder of Israel.”
Are you 80 years old? Or were you raised Orthodox? I don’t believe this for a second. It’s impossible to have been conscious post -1982 without hearing and responding to anti-Israel messages.