1

Israeli Conservatism - Jewish Privilege March 2001. Published in: Between The Lines. To write an updated article about Israeli politics is a doomed effort. Israeli politics change so swiftly, that from delivery to appearance an article might become an anachronistic assessment or commentary. However, despite this celebrated dynamism, fast changes and constant surprises, at their root, Israeli politics are extremely conservative. And this is true across the board: from right to left, from religious to secular from Mizrachi to Ashkenazi, and even between Jewish and Arab parties. Israeli conservatism means fanatically guarding traditional separation lines between Jews and Arabs; dissociating external from internal issues; disjoining national security from welfare issues, patriarchy and militarism from gender inequality, civil society and equity. In short, conservatism means ideologically keeping apart society from politics and economy. Israeli political conservatism and its defense of the social status quo is rooted in the pervasive acceptance, by many Israeli Jews, of the Zionist ideological axiom that Israel is a Jewish state tailored for Jews. This axiom perpetuates the principle of divide and rule. We the Jews are here. They the Palestinians - are there. However, this ideological conception never stops to ask the simple question: Who are we. Who are the We who benefit from such a separation, conservatism and from the existing state of affairs (status quo)? Are we poor, middle or upper class Jews? Are we Mizrachim or Ashkenazim? Are we religious or secular Jews? And what kind of religious Jews are we? Are we new immigrants from Russia or Ethiopia? Are we the abusing husbands or the abused wives and children? Are we university graduates or graduates of vocational schools? Do we live in subsidized homes in the occupied territories or in an Amidar apartment in a development town? Do we have actual control over national lands given by the Jewish National Fund (JNF) to the Kibutz movement or are we part of the Tenoat Hahitiashevot haovedet (labor settlements movement)? Are we living in Shikon Ovdim (Workers Residence) in Ramat Aviv, Neot Afeka or Zahala? Are we among the few who were selected and therefore can live in Zufit or Modieen or Cochav Yair? We are the Jews. But we are also different Jews with different life chances. Why this enormous array of questions does not appear as a political agenda? In other words, how Israeli conservatism succeeds in imposing silence on class, gender, ethnicity and immigration issues? And why the peace camp does not ask questions concerning universal values of equity and equality? One could hardly find a better demonstration of this entrenched conservatism than the recent prime ministerial election. Observing Ariel Sharons victory, the national unity government negotiations, Baraks zigzags, Labors and other parties maneuvers, leave one marveling at the Israeli political systems wonders. Not only the rival candidates were the least wanted candidates in their own political camps, they were contending for power without ever declaring their full intentions. Ariel Sharon won the election without elucidating his platform regarding future relations with the Palestinians nor concerning the current violent situation. Indubitably burning issues. In Israel, the last to know politicians intentions are Israeli citizens. Israeli Politicians do their politics with meager attentions to the citizenry needs, aspirations or wants. As weighty a fact as the Israeli Palestinian citizens boycott of the election, and the fact that at least 50 percent of the Israeli voters either voted blank ballot or dismissed the election altogether, had very little effect on politicians maneuvers. The fact that a cruel war against the Palestinian people is raging on, that killing of people, Palestinians and Israelis, is occurring daily, that 13 Israeli citizens were shot by their police force, that 3 million people are under curfew and siege

imposed by the occupation military logic, that they are starved and humiliated, that unemployment is skyrocketing, that Israel experiencing a deep economic slope, that about 40% of Israels population is defined as poor and within the bounds of poverty, all these factors seem to be irrelevant for The Politicians. The political system is doing its own thing politics of muddling through, politics of procrastination. The government would do nothing of substance for the sake of political combinations (combina in Hebrew). Future alliances calculations block present political initiatives. The national unity government will continue the existing bankrupt smoke-screen-creation politics. Politics that are entirely rooted in the logic of a negative consensus. A self perpetuating negative consensus hammered out of the occupations logic. Namely: for Eretz Israel, We will not let go of Judea and Samaria (occupied territories), but We will neither recognize the political rights of the Palestinian people. By now it is clear that the occupations logic transforms reality on the ground into a vicious apartheid Jewish regime. It entangles and ensnares a whole society, state and culture in the process of settlements enlargement and protection. We will not recognize that either. We will pursue politics of self pity and collective denial of reality. That is, Israelis are confronted with the continuation of 34 years old no-end, aimless occupation policy. It is a visionless policy vis--vis Palestinians, Israelis, the region and the future. For the Palestinians (of 48s and 67s) this aimless policy is unacceptable. And they expressed that in any conceivable means. For the Israelis, those who stop to think about it, it is incomprehensible; for the region it bodes the continuation of war. It is a past focused policy, trampling the future in its backward facing movement. And all this is done in the name of an exclusivist Zionist ideology that no one, except a fringe group of messianic Jews, believe in its feasibility any longer. By now it is clear that the occupation is a dead-end which suffocates the present and future generations. The occupation gobbles more lands and people, but its self-perception does not change; neither swallow nor vomit. We are here, they are there within the same system. Faked separation within a real apartheid; an apartheid disguised by a hollow ideology of the class bully who presents himself as the neighborhoods victim. All this is true and known. However, despite veracity and knowledgeability these facts have very little impact on the existing political system and affairs. How is this possible? It seems to be possible because of the Israeli political system characteristics. As if this system has its own rules. Rules which are independent from any input stemming from the Israeli society and resilient to historical, political or social changes. It seems to be an uncontrollable satellite. Israeli politics are progressing in their own independent path, obeying their internal pace, oblivious to external changes or demands. It behaves like an autistic political system. A detached and conservative system that provides a heaven to political leaders, especially to the generals among them. It grants them a life career dissociated from failures, disasters, felonies and crimes committed. It safeguards them from legal accusations and convictions on any conceivable ground, from sexual abuse to economic swindling, from political scandals they caused and from personal corruption they were charged with. With the last election, the disengagement of the Israeli political system from its constituencies has reached dramatic levels. Its cynical corruption has reached unfathomed depth. Having said all this and despite it all, the conservative nature of the Israeli political system is a consequence not the cause of the presumable separation of politics from society. Admittedly, the

Israeli political system has a wide autonomous sphere, but politics and politicians are not the only factors calling the shots in Israeli society. The Israeli political system operates in accordance with a deeply ingrained logic. Therefore asking what may account for Sharons election can serve as a guiding light beam in an effort to expose that logic. First, what is the power leading the movement to the right? Second, what are the social factors responsible for this movement? And lastly what can be done, if anything, about it? II The best place to begin this reckoning is with the collapse of Ehud Baraks peace proposals. This is so because the right swing must be related to the implications of the peace process. Almost all Left and Right - agree that Sharons election was a reaction to Ehud Baraks so-called peace initiative. Most obviously, the pendulums swing to the right is not a backlash against Baraks harsh handling of the Palestinians. It must be therefore, that Baraks peace initiative exposed deep rooted nerves and interests. His initiatives pointed at a potential end of the occupation and a peaceful settlement of the conflict. What are/were, then, the probable implications of the end of occupation and of the commencement of peace politics? Baraks political clumsiness abruptly exposed, with the intensity of a lightening flash, the manifold implications occupation has on the nature of the existing Israeli Jewish society. The socalled peace process shed light on several crucial factors. First and foremost it brought to the lime light the inevitable need to share the land and Jerusalem with the Palestinians. Second, Israeli society was forced to admit the existence of Palestinians as a people, as a nation, and as a constant factor vis--vis Israelis. Third, it forced the indispensable need to address the perennial question of the Palestinian refugees. And what was the Israeli reaction to these crucial issues? Escapism! The Israeli Jewish society withdraws from the encounter. Flinching back from the effects of this reality check and sights, the Israeli Jewish society strongly closed its eyes in a collective act of denial. As if denying the Palestinian from sight (curfew) and mind (occupation) would render them out of reality. Voting Sharon to power was the explicit preference of occupation as an automatic - 34 years old - temporary treatment to a reality that would not go away. But like the cat that keeps coming back, the occupation is back on center stage; it is neither out of sight nor out of mind and it is a reality. Occupation was preferred because by now, the occupation is a well known procedure of rule for Israel and Israelis. And the taken for granted is reassuring. It also has the additional advantage of temporary freeing Israeli Jews from the need to consider hefty options with regard to the future. But everybody is aware that a delay is just a procrastination; it will not work for long and it does not change the fundamental and simple reality of Palestinians and Israeli-Jews cohabiting the same land. Israels escapism from the inevitable is part of Israeli conservatism as a strategy. Hence Baraks clumsiness unwittingly elucidated two simple convictions. The first is that the occupation must end. And second that recognition will inevitably come. These inalienable truths made him and his policies unbearable and hated. So, it was not Baraks peace policies, but the inevitability of these convictions that bred the collective psychological escapism into the embrace of General-Grandfather Sharon. Escapism is deeply entrenched as the first reaction of conservatism. This is so, because Israeli Jews know that sharing the land and ending the conflict goes together with a radical set of changes. These changes can be gauged with reference to three areas. First, sharing the land

means the end of the occupation and granting Israeli Palestinians full citizenship rights. Second, a resolution of the conflict means the end of the Jewish privilege in a Jewish state. And third, a peace process will inevitably signal the future destruction of the Israeli structure of war, the culture of militarism and the class of people who benefits from it. Together, these political considerations and sociological realities constitute the full answer to the question: Why Israeli society voted Ariel Sharon to power. Sharon was voted in order to block the emergence of these changes. The political conflict in current Israel is, therefore, between status quo forces and demands for social change. Conserve or change? This is the question. In short, a peace process means radical social and political changes. And the Israeli Jewish society is not ready for such changes. However, social dynamics cannot be equated to psychological dynamics occurring to individuals. Being not ready for peace as a society, does not mean psychological immaturity or the lack of trust building devices. Being not ready for peace, is just another way of saying that there are social groups, attitudes, interests and forces that are not ready to go the peace way. And Israel is not ready for peace, because the interests of war and a warrior class the Israeli Junker aristocracy - dominant Israel. And these interests prohibit power and land sharing. Indeed, peace and war involve emotions and psychological aspects, but neither is exhausted by revenge, immaturity or compassion. Peace and war are rooted in interests. That is the reason for the clarity with which Israeli conservatism appears now. Israeli conservatism represent interests and power retention, not psychological moods or cultural inclinations. Bluntly put, there are antipeace interests who prefer the status quo over social change. This however, does not explain who resents and might rejects a social change. It neither explains the varying degrees of intensity of rejection or resentment within the Jewish Israeli society. It is clear that the resentments intensity of an Israeli settler would be different from the rejection of peace politics by a Mizrachi, unemployed worker in a development town. This is especially so if the settler is a graduate of a post secondary Yeshiva Torahnit who works in the civil administration harassing Palestinians as a job in which he makes his living, while the unemployed Mizrachi recently joined Shas Gods army and his kids receive a hot meal everyday in school as an exchange for his political loyalty. It is true however, that most Israeli Jews are rejecting the direct implications (sharing land and power) of the peace process with the Palestinians on the basis of their common Judaism. And Sharons election is the empirical validation of this argument. The knee jerk reaction of most Israeli Jews was, indeed, rejection. Why was that so? It was so because sharing land and power means the end of the Jewish privilege in Israel. This would happen in either one of the two trajectories in which the peace might go. Whether it would be a two states or a one state solution, Jewish privilege would diminish in power and centrality. In both options the settlements would be dismantled and evacuated. Today, the settlements in the occupied territories are the epitome expression of Jewish privilege. In any Palestinian state, settlers are not welcomed and settlements are considered a radical and blunt infringement not only of Palestinian sovereignty but also of international law. Hence, a peace process means, first and foremost, the end of this Jewish privilege materialized in settlements and manifested in the settlers. Abandonment of the settlements and of the settlers will usher in the end of the Religious National party (Mafdal) and its vanguard Gush Emunim. But it will also announce the end of their political agenda to transform Israel into a theocratic republic. More than any orthodox party or community, Mafdal with its youth movement (Beni Akiva) and

its independent elitist, Ashkenazi and segregationist educational system (Yeshivot Torahniut) is responsible for the religious revolution of Israeli politics. In addition, a peace process widely opens the door to the admission that Israeli Palestinians do not have full civil rights as citizens in Israel, because Israel is defined as a Jewish state. In other words, a resolution of the conflict would mean that those who hold the Jewish nature of the state of Israel as an existential axiom and that is what most Israeli and Zionist Jews hold as axiomatic they would either have to change or relinquish their ideas about Jewish exclusivity. In such a situation, they will have to contend with changes that will transform Israel from a Jewish state to Israel as a democratic state. It will be a movement from theocratic to civic nationalism. In short, the unquestioned formula of Israel as a Jewish state would have to be changed, adjusted and probably thrown on top of the scrap heap of historical inadequacies. However, occupation and peace are not only states of mind, but also material states of being and reality. Here we should ask who are those who benefits from the structure of war and culture of militarism? III There is no need to add to the well known interest of military personnel, advisers and industries that profit and build a personal and group career out of war. The Israeli military industrial complex is an Israeli made social class of people who has a direct and obvious interest in a war structure and society. Despite Matti Peled, generals consciousness (like most of us) seems to be determined by their being and not the other way around. By now, it is clear to anyone who wishes to see that the economics of occupation are subsidized by American money. This money enables the Israeli government to treat the occupation as an extra budgetary subject. It is a luxurious occupation. Israeli society does not pay, directly, for the occupation. However, segments of the Israeli Jewish society enormously and directly benefit from the occupation. The occupation supplies cheap labor, captive market and a handle by which to achieve industrial quiet in the Israeli Jewish labor market. The transformation of Palestinians into cheap labor and the Palestinian population into a captive market, monopolized by Israeli finished product, is also a well known subject that needs little elaboration here. The horrendous devastation this transformation has caused are also well known and documented. But, in addition to the devastating effects these transformations had on the Palestinians, the detrimental social implications of it to the Israeli labor market are hardly ever discussed. Israeli employers can drive the price of labor almost as low as they wish, because there is no organized objection to forestall this drive. They can pick and choose from three available options of labor contingents. They can employ Palestinian workers, Israeli workers (Palestinian or Mizrachi and new immigrants) or guest workers. This open season in labor politics is exploited to the fullest possible extent. It is enabled by the policies of acquiescence of the Israeli government. The cooperation of all Israeli governments, Labor or Likud, with capitalist interests is nothing but an accomplice policy with inequality and injustice. The last thing in the minds of these politicians and the horde of money grabbers, is the protection of some Jewish moral of fairness toward workers, Jews or non-Jews alike. For Israeli Jewish working class and small business, which are overwhelmingly also of Mizrachi origins, Baraks kind of peace politics were translated to an accentuation of their vulnerability to an intolerable degree. Here lies the material reason for the negative reception of Israeli

Jewish poor, whether Mizrachim or new immigrants, to the peace process. If the peace process means deepening misery and heightening povertys walls on their side, why would they support peace? In conclusion, as it currently stands, peace is not in the interests of the majority of Israeli Jewish society. Changes must occur within the Israeli peace camp and among Israeli Palestinians if a peace process rooted in social and economic interests is to occur. Peace of wishful thinking and good-doers is not powerful enough to overcome the interests of the status quo. To conclude, I will list several options for thought and action that can be pursued by the Israeli peace camp. IV The Israeli peace camp must concentrate its efforts in creating such an interest for peace. There are mainly three groups that might forge a common interest in the transformation of the Israeli society. These are the Israeli Palestinians, the Israeli poor and the Jewish, mainly Mizrachi, working class, and Israeli women who are organized within a feminist agenda of gender equality, social equity and demilitarization of the Israeli society. Whether the Israeli peace camp will accept this analysis or act along similar lines of action is an unanswerable question at this moment. However, this is an effort to point at the fundamental necessity of cooperation across national, class, ethnic and gender designations. It is an effort to elucidate the interconnectedness of these interests. In a way, it is an effort to transform the logic that insists on separation and dissociation of society from politics and economy. This is also a good awakening call for Palestinian Israelis. There is a need to internalize the fact that peace interests and politics means crossing national, religious, ethnic class and gender differences. However, as long as Palestinian Israelis associate themselves almost exclusively with the Israeli middle class, who is mostly of Ashkenazi background, this alliance will keep on being both ambiguous and shaky. And the Left confusion in the last 5 month only attests to such ambiguity and shakiness. In many respects the social interests of the Israeli middle and upper class (university professors included) are rooted in the status quo not in its transformation. Neither the Pan-Arab or religious parties, nor the Israeli Communist Party are developing an orientation, freed from stereotypes about Jews and especially about the Mizrachi Jews. And in most cases (except Rakach) their approach is not rooted in a conception of cooperation. So we are stuck again. Peace have very little social support among the forces that desperately need peace. The paradigm that conceives Israel as a Jewish state paradoxically also serves as an easy, but wrong solution for Palestinians. It does so because it doctrinally associates Jews with Zionists and Judaism with Zionism. It also advances a zero-sum game conception of the conflict. A conflict in which bad colonizers dispossessed good colonized and indigenous people. It is a binary logic that leaves little room for peaceful resolutions, reconciliation, healing and imaginations. In short, perceiving Israel as a Jewish state in Palestinian eyes is as unrealistic conception of the Israeli society and the conflicts history, as it is in Jewish eyes. Such a perception ignores current realities and social changes occurring in the Jewish as well as in the Palestinian societies. The Jewish society cannot be perceived as one monolithic block; it cannot be seen as a Zionist state populated by Zionists zealots. The reasons for rejection of this perception are rooted in simple and factual realities and in political reckoning: Israeli Jewish society is not a homogenous society. Among its varied groupings many see peace politics and alliances with Israeli Palestinians as not only a moral cause, but also as a political strategy to democratize and

demilitarize the Israeli society. No Palestinian peace activist can allow him or her self, whether in Israel or under occupation, to ignore or dismiss such crucial support. There are Israeli Palestinians who are citizens of the state of Israel and have interests in remaining as such; there are Palestinians under Israeli occupation who want to be liberated and wish to have their lives put in order and security; there are millions of Palestinians refugees who need their problems addressed, their human rights restored, and their social and economic grievances heeded and amended; there is a Palestinian elite, there is Palestinian corruption and there are class divisions among the Palestinians. No Israeli peace activist can allow him or her self to ignore these factors any longer. In short, reality is much more complicated and interconnected than the picture portrayed by Israeli leaders and political machine. Most crucially, the inappropriateness of war politics and its violent methods are fundamentally irrelevant and serve the interests of a selected few. This is so because peace politics means democratically addressing the human needs and troubles of 12 million people who are living in this densely populated region. These people are waiting their problems to be addressed; longing for a relevant agenda carried by responsible and responsive leaders and politicians. We the people of Palestine and Israel - need a common democratic effort that would put Palestinian-Christians and Muslims and Israeli-Jews on a par and toward the achievable humane goal of peaceful coexistence in Israel/Palestine. 3987 words.