Benjamin Kerstein, my colleague over at The New Ledger, has written a provocative and illuminating essay on some ominous developments in the Middle East. He fears a new intifada — this time launched by Arab-Israelis. He also observes some worrisome trends on the Israeli Right which mirror the radicalism of the Palestinians. Kerstein’s writing ranges ably over the many complexities of the Middle East; “informative” is a description rather inadequate to it. But above all the essay presents a discussion of democratic theory that will probably unsettle readers on all sides of this ancient dispute. I predict that this important report will be either (a) ignored or (b) flippantly dismissed.
Kerstein on Israel
by Paul J Cella
Comments (31)
Good essay from a democratic liberal. Overall, it is a helpful survey of the various communities within Israel; each of those communities needs much wisdom to navigate their relations. I wonder if Israel still produces the kinds of great statesmen our nation no longer seems able to do.
Posted by Albert | October 16, 2009 11:26 AM
Uh, yeah, it's a Jewish state. Damning, that. Or semi-damning, or something, to Kerstein. At any rate, something to be listed as if it's an admission of something, or an "on the one hand" indication of something at least prima facie bad. Most odd.
Posted by Lydia | October 16, 2009 3:54 PM
Lydia - I wasn't damning any aspect of Jewish statehood. I do think, however, that we shouldn't lie to ourselves about how Israel's Arab citizens feel about many aspects of it. I'm not saying they or we are wrong or write, but simply attempting to convey the reality of the situation over here.
Posted by Benjamin Kerstein | October 16, 2009 4:50 PM
I suppose if they preferred they could seek citizenship in a non-Jewish state. Perhaps in that context they would feel more comfortable. But in actuality, I recall hearing about some East Jerusalem Arabs who rushed to seek Israeli citizenship a year or two ago, I believe it was, when there was some talk of partitioning Jerusalem.
I was also struck by your mention of an Arab with an MA degree mopping floors for a living. I know a caucasian American with an MA degree in philosophy who makes a living spraying cockroaches. This really doesn't mean anything. An MA degree (in education, did you say??) just ain't all it's cracked up to be, in any part of the world.
My impression, Mr. Kerstein, from this side of the pond is that your piece is an excellent example of a balanced, sober, valuable, informative article written by a moderate. But we shouldn't lie to ourselves: Between an Israeli moderate and an American mainstream conservative there are still likely to be some gaps of emphasis, especially in what bothers us and what doesn't.
Posted by Lydia | October 16, 2009 5:09 PM
Wow, what an excellent piece! A more poignant, concise, yet unsentimentally realistic look into the tragic circumstances surrounding Israel and the Middle East will be hard to find. The fact it was written at all, is reason for hope.
These insights were especially striking, as they pertain just as equally to the West and the rest of the world;
Posted by Kevin | October 16, 2009 5:21 PM
To some folks (and one hostess in particular), the plight of one single Christian refugee is something that should bother us; however, the plight of several generations of Christians living in the Holy Land is not one of those things and, indeed, is itself simply bothersome.
Yet, Christians continue to be forced out of their homelands; the very lands where they've lived for centuries (many of the present Christian families go back to 1500 years ago) due to government policies and the tremendous hostilities they suffer.
For example, during the infamous siege of the Basicilica of the Nativity, a Franciscan community along with a group of other priests, religious sisters, and local Palestinians were held at bay for 39 days by the Israeli army.
Bullet holes from Israeli machine gun are still visible from one side of the Church.
A business two blocks away from the Church, as well as other area shops and kiosks were destroyed by incendiary bombs.
In the video linked below, they show a destroyed home in amidst a Christian community on the outskirts of Bethlehem destroyed by Israeli helicopter gunships. Their justification was simply that they were looking for someone who reportedly fired shots from this neighborhood into a nearby Israeli settlement.
The home of a Palestinian Christian that was close to the military zone. Their house hit by several bullets and rockets. 175 bullets have been counted to have penetrated their home.
Many Palestinian Christians living there are now below-income. Many no longer have jobs and can no longer feed their families due to the relentless and tragic persecution they continue to face in the form of outright discrimination and hostility.
This forces a growing number of Christians in that region to leave. Though the Holy Land is the so-called Center of Christianity -- it may only be that in name only.
A Lutheran Bishop, Right Reverend Dr. Munib Younam mentioned that in one year alone: 1,300 Palestinian Christians from Bethelehem district left the area. He says that if the trend continues, there will be no Christians left in the Bethlehem area.
According to what Fr. Vasco reports, most church officials say that within 60 years, if nothing is done to stem this Christian exodus, all we'll have are empty religious monuments and museums and no living, woshipping community.
In other words, there will no longer be a Christian community in the Holy Land -- merely empty churches and holy monuments!
VIDEO LINK:
http://ffhl.org/2006/crisisintheholyland.asp
Posted by aristocles | October 16, 2009 5:37 PM
That's right, Aristocles. I would never think of insulting you by calling you a mainstream American conservative. But be sure to blame your poor, helpless, Muslim friends when there is no longer a Christian community in the Holy Land. Though why I bother saying that I don't know, as it will fall on deaf ears.
Posted by Lydia | October 16, 2009 6:19 PM
Yeah, since I happen to feel for the plight of Palestinian Christians; therefore, I must be in league with the Muslims and even worse, anti-semitic, too!
How very logical.
Of course, it's merely typical of the One who staunchly believes that Israel could do no wrong whatsoever and happens to find injustice in the plight of one Christian refugee while paying no mind whatever to an entire Christian people suffering under severe persecution; Christians, if I might again remind you, whose direct lineage stretches all the way back to the very Christian communities founded by Paul himself, which Masses are, even now, celebrated in Jesus' own spoken tongue -- Aramaic!
Yet, maybe that's why they should be wiped out entirely; it would be better for Modern Christians to remove remnants of their precious past, which such people are a stark reminder thereof, since, as we all know, they prove too much a burden especially since they're a living affront (even with their dying fragmented few) to that all too precious modern Christianity so lovingly embraced by today's brand of Christians.
It would appear that even those who claim to be genuinely Christian these days succumb to certain nihilistic tendencies.
I would've expected better; especially from a person of your caliber.
Posted by aristocles | October 16, 2009 7:03 PM
The crass materialism of much of secular Israel, its cult of the body, its tendency to moral relativism, and many of the other less attractive aspects of the West that Israel has enthusiastically adopted, are as unappealing to Israeli Arabs as they are to Arabs throughout the Middle East and to many other peoples around the world. etc...
For starters the noble Arabs can show their distate in concrete terms by refusing to accept the subsidies both direct and indirect that Israel offers to encourage couples to have children. That would indeed earn my respect. But to make real sacrifices is beyond these people, far better to carp about materialistic Jews and their hedonistic ways. Muslims in general ( I am sure you'll find the odd sainted Muslim ) hate the Jews for being successful, for having made it, for showing up their inadequecies, to expect lasting gratitude in any form from these people is the hope of fools. The Islamic Movement is merely an extreme expression of that same disposition.
For example, during the infamous siege of the Basicilica of the Nativity, a Franciscan community along with a group of other priests, religious sisters, and local Palestinians were held at bay for 39 days by the Israeli army
The Franciscans in turn were so grateful to the Muslim terrorists that were holed up in the bascilica that they refused to allow any of the dead Muslims to be buried within the church's grounds. Even Franciscan dupes know that there is only so much mileage to be had by sucking up to Muslims.
Posted by Ivan | October 16, 2009 7:36 PM
Lydia,
Aristocles is right. The Jews are responsible for the plight of the Christians in Bethlehem. After all, it was they who had handed the Christians and their town over to a gang of terrorists.
Posted by George R. | October 16, 2009 7:44 PM
George R.:
Instead of your usual sarcastic dismissal, why don't you simply watch the video?
Yet, I doubt you and she would ever even entertain such a request since, after all, it happens to have been made not only by Franciscans in the Holy Land but it was done in concert with some *SHOCK* Protestants, too! (and I know just how wonderfully accomodating you are to ecumenical efforts given your past comments here on the blog which seemed typically of the Fish-eater variety...)
Of course, you and your cohorts would rather yield to the infallibility of Israel rather than admit that in various certain circumstances (such as in the ongoing persecution of these Christians who continue to suffer wrongly at the hands of its government), it has actually erred.
Posted by aristocles | October 16, 2009 7:51 PM
Oh -- so now the Franciscans are summarily declared friends of the Muslim terrorists simply because of their charitable work of helping the Christians in the Holy Land?
Amazing!
Help suffering Christians in the Holy Land; you're automatically branded a friend of Muslim terrorists!
Say that there may be something actually the matter with the hostile governmental policies which have caused so much suffering amongst the Christians in the Holy Land; you're automatically branded anti-semitic!
It's precisely the same kind of specious reasoning that says, "If you don't vote for Obama, you're racist" or the rather more recent "If you don't support Obamacare, you're racist!".
For the liberal likes of George R. and Ivan, it's not all that surprising; but from a supposed conservative like Lydia to fashion herself after the like of such leftist thugs by employing a similar tactic as this; I'm sorely disappointed -- but that's only because I'd expect much better from the likes of her as opposed to those riffraffs.
Posted by aristocles | October 16, 2009 8:03 PM
George R., I take your point, but somehow, I don't think that's what Ari meant. :-)
Huh, Ari, what??? George R. is a liberal? Not that I'd noticed. Heck, in some ways, he's even more conservative than I am.
Posted by Lydia | October 16, 2009 8:14 PM
Hey -- one offensive term deserves another; besides, at the very least, I didn't sink to the kind of calumny he and your company dared inflict upon those who refuse to countenance the grave injustices being endured by our Christian brothers and sisters in the Holy Land.
I betcha, the next insult to be hurled at me, these Franciscans, as well as the Protestant clergy who've been kind enough to provide some assistance (however small), is that we are not unlike a certain celebrity who hails from Malibu who attributes all our present-day woes in the Middle East as a direct result of that state ever having come into being, simply because we would like these injustices to cease and these Christians saved!
Posted by aristocles | October 16, 2009 8:37 PM
Would the Christians in the Holy Land rather be under Israeli or Muslim rule? There's my question. I suspect I know the answer, I could very well be wrong.
Posted by Paul J Cella | October 16, 2009 8:46 PM
Posted by aristocles | October 16, 2009 8:47 PM
aristocles the proportion of Christians in Bethlehem declined from 60 percent in 1990 to around 20 percent today. The difference is largely attributable to the fact that right into the 1990s Bethlehem was under Israeli occupation. Now, with the Muslims in charge, Christians who can make it to the West leave, while the differential birth-rate between Muslims and Christians depresses the ration still further. You can't argue against hard facts like these. It is an open secret that the Christians were better off under the Israelis, but for the Christians to acknowledge this they have to give up some cherished prejudices and illusions.
Posted by Ivan | October 16, 2009 9:37 PM
Strained relations between Israeli and Palestinian Christians and the Israeli government predate 1990 and persist independent of the Palestinian Authority taking over Bethlehem. The Anti-Proselytizing law to end Christian evangelization goes back to the late 70's, and the slow exodus of Christians from Bethlehem began in 1947 when Christians made up 75% of the population and by 1998 was only 33%. The fact, that the question; Would the Christians in the Holy Land rather be under Israeli or Muslim rule? has to be asked at all, is shocking and like Kerstein's essay, reveals a more complex situation with many different cross-currents than quite a few American Christians can accept.
Fortunately, many Israelis are both better informed than Weekly Standard. General Danny Rothschild is the former coordinator of all government activities in the occupied territories and one of 1,200 former intelligence officers in Israel's Council for Peace and Security, who says Palestinians should be allowed to make Arab East Jerusalem their capital.
I don't know if it will bring peace, but it is a far more promising option than a status quo that includes military operations like the one against Gaza. The shock waves of the Goldstone Report are going to be felt and attempts to dismiss its author, a Jewish South African judge and former prosecutor of war crimes committed in Yugoslavia and Rwanda of harboring anti-Israeli motives won't work. Instead, Ari Shavit's response below suggests wiser leadership will ensure Israel's future;
Posted by Kevin | October 18, 2009 2:35 AM
Yeah, look how well unilaterally driving the Jews out and turning land over to the "Palestinians" worked in Gaza. East J. as a rocket launching pad. A much more promising option than the status quo for bringing peace.
Posted by Lydia | October 18, 2009 8:45 AM
The "Jews wer driven out" of Gaza?
The sanctions imposed against Gaza have make it an incubator for radicalism and dislodging Hamas requires methods other than those resulting in war crimes (routinely denied or excused by commentators here during the invasion)which now have prompted much soul-searching within Israel - to the credit of her people.
I noticed you don't even attempt to grapple with Danny Rothschild's proposal to give Arabs control of East Jerusalem. I suspect he knows an IDF capable of locating and killing Hamas leaders through cell phone tracking is more than up to the task of protecting Israel while the squalor pressing down on Palestinian society is lifted.
Posted by Kevin | October 18, 2009 10:32 AM
Uh, yeah, they were. By their own government. Perhaps you were asleep at the time.
If allowed. Which they would not be and have not been. Ask the inhabitants of Sderot how well that has worked out.
Posted by Lydia | October 18, 2009 12:08 PM
So now the inflammatory; The Jews were driven out of Gaza, has been reluctantly amended to; By their own government. Care to add any context as to why Israeli settlements were pulled back to their pre-1967 borders? Do international law, geopolitical common sense and moral decency figure in the calculations?
Western nations are judged by the fading vestiges of Western standards and not by glib assertions, like; "If Only the Israelis were allowed to defend themselves", or see no evil hear no evil poses when it comes to fighting asymmetrical warfare, employing discredited concepts about collective guilt, and ignoring Just War strictures on proportionality. Enclosing a people behind a food and medicine embargo is a recipe for disaster. And it will be cooler heads within Israel taking the necessary steps on a variety of fronts, who will secure her future. Not Americans wearing blinders so as to avoid seeing any fact that subverts their shallow, dangerous narratives.
Posted by Kevin | October 18, 2009 8:13 PM
Golly, Kevin, you _really_ don't know me, if you think that was a reluctant "amendment." On the contrary, it was intended as an intensification of the outrageousness of what was done.
Posted by Lydia | October 18, 2009 8:18 PM
It appears you're not the only one outraged, albeit for different reasons;
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091102/horowitz_weissPosted by Kevin | October 19, 2009 8:29 PM
Interesting to point out that it was American Jews spread out across America (as coverage even captured on the cable news channels would concur) and not simply from some isolated corner or region; yet, while American Jews themselves decried such blatant atrocities being egregiously committed by the government in Israel, it would appear Dr. McGrew is upset over the fact that there wasn't actually enough of these to the extent that such peoples weren't ultimately wiped out entirely.
Posted by aristocles | October 19, 2009 8:37 PM
Whoah! Slow down, Ari, I think that charge is pretty unfair and beneath you. Yes, Lydia is a reflexive hawk, but she is not an advocate of ethnic-cleansing. There is a certain commenter who might be, but I'd be careful about letting the rhetoric get ahead of the facts.
Posted by Kevin | October 19, 2009 8:52 PM
Thanks, Kevin. I suppose I should be used to Aristocles by now. Ari, try that sort of libelous junk on one of my threads, and you will be deleted so fast your head will spin. Did I not warn you already that after yea these many moons of listening to you talk about what I "think," which you have simply made up, I am finally growing weary of your hysterical misrepresentations of me and my views? As our esteemed Zippy would say--quote and comment. Do not attribute views to others out of your own head.
Posted by Lydia | October 19, 2009 9:06 PM
Aristocles, you will retract that statement or cease to comment here.
Posted by Paul J Cella | October 19, 2009 9:42 PM
I'm still waiting for the retraction, Paul. A public retraction. You know, visible for all to see. He accused her of genocidal sympathies.
Posted by William Luse | October 21, 2009 2:45 AM
Finally got around to reading Mr. Kerstein's article. Thanks to him for writing it, and thanks to Paul for linking to it.
I just don't see how this can end well.
Posted by steve burton | October 27, 2009 3:18 PM
Hm this is obviously a very touchy subject. Moreover, it's a subject that many feel they have to take a 'side' on. I'm really glad for Kevin's remarks that the situation is too complicated, at least for Christians, to take 'sides' on. I would have thought any serious Christian would be suspicious of an ideological position that allows no good to be said of the Israeli, or the Palestinian side, given that neither side gives priority to the needs of the Christian community. There is a reason why most people see the conflict as between Jews and Muslims!
You can find plenty of evidence that Israeli policies have contributed directly or indirectly to the demise of the Christian community in historic Palestine; there is also plenty of evidence that Arab and Palestinian policies have done the same. Kevin notes that in 1947 the Christian population of Bethlehem was 75%: this was after centuries of Muslim rule and only a few decades of British occupation. The drastic decline in the Christian population has to be an attribute of recent social and political developments, not just to the fact that Muslims are in charge. From 1947 to 1967 Bethlehem was part of Jordan, and from 1967 to 1993 under Israeli occupation. There was indeed a smaller decline to 60% in 1990, but how much of that is due to Jordanian rule, how much to Israeli, and how much to internal factors? The decline since the transfer to the Palestinian Authority has indeed been far more drastic, but how much is due to the effects of Palestinian rule itself, and how much to more restrictive policies of the Israeli occupiers that accompanied the establishment of the PA? Also, until the first intifada, Islamist ideology did not define the Palestinian movement, but a leftist nationalism that gave equal status to Muslims and Christians. After the intifada, Islamism began to spread more and more in Palestinian society, so this may have had a big effect on internal social factors driving Christian emigration, as well as the attitude of the PA. Similarly, the Jewish settler movement acquired an increasingly religious nationalist strain after the Likud took power in the late 70s on, which may have changed the relationships between Jews and Christians in the West Bank, along with the ideological shift in Israel itself.
An example: a Russian Orthodox priest I know was working in Palestine in the early 80s. Although he harbors no sympathy for Islam, he recalls that the local Muslims always treated him with great respect. The only abuse he suffered was from Jews (I imagine religious settlers). If he visited there now, it's possible he would meet with similar unfriendliness from now-radicalized Muslims. I can't say for sure, but it's a good example of how much the social balance can shift in just thirty years.
Since Zionism is essentially a Jewish movement, I don't see how any Palestinian Christian could really feel a part of it. His sense of the significance of his land and history just doesn't match the Jewish one. However, whether Zionism is primarily secular or religious will have a big effect on how much he feels he can live with it. A Zionism that treats his faith on a more or less equal footing with Judaism will at least be a system he can endure, even if the symbolism and ideology of the state treats him as an outsider, despite being a native of the country. A Zionism that puts his faith at a distinct disadvantage, as religious Zionism may do, will more likely provoke either emigration or sedition.
On the other side, Palestinian nationalism, so long as it treated Muslims and Christians as fellow Arabs, could easily command the loyalty of a Christian, which is why I imagine Arab Christians mostly sided against the Zionists. Even if the Zionists proclaimed equality of faith, they still privileged Jews over Arabs in their vision of the state. But now that Islamism has come to dominate a large portion of Palestinian nationalism, Christians are unable to feel they have a place as Palestinians, since Islamism, like religious Zionism, preaches the legal subordination of Christians simply because they are Christians.
Posted by Jonathan | November 1, 2009 5:06 PM