Kahane and Jabotinsky were right
Whatever you think (or thought) of Rabbi Meir Kahane HY"D (may God avenge his blood), is there anyone who can deny this is true? (Hat Tip: Dan F). When the Israeli Arab is told to rise for his national anthem, “Hatikvah” (the hope), and sing of “the Jewish soul yearning” and “the hope of 2,000 years,” can he be expected to feel empathy? ... the song’s motif of Jewish longing for Israel is not acceptable to Israel’s Arabs. When the Israeli Arabs looks upon the happy revelers on Israeli Independence Day, celebrating, in effect, the Arab defeat and the displacement of an Arab majority of Palestine by a Jewish majority of Israel, can he be seriously expected to join us? When, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, the Law of Return opens the gates “for Jewish immigration,” and not Arab influx, for the cousins of the residents of Tel Aviv and not those of Nazareth, is it surprising that the Arab feels alienated from the state?--Rabbi Meir Kahane (OBM), 1981
And then there's this from Zev Jabotinsky, the mentor of the Likud, including Menachem Begin and Binyamin Netanyahu's father:
As long as the Arabs feel that there is the least hope of getting rid of us, they will refuse to give up this hope for either kind words or bread and butter.-Vladimir Jabotinsky (OBM), The Iron Wall, 1923
Labels: Rabbi Meir Kahane, Zev Jabotinsky
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 3:35 PM
6 Comments:
Carl, no, I don't think that Kahane's zero-sum they-know-we-hate-them argument "We screwed them three quarters of the way so we might as well screw them completely" is automatically persuasive. For one thing, it disputes the traditional Zionist narrative that Israel did not "displace" the Arab majority but that the Arab majority largely fled. The rap ends up co-opting anti-Zionist propaganda talking points to make an argument for taking the logical step of legally "alienating" Arabs from Israel.
Jabotinsky's pre-state arguments (like David Ben-Gurion's) argued war would be necessary for creating a state. AFIK Begin did not carry over the thinking after Israel was created to argue that Arabs were necessarily a fifth column to be excised after a state was created, to the west or east of the green line (to the east he recommended autonomy).
If and as Israeli Arabs (including Knesset members) act against the state they can be repressed. It is not convincing to veer between arguments that Israel is not apartheid because it invites participation of Arabs and circular arguments that the Israeli Arab community inherently is suspect because it knows the Jews wish to kick the Arabs out because the Arabs are resentful because they know....
If the right of Jews to settle Yesha becomes dependent on the fundamental and a priori right/necessity of Jews to transfer Arabs out of Israel (and Yesha) then imo a majority of Israeli Jews, at the polls, or in less polite forms of ideological combat, will ultimately reject Yesha.
Nonsense. Let's compare with a Jew living happily in a country that celebrates Christmas and Easter as public holidays and might have a religious reference in its anthem. As long as the country does not discriminate against him, he should be comfortable.
The only difference is that the Palestinian Arab changed from an Islamic rule to a somewhat Jewish one. If he can think, he knows he's better off anyway. He also has the option to move - very nearby - to an Arab environment.
Jews need to be a bit less understanding about everyone else's feelings.
...Kahane is saying the Israeli Arab is fundamentally incapable of accommodating and needs to be shoved
Sparky the Wonder Dog,
Your second comment is correct.
Carl, center a drafting compass in Jerusalem and draw a circle however big you want and you'll never run out of Arabs who potentially need to be shoved. I just don't see that as an argument to begin to shove the ones nearest in the vicinity. There's a fine line between profound existential realism and flat out despair.
@Thermblog: EXCELLENT and true!
Post a Comment
<< Home