Yehezkel Dror's Defence of Jewish Fascism in the Forward

"Fascism" means many things to many people, and is, I grant, an overworked term. Leftists cry "fascist" so many times that it is hard to tell a real fascist when you see one. So for the purposes of this article, let me define "Jewish fascism" as a belief that the existence of a Jewish state trumps all values, especially moral ones; that individual and collective morality must be submerged to the interests of that state. In Zionist historiography, "Jewish fascism" is identified with the revisionists, but that is arguable. Jabotinsky, like so many others, often talked the fascist talk, but was ambivalent. Labor Zionists did not like to talk openly like Jabotinsky, since they were socialists, but their tactics confirmed his strategy. In recent years, Jewish fascism is associated with neocons like Poldheretz and Ruth Wisse, who opens her book on Jewish Power with a story implying that a live immoral Jew is better than a dead Jewish mensch, something that even Judah Halevy wouldn't have believed.

Yehezkel Dror, a professor emeritus of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a recipient of the Israel Prize, has written a not-so-brilliant defence of Jewish Fascism in the Forward, of all places. The argument is a familiar one and contains the familiar elisions: the state of Israel = the Jewish people, so the survival of the former is the same as the survival of the latter, or at least a necessary condition. Dror doesn't even bother to raise the question whether the state of Israel is good for the survival of the Jews; he holds that truth to be self-evident. The fact that more Jews have died as Jews since 1945 because of the Jewish state than of any other cause doesn't faze him. The fact that not a single Jew has been rescued by the Jewish state that wasn't previously endangered by it doesn't cross his mind. He could argue, of course, that Jewish existence is more certain than it was a century ago. But he doesn't; he just takes it for granted.

But let's grant him the point that the survival of Israel = the survival of the Jews. The question is what can be done in order to ensure that survival? And it turns out that Dror, like many other intellectual fascists, wimps out at this point. He allows that it is legitimate to criticize policies of the state, so long as they are unreasonable, or do not advance the state's interests. Who is to judge what they are? Well, Dror, I suppose, and other like-minded individuals; certainly there is no good argument why Israeli-style democracy is essential for the survival of the state. A fundamentalist theocracy a la Iran would do just as well.

No, for Dror the issue is between realpolitik and liberal morality; chuck the latter, he says, in favor of the former. All right, in that case we have chucked neoconservatism and liberal interventionism, and we are back with Walt and Mearsheimer's thesis that US unlimited support for Israel is against the US interest. Look, I have no problem with realpolitik (sorry guys), but why say that it has anything to do with Judaism or with Jews? Once again, Dror has no argument for a liberal democratic state; he believes in it precisely because of the values with which he was inculcated.

Are state's moral agents? That is a long philosophical discussion that I can't go into. But whether they are or whether they are not, states that allow widespread immorality generally are not stable over time. If Dror wants to argue that liberal morality is in the Jewish state's interest (for one thing, it is a stabilizing factor, for another, it eases a small state like Israel's acceptance in the family of nations, that is one thing. And I imagine he would agree to that. But it is a sign of his intellectual poverty that he can't see that that conclusion is undermined by his main claim.

The truth is that folks like Dror, Podhoretz, and Wisse attempt to provide moral justifications for Israel's actions. When they think they can't, they resort to the Jewish Fascist strategy of Israel's "survival" trumping all considerations. The form of their argument is: either Israel's actions are moral, or morality doesn't count.

Of course, as I said, none of this has anything to do with Judaism. I suppose that it does have something to do with all those Jewish kings in the Bible who identified their own interest with the interest of their people, and were promptly disabused of that idea by the prophets. Prophetic Judaism doesn't count much with the Jewish fascists. Jewish fascism is the latest version of Jewish zealotry that goes back to Reuven and Shimon, who would massacre an entire people to avenge the lost honor of their sister Dina. For them, the clan's survival trumped all morality. To Azure's editor David Hazony, the brothers were just engaging in realpolitik.

My response -- the Jewish response -- is Israel's last word: Be-sodam al tavo nafshi. "I will not participate in their councils." Jewish zealotry is as Jewish as felafel, my favorite Palestinian dish.

Baka Lefties

Hell hath no fury like a liberal Zionist scorned by a settler.

The settler looks disdainfully at the liberal Zionist and says, “We are doing in Judea and Samaria what you guys did for a century throughout the Land of Israel.” If the Zionist leftie happens to live in a formerly Arab neighborhood, like Jerusalem's Katamon, Baka, Talbieh – or in Sheikh Munis, the Arab village where Tel-Aviv University sits today -- the settler gloatfully throws this at him: “You guys are worse than we are. At least we built settlements on land where nobody ever lived. You live in Arab houses."

At this point, the liberal Zionist generally sputters in outraged response: “There is no comparison. Where we live is internationally recognized, albeit de facto, as part of the state of Israel. Even the Palestinian national leadership has recognized Israel’s right to the lands within the pre-67 borders, or at least it doesn’t demand more than this. What was done by a Zionist movement in pursuit of independence, and during a war, cannot be compared to the actions of a sovereign state after independence and during peace time. Moreover, the actions of the settlers thwart the possibility of a two-state solution.” Some may even add that they are willing to move out of their formerly Arab neighborhoods in the case of a peace settlement, provided they get fair compensation.

Yada, yada, yada....

All this is well and good when discussing the behavior of states and their citizens. But I want to talk in this post about personal morality,. And I will start with myself.

I am a Baka Leftie. I live in that part of South Jerusalem that Gershom Gorenberg and Haim Watzman write so elegantly from and about in their South Jerusalem blog. Baka was a Palestinian middle to upper-class neighborhood before 1947; after the war it was used to house Jewish immigrants from North Africa. Some of those original immigrants still live in Baka, although many have died or moved elsewhere. The neighborhood has been undergoing “gentrification” for over two decades, with a lot of the old properties bought up, at outrageous prices, by American and French absentee owners. Local residents, less well-off, have purchased flats in the shikunim (“projects”) that are slowly being renovated, at least on the outside. These owners include a fair number of liberal American Jews who made aliyah in the seventies and the eighties. Not all the lefties are Anglos. Aging Peace-Now activists like the philosophers Avishai Margalit and Menachem Brinker live in Baka, though you won’t seem them frequenting synagogues like Yedidya, Shira Hadasha, bastions of the Anglo-orthodox left, or Kol ha-Neshama of the Anglo-reform left.

Now I don’t live inside an Arab house, but I do live on top of one; my flat was built around ten years ago on somebody’s roof. Needless to say, the Palestinian owner of the roof didn’t get a penny from the purchase. I have no idea who he or she is/was. I can console myself with the idea that I am not living inside his house. But so what -- I am living on a roof that does not belong to me, utilizing air rights that don’t belong to me.

So how do I justify this to myself morally? The answer is that I can't. It took me thirty years to realize that there is no justification. Of course, there are a lot worse things than what I am doing, but that doesn't make me feel better. Robert Fulghum said it best: One of the things we learn in kindergarten is not to take things that don’t belong to us. Living in a house which was taken from the owners is stealing. It’s that simple. True, others do it all the time. But so what?

After forty years it is time that the "Baka Lefties" get together and discuss the problem, critically and honestly. Preferably that discussion should be with Palestinian groups.

Several years ago I privately began inquiries with Palestinians to see if I could find the original owners of the house on which I live. What would I have done had I found them? Well, first of all, I would have apologized for living on top of their house. Second, I would have tried to come to a a financial understanding with them that would not prejudice any future claims they would have to state-compensation. And third, and more basically, I would ask their permission to live on top of their house.

I did all this without telling anybody, including my family, who gave me hell for not involving them. I wasn't very successful. Since then I heard that an acquaintance of mine, who lives in Talpiyot, had successfully done the same thing. I am not at the liberty to divulge his name, especially since I haven’t spoken with him about it. But when I was making my inquiries as to the owners, I was encouraged by the Palestinians with whom I was in contact (with the notable exception of the London-based Salman Abu Sitta, who told me to give up the whole project, and just support a group like Zochrot.)

I think the time has come to organize. There is now a critical mass of Baka Lefties –and not just Baka Lefties, but Israelis of all sort, who, I believe, would be willing to try to attempt some sort of encounter between settlers and refugees. Perhaps we should try to work through Zochrot; perhaps somebody has a better idea of proceeding.

But we must stop saying that this is only a matter for the government. If we wait for the government to do something about the injustice, we will die waiting. And, frankly, as bad as I feel about living on top of somebody else’s house, without his or her knowledge, or permission, I feel a lot worse about living out my life and dying there.

Liberal guilt? You bet. But I am tired of hearing facile raitonalizations. I see no reason why I have to wait for other people in order for me to do the right thing.

Help me out here, ye gang of agin' sixties activists! Let’s do something about this thing before we are sent to Baka old-age homes -- which also belong to Arab refugees.

Shabbat Shalom

Leon Uris' Influence on Barack Obama

Jeffrey ("You-Can-Dump-On-Israel-As-Long-As-You-Are-A-Liberal-Zionist-Like-Me") Goldberg has an interview with Obama in Atlantic.Com that will trouble Obama supporters who are under the illusion that the US can still be an honest broker in the Middle East. On the same day when my Shabbas-minyan-mate Joe Lieberman wonders out loud why a Hamas spokesman welcomes an Obama presidency, a wary Goldberg goads Obama into expressing his undying admiration for the Jewish state.

JG: You’ve talked about the role of Jews in the development of your thinking

BO: I always joke that my intellectual formation was through Jewish scholars and writers, even though I didn’t know it at the time. Whether it was theologians or Philip Roth who helped shape my sensibility, or some of the more popular writers like Leon Uris. So when I became more politically conscious, my starting point when I think about the Middle East is this enormous emotional attachment and sympathy for Israel, mindful of its history, mindful of the hardship and pain and suffering that the Jewish people have undergone, but also mindful of the incredible opportunity that is presented when people finally return to a land and are able to try to excavate their best traditions and their best selves. And obviously it’s something that has great resonance with the African-American experience.

In that paragraph, and in the entire interview, you see why Walt and Mearsheimer's thesis of an Israel Lobby is so, well, irrelevant. There is an Israel Lobby in America, and it is called America (minus some leftwing churches and Muslims). So why should anybody be surprised that Obama goes on and on about his understanding for Israel, with just a few words about the Palestinians. (Goldberg, who apparently is spooked by goyim talking about Palestinians, never brings up the subject.) This is all Obama has to say about the Palestinian people.

When I visited Ramallah, among a group of Palestinian students, one of the things that I said to those students was: “Look, I am sympathetic to you and the need for you guys to have a country that can function, but understand this: if you’re waiting for America to distance itself from Israel, you are delusional. Because my commitment, our commitment, to Israel’s security is non-negotiable.” I’ve said this in front of audiences where, if there were any doubts about my position, that’d be a place where you’d hear it.

So there you have it -- according to Obama, the Israelis get a country whose "security is non-negotiable", whereas the Palestinians get, if they are good, "a country that can function."

That could be any liberal Zionist speaking, and it will play big with Obama's target audience, the Jewish liberals like my sister-in-law who are still nervous about him.

There is, of course, the ritual Goldberg defamation of Jimmy Carter in his best Alan Dershowitz manner:

JG: What do you make of Jimmy Carter’s suggestion that Israel resembles an apartheid state?

Funny, Jeff, but I never heard Jimmy Carter suggest that Israel resembles an apartheid state. I did hear him express his fear that the West Bank may resemble de facto a system of apartheid because of separate roads, separate laws, and separate water resources for settlers and natives. I have heard you suggest somewhat similar thing sans the "A"-word. Of course, you are a Jew and Carter isn't.

It is no surprise that Obama stays squarely within the American liberal Zionist consensus on Israel. I have said from the beginning that he will disappoint, and that there is a lot more to this election than Israel.

But maybe not all is bleak if he brings in a diverse Middle East team. Before the last presidential election, I had lunch with a prominent neocon intellectual and military historian, a man who had been a high-profile supporter of both Iraq wars. I asked him who he was voting for, and he said, "John Kerry". When I expressed surprise, he said, "Look, I may have some misgivings about Kerry. But I know the people he is working with, and they are intelligent -- unlike the Bush folks who were responsible for the fiasco in Iraq."

That may be true of Obama, though, frankly, I don't have the hutzpah -- sorry, the audacity -- to have much hope on this one.

Rob Malley "Sacked" from Obama Campaign? Puleeze!!!

Leave it to Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz's out-of-touch rightwing US correspondent, to fall for a cooked-up story from the London Times about Rob Malley's being "sacked" from the Obama campaign. Rosner "reported" the story here. Since Malley never served in the Obama campaign, he couldn't have been sacked from it. He has acted as an informal advisor in the past and no doubt he will in the future, along with several others. Because of the McCain's campaign effort to tie Obama with Malley, Malley formally "severed all ties" on Friday with the campaign. This is nothing more than a media gimmick to puncture McCain's campaign. As for McCain, well, he obviously has "lost his bearings," not because he is old, but because he is dumb.

The London Times story was that after the McCain campaign pointed out that Malley talked with Hamas, he was fired. I suppose that the Brits can be forgiven for completely misinterpreting the following remark of Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Mr. Obama

Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future

So if Malley never had a formal role in the campaign, then how can he be "sacked" from it? Note that LaBolt didn't say that Malley hadn't given advice in the past nor would he in the future, only that he wouldn't play a role in the campaign. It's comforting to know that Malley won't be overseeing campaign strategy for Obama. Duh!

I can't blame the Brits for manufacturing news. But Rosner, who could pick up the phone from his Suburban Maryland home and call Malley, should know better. His pathetic attempts to deflate Obama (usually with question marks, so as to appear as if he himself doesn't necessarily buy the rumors, e.g., "Will Jews support Obama?" or "Is International Support Hurting Obama?") haven't reaped any fruit.

The McCain folks are trying to dig up Obama's past associations with -- God forbid --Rashid Khalidi to smear him with the Jews. Well, I am on record saying that I hope the Jews don't vote for Obama, so that he can elected without our help and then not be beholden to us. But the truth is that Jews will vote overwhelmingly for Obama -- mark my words -- much to the chagrin of the rightwingers, and to the detriment of the Palestinians.

As Obama's political career has taken off, he has distanced himself from the Palestinians to win elections and to get the Jewish vote. That's just what politicians do. When the Palestinians have the political clout that the Jews do, then things may change, but when will that happen?

For Obama's abandonment of the Palestinians after initial expression of sympathy, see today's Times. But anybody who reads the Electronic Intifada has known about that for some time.

As for "talking to Hamas"...everybody knows that Hamas is a major player, and that the United States (and the Quartet) erred by boycotting the democratically-elected Palestinian Authority. You don't need Rob Malley to understand the drift of the following passage:

"...in setting rigid, all-or nothing preconditions for engagement after the [Palestinians parliament] election, US diplomacy was perceived as confusing the positions of Hamas as a movement with the actions of the elected Palestinians government. The preconditions adopted by the Quartet closed off diplomacy."

That is a direct slap at US and Israeli policy of non-engagement with the Hamas-led PA government. And it is not made by Rob Malley, but by Daniel C. Kurtzer and Scott Lasensky in their book, "Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace." (p. 72)

Dan Kurtzer will no doubt play a major role in the Middle East policy of the Obama administration -- but McCain's Jewish Republicans find Malley easier to go after now.

Man, are they aiming at the wrong guy. Ed Lasky at the American Thinker rightly senses that Kurtzer's views differ significantly -- and, in his eyes, dangerously -- from the views of previous administrations under which Kurtzer served. That is because those administrations failed abysmally in their Middle East policy. Still, don't expect anything but a change in tone from an Obama administration on the Middle East, Kurtzer or no Kurtzer.

Still, that will be welcome.

The Liberal Wimp's Guide to Celebrating Yom ha-Atzma'ut and Remembering an-Nakba

Of all people, Bradley Burston in Haaretz summed up a lot of my feelings on this, the 60th anniversary of founding of the State of Israel, and the commemoration of the Nakba. Of course, I reject totally his symmetry between us and them. But he obviously is not in the mood for celebrating. Read the article here

The other day I was asked whether I recite the Hallel prayer with a blessing on Yom ha-Atzma'ut. That is traditionally a demarcator between enthusiastic religious Zionists and more halakhically cautious ones; of course, the ultra-orthodox don't recite it at all. This is what I told the questioner: There is a famous midrash on the parting of the Red Sea, where the Almighty rebukes the angels who are singing His praises by saying, "My creatures (i.e., the Egyptians) are drowning, and you sing a song of praise?" Now God may allow recently-freed slaves to rejoice over the downfall of their oppressors. But surely not that is not the ideal. And when those who are drowning in sea are not oppressors but innocent victims of, according to the Zionist narrative, Jewish liberation -- then how can any decent person rejoice?

The answer is that despite the sixty-year old (100 + year old?) Nakba, there are some positive elements to the Jewish state founded sixty years ago, that imperfect regime that engaged (and engages) in ethnic cleansing and dividing up the spoils of war. In fact, they are too numerous to mention.

So here's the liberal wimp's list of things to do to celebrate Israel's Independence Day:

1) If you can't have a mangal (barbecue) at least eat felafel. It's a good Palestinian dish that Israeli Jews have -- what else? -- appropriated from them. When you eat it, have a special kavannah that you are eating it for the sake of uniting the Palestinian and the Israeli Jewish people.

2) If you live outside of Israel, don't attend any of the community celebrations honoring sixty years of Israeli independence. Or if you do, hand our t-shirts that say, "Happy Birthday, Israel" on the front, and "Remember the Nakba" on the back. Be prepared to run fast.

3) Buy five copies of the powerful English translation of S. Yizhar's Khirbet Khizeh and send it to family and friends. This is a short powerful book that brings home the Nakba in a way that Elie Wiesel's Night brought home the Holocaust to me forty years ago.

4) Honor the Palestinian and Jewish activists who labor day and night to bring justice to the Palestinians inside and outside of Israel. "The day is short and the labor is long." There are so many groups whose work allows wimpy liberals like me to sleep a little better at night. May God bless them all.

But a special blessing this year to Gabi Eldor, of the Jaffa Arab-Jewish theater, Yosef (Pappe) Allo, a Jerusalem activist, Sa'id el-Uqbi, a peace activist, Sherry Bashi, Gisha (organization that works to provide access for Palestinians, Beni Gefen, peace activist, Alon Lee Green, labor activist, Giora Segal, educator and teacher; Yigal Ezrati, the Arabic-Hebrew Theater in Jaffa, Lilia Pether, foreign worker activist, Ehud Shem Tov, Social TV. (Please forgive the misspellings. These activists were honored by lighting the torches at the Alternative Torch Lighting Ceremony sponsored by Yesh Gvul

5) Give a donation to the Obama campaign. All right, I know this one is cheezy. And I don't have many illusions. But of all the candidates, he has the most potential to do something, which I don't believe he will do, to bring justice, which I don't believe will happen, to the Palestinians.

That's all. Note that I didn't post this until the day was over. My bad.

Judah Magnes -- The Forgotten Prophet

There is a series in Haaretz called, "1948 Diaries," which today featured Judah Magnes's Zionist activities to prevent the unilateral establishment of a Jewish state. I have reproduced the article below. Unfortunately, this is a very busy week (month) for me, so I have to be a bit brief on comment.

But one of my occasional readers, bar_kochba132, has asked that even if Magnes was right, what was the alternative? I will let him say it in his words:

A continuation of the British mandate seemed not to be in the cards, because Britain was bankrupt and they were going to pull out of their main base in Egypt anyway, so Palestine had less and less strategic importance to them (once they had to give up the Suez Canal). One possibility was a UN Mandate, but those have been problematic. A unitary state would have likely lead to a Lebanon-type situation with an ongoing civil war, with the Arabs jealous of Jewish economic dominance. So what did Magnes think was the solution?

Oy, I simply can't answer that important question now. And, needless to say, 1948 is not 2008. But here it is in brief:

Magnes was a pragmatist and a tireless diplomat. As I have said before, he should be distinguished from Buber, Simon, and the Brit Shalom crowd. Before the establishment of the state, he pushed for a binational state, and was encouraged by the minority UNSCOP that called for a federal state. The latter solution was also rejected by the Arab States; some of the Arab side were prepared to allow the Jews to have minority rights and a certain degree of cultural autonomy, but not parity of any sort. As the article states, Magnes was prepared for a temporary UN mandate or trusteeship, and he was also in favor of postponing the implementation of partition (as was the US State Department). Following the establishment of the State of Israel, he argued for a federation of several states with a joint army, economic and foreign policies.

The tragedy of Magnes was that his ideas were, I believe, right in principle, but their timing was wrong. Neither the Zionists nor the Arabs were willing to listen, and he understood quite well the logic of their positions.

After the semester is over, I will post a fascinating debate between Aubrey (Abba) Eban and Judah Magnes that appeared in Commentary in 1948. He called then for a United States of Palestine. Who would have thought sixty years ago, and in a much altered situation, that so much of that debate is relevant?

1948 diaries: Saving the Jews from themselves

By Ofri Ilani

Judah Magnes, a founder of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and its first president, was in poor health on April 13, 1948. The 70-year-old Magnes knew the end was near, but that didn't stop him from flying to Washington, D.C., in an effort to end the violence in the soon-to-be-born State of Israel. He represented almost no one other than a group of peace-seeking professors, but was nonetheless able to access and influence the American administration.

He had access because the State Department wanted to slow down partition, and they wanted Magnes to influence Truman. It didn't work.

The details of this forgotten period during Israel's struggle for independence are revealed in excerpts of Magnes' diary, published here for the first time, which describe the Zionist leader's attempt to convince the president of the United States to force a cease-fire and prevent both the implementation of the partition plan and the establishment of a Jewish state.

When the United Nations passed the partition plan on November 29, 1947, not all the Jews celebrated in the streets. A group of intellectuals, most of them Hebrew University lecturers, believed that the war that would break out in the wake of the establishment of a Jewish state would bring disaster down on the Jews and the Arabs alike. Magnes, a Reform rabbi, pacifist and anti-imperialist who was known for his opposition to World War I, was one of the most important Zionist leaders of his era. He was a leading figure in the New York Jewish community and was a key liaison between the Zionist leadership and the American administration. He moved to Israel in 1922 and came out in support of the establishment of a single, binational state for Jews and Arabs, with a government comprised of representatives from both peoples.

Magnes' personal diary, which he wrote in English, discusses his despair at the violence as the British Mandate came to an end, intermingling those accounts with descriptions of his worsening health and his nightmares.

On April 12, 1948, Magnes wrote in his diary: "For more than a generation I have been pleading for peace, conciliation, understanding. How can I not and stand before the world and say: 'Friends, stop the bloodshed. Understanding is possible.' This is the moment I have been preparing for all these years."

The American consul told Magnes that if no trusteeship were formed by May 15, Palestine would enter a period full of "very grave danger with bloodshed," Magnes wrote the same day. "Great need of courageous, constructive attitude such as mine," he wrote. "Therefore time come for me and others selected... or me alone to come to U.S. in order to cooperate." Magnes expressed the hope that if a state were declared, the United States would impose sanctions on Israel, saying that there can be no war without money or ammunition.

On April 13, Magnes was informed that 34 Hebrew University and Hadassah hospital employees were killed in an attack on a convoy to Mount Scopus. All told, 77 people were killed in the attack, many of them Magnes' friends. But Manges was no less shocked by the massacre than he was by the circumstances that preceded it: Four days earlier, the Irgun and Lehi pre-state Jewish underground militias killed more than 100 Palestinians at Deir Yassin.

At the funerals of those killed in the convoy attack, Magnes condemned the cruelty of both sides, and was denounced as a traitor by many members of the Yishuv (Jewish community in Palestine).

"Unlike other Zionist leaders, like [David] Ben-Gurion, Magnes' diaries are not just a political document," says Hebrew University Prof. Aryeh Goren, who is researching and editing Magnes' writings. "His writing is very personal - he shares and talks about his misgivings and his weaknesses."

Magnes considered himself to be a follower of Mahatma Gandhi and the prophet Jeremiah, and opposed all forms of nationalism that are based on military force. The Ihud (Unity) association he established with several others is seen as the flagship group of left-wing Zionists regarding all that pertains to Jewish-Arab relations. Its members were attacked by nearly all the political parties in the pre-state period, and were described as defeatists, ghetto-like and anti-patriotic.

A long study of the Ichud was published by Prof. Joseph Heller in Hebrew a few years ago. Unfortunately, it is only in Hebrew, and the author can't afford to have it translated into English. (I should mentioned in passing that the author does not share Magnes's views, or thinks that they would have worked.)

"Magnes predicted that even if we win the war, there would then be another war, and another one. It would never end," says Goren. "When the battles of the War of Independence began, he tried to halt the implementation of the UN decision and advance the idea that was promoted then by the American State Department, that the UN would freeze the partition decision and in the interim force both sides into a trusteeship with a temporary government, until the conditions suit another arrangement. Magnes thought that this was an opportunity to stop the turn of events, in the hope that in the meantime there would be understanding and it would be possible to talk."

Magnes died several months after the establishment of the state. His loss was not only a great loss to the Jewish people but to Zionism and the State of Israel. He is virtually a forgotten figure. And the reason for that, aside from the obvious one that he went against the master narrative, is that, as an American and a reform Jew, he was an outsider in a country founded by Russian Jewish nationalists on a European socialist model. In a sense, the failure of Magnes was the first of countless failures of liberal Zionist American Jews to have an impact on the country. His writings have never been translated into Hebrew, and, aside from Heller's book, very few have studied him.

But his time will come

Now the Hebron Settlers Are Attacking the Road Map Implementation Monitor

Haaretz is reporting that the Hebron settlers successfully disrupted the visit to Hebron by General William Frasier, the new road map implementation monitor. They managed to get one of their jeeps into his motorcade, whereupon his security people's car hit the jeep and a fight broke out between the settlers and the security people. The general and his people left the place immediately.

Apparently the settler hooligans don't discriminate -- or they believe that General Frasier is a crazy leftwing self-hating Jew.