Racheli Gai of New Profile links to, “The Reviews of Walt and Mearsheimer: Moving Past the “Lobby” and Getting Stuck in the ‘Middle’”, written by Jeremiah Haber, a nom de plume for an orthodox Jewish studies professor who publishes the blog, The Magnes Zionist, and describes it as a picture “not of him, but of his kind of Zionist, Judah Magnes.” Magnes argued that the Jewish state should be created in Palestine decently or not at all, as he believed:
“If we cannot find ways of peace and understanding, if the only way of establishing the Jewish National Home is upon the bayonets of some Empire, our whole enterprise is not worthwhile, and it is better that the Eternal People that has outlived many a mighty empire should possess its soul in patience… It is one of the great civilizing tasks before the Jewish people to enter the promised land, not in the Joshua way, but bringing peace and culture, hard work and sacrifice and love, and a determination to do nothing that cannot be justified before the conscience of the world.” — Judah Magnes.
Haber’s article is an exceptional, thought-provoking bit of reading, as the first half of The Israel Lobby has been. I’m linking to this review of the reviews to echo the author’s reason for writing it, to inform readers that the media has done Walt and Mearsheimer a disservice by hiring liberal Zionists to review their work. Haber wants to know, “why not ask people who have no vested interest in either narrative to review the book?”
Since the UN “created” Israel in 1948, the media has consistently done the American public a disservice by promoting the liberal Zionist perspective as a legitimate one, which is especially important to keep in mind as the latest pretense at “peace talks” crumbles into dust, as predicted.
As Jeremiah Haber explains:
Here you have, in a nutshell, the faith of the liberal Zionist. Israel is indeed responsible for much of the Middle East morass, “most obviously for the settlement enterprise,” as if everything pre-1967 was just hunky-dory and could be solved by a simple withdrawal to the 67 borders — by ceding “much of the occupied territories,” and concluding it all in Geneva or Camp David with a peace agreement. It seems that according to Freedman, the Israel-Palestinian conflict could have been solved via Oslo, were it not for the al-Aksa intifada, “that brought terrorism as deeply into sovereign, pre-1967 Israel as the Tel Aviv beachfront.” Aside from the fact that this factually incorrect — Palestinians blew up Israeli civilians in Tel Aviv before, during, and after Oslo, it assumes that Israelis were ever willing to conclude a peace agreement with the Palestinians that would create a strong, secure Palestinians state. As I have written before, this is pure balderdash. Nobody in Israel, except those on the extreme left, have ever supported the establishment of a Palestinian state — rather, they support an emasculated demilitarized “state” that could survive only because of its neocolonial relation to Israel, and that would never pose a threat to the security of the Jewish state. That the state of Israel would pose a threat to the security of the Palestinian state is dismissed — after all we are Jews, and we honor agreements.