In it he wrote:
The secular Zionist dream was fundamentally democratic. Its proponents, from Theodor Herzl to David Ben-Gurion, sought to apply the universal right of self-determination to the Jews, to set them free individually and collectively as a nation within a democratic state. (In fact, the Zionist movement had a functioning democratic parliament even before it had a state.)
This dream is now seriously threatened by the religious settlers’ movement, Orthodox Jews whose theological version of Zionism is radically different. Although these religious settlers are relatively few — around 130,000 of the total half-a-million settlers — their actions could spell the end of the Israel we have known.
The most pressing problem with the settlements is not that they are obstacles to a final peace accord, which is how settlement critics have often framed the issue. The danger is that they will doom Zionism itself.
The religious settlement movement is not just secular Zionism’s ideological adversary, it is a danger to its very existence. Terrorism is a hazard, but it cannot destroy Herzl’s Zionist vision. More settlements and continued occupation can.
Seriously, settlements are NOT nor will they be the death knell of Zionism and State of Israel. While I have great difficulty accepting the wholesale settling of "Eretz Yisrael" without regard to the local Palestinian population and the general world view, I have even more problems with the Left's anti-religious and seemingly peace at any cost attitude.
Lost in his critique of religious Zionism (and specifically the "Gush Emunium"/right-wing religious factions) is that the mostly socialist--like David Ben Gurion--and secular--Herzl and the General Zionist-- elites created the institutions and have controlled the governments of Israel. If there are structural defects and fissures, it might be best to first look at them before blindly attacking minor actors.
It would also be helpful, if in evaluating others biases and ideological predilections, you also were critical of your own. To throw dirt on others is more a diversionary exercise than elucidating.
Another deceptive comment is:
Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook, later focused his father’s theological ideas around a single commandment: to settle all the land promised to the ancient Hebrews in the Bible. ... energized by a burning messianic fervor, ... Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War of 1967 [served] as confirmation of this theology and set out to fulfill its commandment. Religious enthusiasm made the movement subversive in a deep sense — adherents believed they had a divine obligation to build settlements and considered the authority of Israel’s democratic government conditional on its acceptance of what they declared to be God’s politics.
Although religious settlers often describe themselves as heirs of the early Zionist pioneers, they are anything but. Herzl’s vision was about liberating people, while theirs is about achieving a mystical reunion between the people of Israel and the land of Israel. Herzl’s view stemmed from the ideals of the Enlightenment and the tradition of democratic national liberation movements, dating back to the American and French Revolutions; religious settlers are steeped in blood-and-soil nationalism. Herzl never doubted that Israeli Arabs should have full and equal rights. For religious settlers, Arabs are an alien element in the organic unity of Jews and their land.
- I don't beleive that Herzl made any comment about the Arab/Palestinian population one way or another. He basically ignored them.
- Herzl's Zionism was sparked by the anti-Semitism he witnessed during his coverage of the Dreyfus Trail. Prior to this event, he was an assimilated (Hungarian) Jew who even advocated mass conversions of Jews to Christianity to gain acceptance in the world. (I would suggest that many of secular elites in Israel also seek international acceptance at the expense of promoting Jewish values and practices. But that's for another discussion.)
- Early Zionists certainly were deeply committed to "blood-and-soil nationalism", if it was the "watch tower movement/HaShomer", the creation of settlements in the middle of the night (during the British Mandate), the establishment of viable agricultural settlements, AD Gordon... Nation building, even at the expense of violence--against both Arabs and Jews--was deemed as a necessary evil.
- Missing in the discussion is: (a) Israel acquired the land in war ("fair and square") and have made repeated offers for peace BEFORE the massive settlement push only to have them rejected, (b) that the current wave of draft dodging is centered in the secular heartland of Tel Aviv and many of the elite military units are peopled by the same religious Zionists being critiqued by Taub.
- The loss of the 'zionist' elan is, IMHO, traceable to the decline in the quality of education (Jewish and general literacy). The siphoning of funds to anti-Zionist (read haredi/ultra-Orthodox) political forces. All of which occurred under the watch of the elites I believe Taub sees himself associated with.
The issue is not as Taub explains, a choice between "Jewish-dominated apartheid (through annexing the heavily Arab population with its massive birthrate), a non-Jewish democracy (viewed as dysfunctional a la Lebanon) or a 'one-state solution'... all of which will lead to civil war", rather it's creating a viable and dynamic Jewish state. To do so, there needs to be positive efforts to define ourselves as a whole and not promote factionalism and social/economic/religious/ethnic polarization. Israel needs to confront what it means to be a modern (and not necessarily Orthodox religious) Jew and how to design an infrastructure to create such people. Once we're clear about what we really stand for, I believe, others will respect it and assist us in creating a safe environment for us and our neighbors.
It won't be happening in the next year or two. Decades will be required.
One final comment. Yesterday's (31.Aug) terrorist attack just south of Hebron/Kiryat Arba that killed four people from Beit Haggai is another example of the danger of terrorism and the lack of peaceful intentions of the Palestinians--the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. Clearly timed to coincide with the arrival of both Abbas and Netanyahu to Washington, it sought to derail the peace talks.
While the presence of Jewish Israeli settlers was a convenient target, I don't believe it was the only available one. Getting inside "the Green Line" and conducting a terrorist attack there is also viable. So, the condemnation of the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, US President Obama, and even the PA crackdown on Hamas activists in the West Bank not withstanding, Arab terrorism remains a significant issue and challenge for the successful achievement of peace.
So while the status quo of settlements is a difficult issue, a wholesale retreat without real and enforceable security arrangements for Israel and Israelis is suicide.
