Examining Israel’s inner conflict
JERUSALEM— Micah Goodman, a popular Israeli philosopher of Jewish thought, hates to be labelled. When he lectures about Zionism, he says, people assume he is a conservative. When he speaks of liberalism and humanism, he is accused of being a leftist.
So he was hoping his new book, Catch 67, which deals with the Israelis’ inner struggle over their conflict with the Palestinians, would break down the monopolies of ideas commanded by the Israeli right and left, open up a healthier national dialogue and give expression to the largely unheard Israeli mainstream. Then, he thought, he could get back to his academic life of reading, writing and teaching.
But wading into the political quagmire, Goodman, a first-generation Israeli with a cheerful disposition, has become an unlikely prophet of the nation’s angst. He has also become a lightning rod for criticism.
Published in Hebrew in March, the book has topped Israel’s nonfiction bestseller lists for weeks and has driven a national discussion right at a charged moment: as Israel is observing the 50th anniversary of its victory in the June 1967 Middle East war and the 50th year of its occupation of the territories where most of the world wants to see an independent Palestinian state.
It is not a cheery read. Its prognosis is that there is no possibility of any comprehensive peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians. The book’s argument centres on a paradox that Goodman says poses an existential threat to Israel.
For years, polls have shown that a majority of Israelis would opt to leave the West Bank and end military control over the lives of millions of Palestinians in order to ensure Israel’s future as an internationally accepted state with a clear enough Jewish majority to prevent its becoming a binational country.
Yet the same majority of Israelis believe they cannot withdraw from the highlands of the West Bank. They distrust Palestinian intentions and fear for the security of a slimmed-down Israel in what many describe as indefensible borders. So, Goodman argues, both remain- ing in the West Bank and leaving it could spell the end of the Zionist project.
The Israeli right and left have long been defined, and increasingly polarized, by their hawkish and dovish stances on the Palestinian issue. But the author says he is giving voice to a growing body of confused Israeli centrists, each involved in a deeply personal struggle, and most appearing to have given up both on the dream of peace and on the dream of a Greater Israel.
Examining the political, ethical, religious and security aspects of the conundrum, Goodman’s book gives equal weight to arguments on all sides. But while he allows that there is a dispute over the legal status of the West Bank land and whether it is truly occupied, he takes a clear stand when it comes to robbing the Palestinians of their freedom.
“The occupation does not lead to a lack of morality,” he wrote. “The occupation itself is immoral.”