It appears that discussions on the UCU activist list are being read far and wide. Gadi Taub, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, has asked us to publish his response to some of this discussion.

Now that so much of the list-serve content has been made available to outsiders, I can testify that, for someone who has been opposing the occupation all his adult life, it is a strange experience, riddled with ironies, to read this exchange.

If the real issue at stake, as some have argued here, is Israel, then I may possibly be able to make some contribution from an outsider’s point of view (an outsider who is also, in a sense, an insider, being the subject of your discussion – I teach at Hebrew U). I wanted to make three short points which I think are central to the struggle against the occupation:

1. Some of the most vehement critics of Israel on the list repeatedly call for “one secular democratic state in Israel/Palestine”. This is a view which they see, sincerely, I presume, as post-colonial. It is more akin, however, to old style colonialism: it suggests we impose the “right” (i.e. Western) form of government on a population which, when given the right to vote (in Gaza), has just chosen a clerical government. It presumes “we” (the West) have a right to deny indigenous peoples (Jews and Arabs alike) the right of self-determination if they do not grow up and learn to determine themselves the “right” way.

2. Much the same holds true for Israel proper. By some of the list’s comments, which identify Zionism with the occupation, it is hard to tell whether the writers are aware of this, so pardon me for stating the obvious: Israeli Arabs (as opposed to their brethren in the occupied territories) have not only full civil rights, but also collective rights, built into the state’s structure. Suggesting that Israel stop being a Jewish state, and become an “Israeli” state by adopting one national identity (secular, and republican) along the lines of the French model would be very bad news for Israeli Arabs. One identity, in a democracy, would be the majority’s identity, and the French model would mean imposing it on Israel’s Arab citizens. It is only by leaving room between national identity and citizenship, that a national minority can preserve its own identity. And it is no coincidence that of all EU members France alone objected the EU’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National minorities.

3. The assumption that Zionism equals occupation is perhaps the most ironic, and least informed, stance posted on the list. We in Israel, who have fought against the occupation all our lives have won in public opinion, resulting in the unilateral evacuation of Gaza (not a small thing, by the way), because we have been arguing that the occupation cannot be reconciled with Zionism. (A) because Zionism is a democratic creed, resting on the right of all peoples to self-determination (read Theodore Herzl, or Israel’s Declaration of Independence for a concise explication of this point); and (B) because, being a democratic creed, it can only survive if it confines itself to a territory where the Jews are a majority. If we have, at long last, persuaded so entrenched a supporter of the settlers as Ariel Sharon, we have achieved quite a bit (this is, in fact, the argument he made in defense of his move to withdraw from Gaza).

The “post-colonial” rhetoric which identifies Zionism with the occupation, perhaps unbeknownst to its adherents, is actually giving aid and solace to religious settlers, who are the spearhead of the occupation. They have been trying to persuade Israelis that the occupation is a continuation of Zionism.

This is, of course, a lie, as demonstrated by their own political agenda: they do not demand to extend the framework defined by the Declaration of Independence to the occupied territories; they demand annexation without extending the right to vote to Palestinians. The boycott motion has been very useful for the settlers: it helps them portray the left at large, and the Israeli left along with it, as anti-Zionists.

So while we who oppose the occupation have won because we are Zionists, “post-colonial” academics on this list are suggesting that we renounce not only our own right to self-determination, but also our most effective weapon in combating the occupation. They propose that we switch instead to something like the old French colonial ideology. We are, I confess, not inclined to do so. Because we abhor human rights violations, because we are democrats, and because we believe that the Palestinians have an unalienable right to self-determination, for the reasons stated so eloquently in our Declaration of Independence.

Since it seems the UCU is not going to help the peace camp, we’d appreciate it if the union refrains from adding further obstacles to our struggle against the occupation.

Gadi Taub, Ph.D.
School of Public Policy
Hebrew University of Jerusalem