August, 2000
Copyright © Ariella Atzmon, 2000
All rights Reserved
The Margins of Europe: How far can they go?
This paper deals with attempts made by Israel to become a partial
member of the European community. In referring entirely to cultural
and political aspects, we pose the question: how far can Europe
go to absorb countries not geographically contiguous to it by
blurring its physical margins?
We will examine: how it came about that while the state of Israel
considers itself a component of the European community, the people
of Israel find themselves more deeply integrated both culturally
and mentally outside Europe?
Israeli democracy, inspired by the common values of the free western
world, advocates freedom and equality. Most Israelis are convinced
that they are part of the enlightened European identity.
To explain Israeli democracy and its complicated conditions, I
shall use a diagram which will serve to elaborate the subject.
The Israeli socio-political arena is likened to a battlefield
where three focal elements are linked in a continuous endless
confrontation with no chance for resolution. This is illustrated
as a triangle (figure 1) with each apex representing one of three
elements termed: 'The State', 'Democracy' and 'Judaism'. The narrative
of Zionism is determined by the necessary coexistence of these
three interrelated key elements.
'The State'
Zionism
'Democracy' 'Judaism'
Figure 1 (the three elements which determine the Israeli public
sphere)
Israeli democracy's uniqueness is linked to the most essential
characteristics of Judaism, defined as both a national group and
a religion at the same time. Since the State of Israel was established
as a 'national shelter' for the Jewish people the world over,
Israeli democracy is singularly loaded with irreconcilable contradictions.
By adding Zionist terminology, we shall find that Israeli political-cultural
sphere represents a cleavage between progressive western democracy
and the chaotic constraints dictated by sacred commands.
Jewish peoplehood presents an unshakable link between the state
of Israel and the Jewish Diaspora. This is the foundation of the
complicated issue of what is meant by Israeli identity. Being
a national home for the Jews all over the world is the only justification
for the existence of the state of Israel. This existential element
imprinted mainly in the educational system, marks all other Ideological
State Apparatuses in Israel.
The aporetic controversy between the two apexes: democracy versus
Judaism originates in two distinguished philosophical perspectives
regarding the nature of human subjectivity. The first - typical
of most western democracies, conceives human beings as sovereign
autonomous individuals. The other perspective which characterizes
theocratic regimes, describes human beings as subjects lacking
any sense of authenticity and freedom.
According to the spirit of enlightenment rooted in Cartesian thought,
the term 'Individual' refers to something quite different from
the term referring to the human being as a 'subject'. The term
'Individual' presupposes the human being as a free thinker, searching
for a transcendental order which lies beyond him. On the other
hand, the term 'Subject' (in the Heideggerian notion), conceives
human beings to be products of a discursive signifying chain.
The category of the 'Subject' questions the notion of self as
synonymous with consciousness.
In the light of Judaism, the human being is totally subjected
to the authority of holy texts, spoken through devout, religious
scholars. The human subject is not gifted with the ability for
reasonable and objective judgment of the actual concrete reality.
This notion of human beings perceiving themselves as subjects,
admits the impossibility of authenticity. It is quite obvious
that conceptualization of human beings as spoken subjects concurs
with orthodox Jewish assumptions.
Since the Jewish view conceives of human beings as submitting
to an implicit language hidden within the canonic texts, I may
argue that the origins of Judaism are in agreement with the Heideggerian
notion of subjectivity. But the notion of the subject according
to Judaism differs from Poststructuralist ideas in the fact that
the later admit that the routes to the sources of meanings are
blocked, and there is no place for mighty 'pundits' empowered
with the capability of matching the suitable interpretation of
the holy texts to the ordinary people. The breakdown of Judaism
emerged at the point where people lost the sense of multiplicity
entailed within the hermeneutic process. It happened at the moment
when subjection to the divine texts became associated with a total
self-disparagement in the presence of celebrated scholars who
mediated between God and his chosen people.
Societies which assume human beings as subjected to divine texts,
view words as appropriate to their source of meaning through celebrated
scholars. One of Israel's major peculiarities, symptomatic of
the irreconcilable combination of Democracy, State and Judaism,
is the involvement of Tora scholars in the juridical process.
The phenomenon of a religious leader setting guidelines for his
followers on political topics has become a daily event. Israelis
have become used to hearing that "the genius of the generation"
or "the council of sages" have rendered a political
judgment that derives its strength from their religious standing,
based upon a preferential status for the interpretation of reality.
I would like to note that the resemblance between Jewish Halacha
and post-structural thought comes into view where Judaism dictates
a legal system which entirely negates the concept of 'juridical
individualism;' 'pure reason;' or 'free choice.' Jewish Halachic
tradition created the notion of 'Seventy faces to the Torah'.
The official Israeli legal system is founded upon the basis of
secular, liberal, western law and has to live in an eternal aporia.
The rule of the law as embedded in Western legal and political
thought is fixed in the basic metaphysical belief in concepts
of justice and legal obligations. So, while these concepts originate
in universal essences which are contemplated by rational individuals,
Jewish law as 'The Torah of Life' rejects the notion of the 'individual.'
The conclusion is that since these characteristics which are an
indisputably common convention within Islamic countries, have
become a daily recognized feature of the Israeli cultural and
political atmosphere, it stakes Israel even more firmly in the
middle east..
To sum up this argument we may say that the difference between
these two types of societies in Israel manifest a split between
two opposing views concerning the nature of reason, knowledge,
choice and judgment. The first presupposes universal values of
justice and human rights, while the other takes the attitude of
choseness according the various myths of piety and devotion to
the collective or to ethnic traditions. This aporia is not recognized
in the Christian world, because Christianity is able to conceive
of human beings as individuals (in keeping with conservative trends
in Judaism). For Christianity, secular law prreligious law. The
main Jewish orthodox idea concerning the link between religion
and state attempts to produce a total fusion between the two,
(there are however some suggestions for devising both legal separation
and institutional duality). However in Islam and in Judaism secular
and religious law are united under the command of a divine authority.
The most crucial dissonance embodied in the tryad democracy, Judaism
and the state is related to the concepts of Identity/Identification,
and to the question: what does 'Israeli identity' mean within
the framework of Israeli democracy? Does 'Identification' mean
to be constituted by means of community, state, ethnicity, or
gender? In that case the expression 'Israeli identity' as the
legal content given to Israeli citizenship, can be understood
as a call for identification. A call which strives to direct Jewish
citizens into discourses reflecting a denial of the other. The
question: what is an Israeli identity? is related to the confusion
of whether Israel is a Jewish democratic state, or a civic democracy
for all its citizens?
Considering the uniqueness of Judaism defined as both a religion
and a nation, it presents a case in which the significance of
the terms citizenship, nationality or religious belonging are
thus redefined. The fact that Israel was established as a Jewish
state, denotes the way in which the terms 'resident', 'migrant',
and 'foreigner' are interpreted and signified. Israel is the 'homeland'
not merely for the citizens of Israel, but promises a substantive
strength to those who prefer to live at the Diaspora.
Israeli Jews are torn between being Jewish or being Israeli. The
principle of democracy as majority rule clearly defines the group
which identifies with this principle. In the case of Israel, instead
of a commitment to the state as a defined territory, the concept
of 'identity' is mistakenly confused with national 'identification'.
On the one hand there is a democratic body of laws and on the
other commitment to a national, religious, ethnic group. The second
choice immediately excludes all citizens who are not Jewish, consigning
them to a lower status. "The "Israeli judicial system
gives rise to a series of binary oppositions between "us"
(progressive westerners) and "them" (Oriental, backward,
and undemocratic). The Israeli Jew has to make a choice between
the Zionist, revolutionary promise of a new Jewish identity, or
maintain a nostalgic attachment to the pre-revolutionary stage.
The verse 'one nation and one heart', signifies the hegemonic
power of Jewish brotherhood while negating the creation of a new
identity and annulling 'otherness.' The logic of equivalence which
prevails in Jewish society reduces any possibility for genuine
implementation of western international law. If we try to deal
with the question: 'What is Israeli identity?" we find ourselves
involved with the disturbing questions: 'what is considered Jewish
in the context of the 'law of return?' In the case of Israel,
the question is whether identity should refer to the concept of
citizenship, or to religious affiliation? This intricate situation
leads to a permanent preoccupation with the question: Who is a
Jew? If citizenship is conditioned upon a sense of religious belonging,
then the legitimacy of conversion becomes an acute problem. In
the light of another verse: "converts are as difficult for
Israel as psoriasis," all political and judicial crises concerning
the procedures of conversion to Judaism become clear. Whenever
personal identity is confused with identification, we trace a
sharp trend towards modes of judicial mishaps directed at those
who do not belong. Israeli society manifests an intense need to
maintain the spirit of Judaism, based upon common destiny and
a deep belief in God's promise to his chosen people. This spirit
is revealed in the verse "For from the top of the rocks I
see him, and from the hills I behold him" (Numbers). In the
light of this verse we can detect a repulsion of missionary activity,
manifested by the creation of obstacles discouraging conversion
to Judaism. This deep seated consciousness illustrates a lack
of empathy for whoever is not Jewish. The state of Israel portrays
a new society which proclaims brotherhood within the so called
'melting pot' designed for those who are defined as Jewish. Other
minorities who are called 'cousins' at best, or strangers at worst,
become invisible in the eyes of the law.
I have tried to illustrate a process which describes Israel's
political stage's sharp inclination towards an extremity typical
of religious regimes. I would like to emphasize the fact that
this trend is not a characteristic of the religious orthodox population
exclusively but incorporates a major portion of Israelis who consider
themselves secular, western, enlightened and rational people.
The dispute with regard to Israel being viewed as a Jewish democratic
state, or as a civic democracy for all its citizens - illustrates
the polarization of Israeli society. The majority of the Jewish
population (including orthodox and secular, right and left) stress
the first definition. The neglected minority of Jewish people
who appropriate the second view are those who are ready to give
up their Jewish identity and replace it with an Israeli identity.
Jewish unification imperatives are supported by rhetoric which
insists upon common destiny, and the fact that Jews are permanently
persecuted by anti-Semitism. This is why, the holocaust becomes
the main issue in every agenda. It insists upon an Israeli identification,
constructed by blurring the meaning of being Jewish and being
Israeli.
Here the problematic issue of Zionism comes to the fore. Zionism
is comprised of a range of ideological nuances which unfold between
two poles. The continuum ranges from the idea that conceives of
Israeli identity as established upon citizenship, based upon territorial
grounds, to the notion that Israel is the haven for Jews from
all over the world. The first strives towards a civic society
perceiving Israeli identity as a new entity in the process of
creation, and which insists upon complete liberation from any
commitment and common destiny with the Jewish Diaspora. The second
version firmly declares that 'all Jews are responsible for one
another'. We realize that this second view represents the 'melting
pot' type of identity which dovetails with the 'Law of Return'.
This version expresses suspicion of every voice that might constitute
a threat to the wholeness of the Jewish entity. By definition,
all modes of Zionism manifest a demarcation between two different
kinds of Israeli identities: Arab identity which is excluded by
differing degrees of hostility, and Israeli Identity which up
to the present is still somewhat vague. An extreme version which
must no longer be called Zionist, includes the demand to be detached
from any obligation to the rest of the Jewish community abroad.
This radical version, is shared by some Arab Palestinians' attempts
to charge the concept of Israeli identity with the spirit of citizenship
in a democracy perceived as a civic society. Reshaping the understanding
of Jewish Identity opens creative channels for synthesis of a
new, hybrid identity engaged in a process conditioned upon pluralistic
communication. But, this is not welcomed by those who conceive
of themselves of having been chosen.
But, to abandon the sense of belonging and mutual commitment to
the Jewish Diaspora means a negation of being identified through
the traumatic events of the holocaust. It means an alternative
route to a more creative definition of Israeli identification.
It is a striding towards the future without any regressive movement
of excavating catastrophes as existential justification for the
present. It means striving to live in peace and reconcilement
with other beliefs,
Some symptoms characteristic of Israeli Jewish society involve
a despairing sense of self in danger of dissolution and death.
These symptoms, may help to clarify the obsessive preoccupation
with death and Holocaust narration in Israel.
Here I would like to refer to the origof those symptoms as related
to the eternal Jewish demand for equality, constantly confused
with the firm inner conviction of being chosen. To clarify this
argument I would like to employ psychoanalytic terminology in
order to apply the concept of narcissism as the answer to a deep
sense of loss endured in being Jewish. A deep belief in a divine
contract, characteristic to Judaism, is grasped as a promise to
the children of Israel to be God's chosen people. The rewarded
contractual reciprocity constructed a complex matter where the
demand for equality has been confused with the self persuasive
standpoint of being chosen.
Narcissism is defined as: "a disposition to see the world
as a mirror, more particularly as a projection of one's own fears
and desires." Being Jewish means to experience a desire to
be validated by the other as chosen, and at the same time to proclaim
the demand for equality. It is obvious how it was constituted
in the Diaspora, but since Zionism took over, the deficiency in
mirroring the sense of otherness became even more severe. While
at the same time, in the perception of hatred, repugnance and
horror, reflected from those under occupation, that wishful urge
for validation is perceived as undone. At the moment the narcissistic
demand for validation is confronted with the answering gaze of
enmity, the desire for recognition as superior beings is rejected,
and paranoia occurs.
Narcissism emerges with the wish to see others in the same way
as we perceive ourselves, while at the same time to strive for
a recognized victory in satisfying our desire for validation by
the subjection of others. The symptoms of narcissistic pathology,
involve a despairing sense of self in danger of dissolution and
death. The experience of loss and unfulfilled desire can produce
the two opposite movements. Creativity on the one hand, and a
regressive turn, on the other. But, since the ability to attain
a driving force for creativity, and a new shift of identity represents
a threat to the amalgamation of the Jewish community, we can comprehend
why the regressive turn takes over in Israel. The regressive turn
is manifested by the production of historical myths stressing
the lost golden age.
Group identification becomes conditional upon the elevation of
one particular group's past at the expense of another group's
historical narratives. By praising unification, Israeli Jews are
torn between being Jewish or being Israeli. It is manifested by
the claim for a Jewish state in which Jews may be able to maintain
a Jewish life-style in keeping with Jewish tradition.
Israelis try to overcome the sense of loss in many ways, one of
them - by encouraging youth to travel to the concentration camps
in Europe and engaging in violent confrontations with the second
generation of those considered to be involved with the manifold
appearances of the holocaust. Israelis direct their inexhaustible
claims not only to Austria or Germany but the Swiss banks, the
Polish Catholic church and the Polish People are blamed for anti-Semitism,
as well as many other European communities.
I would like to argue that there is a tight link between the idea
of democracy and some ethical or moral constructs related to human
rights and the way communities articulate their members' identity
based on memorizing past events.
Educating young people to comprehend and then edit their group
memory should be considered an ethical act. In Israel we are witness
to the fact that historical consciousness manifests an infirm
approach to history and memory. Paul Ricoeur points to the ethical
aspect of memorizing. "This is so because remembering is
a way of doing things, not only with words, but with our mindswe
can talk of the use of memory, which in turn permits us to speak
of the abuse of memory". Riceour mentions that some places
are overloaded with too much memory, "and at other times
too much forgetting". I may say that this agonizing theme
lies at the core of the pathological interrelations between Israel
and the European community.
Israel's blaming European groups and leaders for too much forgetting,
and asking for reparation can be viewed as symptomatic of a disease
characterizing Israeli democracy. This disease reflects the Israeli
Jewish people's incapacity to adopt the act of repentance by asking
forgiveness for the wrongs committed against those who were deprived,
ruined and dispossessed by Israelis authorities. However, by ignoring
the existential desire for recognition of other non-Jewish minorities,
Israel becomes fertile soil for the growth of xenophobia.
Since the holocaust supplies content to the definition of an Israeli
identity, the Jewish Israeli is circumscribed by an inexhaustible
search for documentary proof of aggression and violence. This
too is the moral reason for army service and other civil duties.
I contend that representation of Israel as a direct product of
the holocaust makes the Israeli wish to fit into the European
community quite paradoxical.
There is a clash between attempts to be part of a group (a union)
of countries, while at the same time reminding the other members
of that group of crimes committed by them. There is a discrepancy
in the promise of becoming a civic community enlightened by western
European values, while at the same time crystallizing Israel's
young peoples' identity around collective memories of horrors,
crimes, and atrocities committed by the previous generation of
the various European countries..
A real democracy calls for fairness to minority groups on legal
grounds, addressing for example, equalization of the distribution
of land for instance. If fairness is supposed to be served by
the general and equal right to vote, then the issue of the upcoming
referendum (concerning a future agreement entailing a significant
territorial compromise in the Golan Heights) is controversial,
since it promises to revoke this legal right as well. Here we
may pose the question: will the Israeli Knesset accept the right
wing's demand for a special majority of 60%, and how does this
demand coincide with the promise for an equal right to vote?
To conclude I may say that a society that gives up on the values
of human rights, equality and empathy for the misery of the others
in favor of keeping the state as a national home for the survivors
of holocaust can not become a part of a European union of civic
communities guided by international law concerning human rights
and equality.
Israel's parliamentary democracy attempts to maintain the western
styles of deliberation but discovers that it is hobbled and handicapped.
The introduction of direct elections for prime minister, emptied
the Israeli Knesset of any real content. Israeli Parliamentary
life is weakened and prey to coalition games revolving around
money and authority, quite contrary to the spirit of representative
democracy which should be involved in making controversial decisions,
and taking responsibility with regard to questions concerning
the meaning of Israeli democracy.
If Israel pretends to be a democratic state, why should the Israeli
government skip the decision-making responsibility with regard
to the most essential topics like the compromise on the Golan
Heights, leaving it to a referendum, and then finding itself immersed
in the situation of a referendum which demands a majority of 60%,
ignoring the basic idea of democracy with regard to the equal
right to vote. If Israeli parliamentary life is denuded by a refusal
to deal with the essence of democracy, why should Europe embrace
Israel as part of its community?
To conclude, we may say that creation of the Jewish national identity
through glorification of pre-holocaust life, undermines the Israeli
claim to become an integral part of the new European community.
Israeli hegemonic. power which currently negates creativity decreases
the prospects of establishing a new identity. Whenever a denial
of otherness occurs, it leads to regression and the possibility
of an identity shift is blocked. The Israeli democratic system
is a myth that masks an unbearable case representing an impossible
reality. The question pose is: how is it possible to justify a
national identity through the negation of otherness, while at
the same time wishing to become a part of it?