The cure offered by Eshkol Nevo is the disease itself
This wonderful Zionism of yours, which ruled here for decades, is what led us to this evil government. ■ Zionism is racism. It’s time for revocation of the definition of the State of Israel as a “Jewish state”
By Kobi Niv • (Translated by Sol Salbe)
Every self-respecting newspaper keeps a novelist stored somewhere. Whether it is in the hills of Jerusalem or the [more upmarket] Ra’anana plains, there is a writer loftier than ordinary mortals who in times of crisis is called upon to warn of the danger at the gates and tell us what will happen and what needs to be done. In Yedioth Ahronoth novelist Eshkol Nevo was called to warn on the front page of last Friday’s Weekend Issue. However, the cure that Nevo proposed in his article for the apparent sickness of the new government is actually the disease itself, of which the afflictions of the new government are only continuous metastases of it.
“I am writing the following with concern. With anger. With a strong feeling that this is not the time to be silent,” Nevo begins his contribution with gusto. And he is so angry that he calls the new government “the first anti-Israeli government”. What do you mean? Did the Israelis elect an anti-Israeli government? is that what you say? And what is anti-Israeli about this government? And what is “Israeli” anyway? Who decides what is “Israeli”? The majority of voters or Nevo Eshkol? And why does he get to have a say, because he is a writer? Maybe because of the grandchild clause, meaning that his grandfather was a prime minister*?
And Nevo continues and complains, not to mention whines, that the goal of this government is ”to smash down those Israeli values with which we grew up.” But what “Israeli” values did we grow up with? And who are “we” in whose name you speak? “True”, he admits with pain and sorrow, “this government was elected by a democratic majority”, but immediately adds the magic word “but”. But what? But he states that, despite this, it is a “minority government for all intents and purposes”.
Indeed, right after he named himself as “majority” and the majority as “minority”, he indeed speaks for the “majority” and also informs us what the “majority” thinks. For example — “Most Israelis want a Jewish tinge for the state, but not religious coercion”. Let’s assume that’s the case. But who determines what is “Jewish character” and what is “religious coercion”? Banning public transport on Shabbat, for example, is “Jewish character, but forbidding electricity generation on Shabbat is “religious coercion”? Why? What is the difference? Sir, if you don’t want “religious coercion” then please call for the separation of religion from the state, or better yet, for the revocation of the definition of the State of Israel as a “Jewish state”.
But you, meaning the majority, want Israel to be a “Jewish state”, so you are in favour of “religious coercion” anyway. The question of whether this coercion will only be about banning public transport and not about electricity generation on Shabbat is already a question that will be decided by the elected government, one or the other, and not by anyone else. That’s how it works.
And here is another one of Nevo’s assertions — “Most Israelis do not think that Zionism means racism”. What do you mean? Is this a contention against the new government? Why, do any of its members or supporters think that Zionism is racism? the opposite. They all think like you, like the absolute majority of Israelis, Jewish Jews, who are certain that Zionism is not overtly racist. but it is not true. Zionism is racism. The law of return that exists in Israel’s law book, and which all of you (well, fine, except you there, the redhead with the ponytail) support, is a racist and discriminatory law a thousand times more discriminatory than any law, which has not yet been enacted, that allows a hotel owner not to host gays or Ethiopians.
And it is also important not only what the haughty lord Nevo included in his article, but also what he did not mention at all. 375 words, I counted, in Nevo’s aforementioned article, but the words “Arab”, or “Palestinian”” or “Occupation” or “oppression” or even just “human rights” for some reason are not included in it.
Then, towards the end of his article, the honourable writer turns directly to us, his chosen people, and opens with the excited exclamation “no more suppression”. What?! No more suppression? What is this, a joke or what? After all, your article is all suppression, denial, one big one. And you write “no more suppression”? Or was there a typo in the Hebrew, as a change in one letter would have turned it to something like “no more a laughingstock”? Because really, no more suppression. Yours: of the majority you think you are.
After all, if you sum up your article in one sentence, then what it says is “Guys, come on, let’s go back to the classical, secular, Ashkenazi, beautiful and fair-looking Zionism of the past”. But hey, we were already there. And this wonderful Zionism of yours, which ruled here for decades, is what led us to this evil government. What, you really don’t see that? You don’t get it?
Ladies and gentlemen, most dear and beloved, male and female Eshkols and even Eshkoliyot [grapefruits], did you want a Jewish state? So there you have it. To get something else, you have to, first of all, need to want something else. That’s how it works.
* Grandchild clause is an allusion to a clause in the Law of Return that allows anyone with a Jewish grandparent to immigrate to Israel.
** Eshkol Nevo in the grandchild of PM Levi Eshkol (in office 1963–69.)
Original article in Haaretz Hebrew Edition:
(Translated from Hebrew by Sol Salbe, Middle East News Service)
