To begin my post, I must give background about the author. Professor Carlo Strenger received hi PhD from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and is professionally trained in Philosophy and Psychology. He is an instructor at Tel Aviv University and is a blogging contributor to Ha’aretz Daily Newspaper. His column is called Strenger Than Fiction. His pieces are in the op-ed genre of writing. Fittingly for our class, as we recently read an article by Benny Morris, one of his more recent posts is titled, “A pragmatic vision for Israel's Left: A reply to Benny Morris.” Enjoy.
Strenger begins by stating very simply and directly, “The Israeli Left needs a new vision.” So, a number of questions come to mind. What he continues to do is asses Benny Morris as a person and discusses his political ideologies and credits him as being a man whose “commitment to factual truth is unwavering…” There is no doubt that Benny Morris, as a scholar who has personally sat on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian argument, is well-versed and highly educated in the matters of the conflict. The research he has done is truly, to steal Strenger’s word, unwavering. To provide a sense of Strenger’s position before continuing, he very much feels as if Morris is a pessimist (a personal opinion which he is entitled to). For background, the reason this word is being used is because Benny Morris sees no future where Arabs and Israelis can share the land peacefully. He does not believe that peace between the two “nations” is at all possible.
Strenger continues to analyze the position Benny Morris holds and how effective that is. What he offers, scarcely, is that Benny Morris shares this pessimism with the rest of Israeli society because of the 2000 Camp David failure and the second Intifada. He furthers the idea that up until the year 2000 Israeli’s left was comprised of two elements. He states, “Israel must not be a state that does not respect human rights. Holding on to the territories is immoral because it refuses millions of Palestinians the most basic rights.” For Strenger, this is the moral position arguing that every person has a right to some land. The Second position, Strenger states is, “if Israel were to propose to the Palestinians a withdrawal from the territories, peace would ensue.” These ideologies drastically changed at the beginning of the twenty-first century, for Strenger. The leftist view changed as people became less idealistic and began to study and understand the true facts about the situation. One of Strenger’s most fascinating assertions, is about the reason the left no longer holds seats in the Knesset, Israel’s Government; they do not want to waste time for an idea which, they feel, will not come to fruition.
The simple answer I can give in terms of Strenger’s credibility involves the love we both share of the French philosopher Michel Foucault (information I received from his web site). Realistically though, this is a person who lives in Israel and has also spent time studying the internal conflict which has been ensuing for years. Truthfully, he also feels discouraged about the position he must take. Of course he is sympathetic to the Israeli plight, but for Strenger, facts are facts. It does not seem likely there will be any type of resolution in the near future between the two societies, nations, peoples, etc…He is not against Morris he simply disagrees with him. He says,
While I respect Morris' intellectual integrity and greatness as a historian, I think he is wrong, because his assessment of the present is strongly influenced by the trauma of the failure of Camp David 2000, notions about the clash of civilizations and the nature of Islam. I believe that there are good empirical reasons to believe that peace is possible, and that the left needs a new, pragmatic vision to regain the public's support.
His devotion to the state, and the future of the state, of Israel is strong and he channels that in a way Morris does not. Not to be critical of Morris, but Strenger is proposing a different solution. The issue here may not be one of credibility due to the nature of the op-ed piece; nonetheless, Strenger creates an interesting position.
His vision for what Israel should be, and what Israel should hope for, are most in line with the how I see the Zionist vision. The early Zionists were not necessarily concerned with what they were up against, but rather with the creation. Period. Plain and simply, Strenger dedicates his energies to the most current situation. His final statements offer, that “[Israelis] need to stick to [their] ideals, and yet be pragmatic in creating a blueprint for the details of the peace process. That's hope we can believe in.” He is smart, he is rational, and he offers a position for people who are unwilling to succumb to the Morris' ideal. This is not a person who is spewing negative propaganda, but rather an educated individual who is knowledgeable on the topic at hand.
