A Question for Jeffrey Goldberg
- 04.07.2008 - 9:41 AMThe Atlantic’s May issue will feature a cover article from Jeffrey Goldberg, titled “Is Israel Finished?” Given that the article is not out yet, I’ll refrain, for now, from making all the usual comments about how the author seems to be missing the point about Zionism, which is not an effort to make Jews safe, but a movement for the self-determination of the Jewish people, two very different things.
Regardless, what is really striking about the article–no doubt one of many to mark next month’s anniversary–is that Goldberg is reportedly concerned about whether, given the challenges, Israel will be around in 60 years’ time. The real question anyone should be asking at the moment–what with the Gaza–West Bank split, the demise of Fatah, the terminal decline of the PA-is the following: Given that the Palestinian cause did not really exist in 1948, and given its dysfunctional performance as a national liberation movement, will it still be around in 2068?
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
April 7th, 2008 at 9:54 AM
I pray there will be peace in 2068.
It’s impossible to predict what will happen this far in advance though.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:02 AM
On April 22 and 23, 2007, a conference was held at Queens College, CUNY, entitled “Is it 1938 Again?” The sponsors of that conference were raising an issue similar to the one posed by Jeffrey Goldberg.
Israel is the most hated country on earth. This makes no sense whatsoever, but it is a datum that we must, somehow, deal with.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:06 AM
I will, of course, have to actually read Jeffrey Goldberg’s article. My immediate gut impression, however, is that he believes Israel is doomed because it rejects utopianism. This is supposedly the wave of the future and those who reject its siren call are unlikely to survive the 21st Century.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Reserving judgment, my guess is it will be a piece full of angst about whether Israel is truly the shining city on the hill, how safe can Israel ever be, the garrison state syndrome, etc. But we know already that the editors of the Atlantic who chose the provacative title — not Goldberg — are hoping that the answer is yes.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:12 AM
“Given that the Palestinian cause did not really exist in 1948, and given its dysfunctional performance as a national liberation movement, will it still be around in 2068?”
oh come on bro. yeah they’ll give up and go home. maybe in 10,000 years
April 7th, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Given the reality of clueless schmucks like Jeffrey Goldberg, it’s a wonder Israel exists at all, or that Jews have survived for 5000 years. Why not give the Arabs your throat to cut immediately? Commit suicide now. Too much moral ambiguity to survive.
With putzim like Goldberg, why bother with external enemies?
There are many writers, Fein at the Forward comes to mind, as does Chomsky and Finkelstein, who argue for the abandonment of the Israel project completely. Let the Arabs have it. Too much trouble,and represents occupation and imperialism. Just roll over and disappear. Ghandi argued for Jewish passivity to Hitlers Germany in the name of world peace and non-violence.
The world will love and respect us, once we vanish.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:49 AM
You’re too harsh Dr. Rubin. I read the article last evening and, assuming that Goldberg is truthfully reporting the fact that he actually volunteered and served in the Israeli army (to the great surprise of some native Israelis in his unit) it’s more than over the top to revile him.
That said I found the article surprisingly mushy, with much half baked and confusing analysis of the back and forth between the Israeli Prime Minister and a well known writer who lost a son during the fighting in Lebanon. My general impression is that Goldberg recognizes the political (and perhaps even the moral) impossibilty of Israel withdrawing completely back to the 1967 border and also the implacability of the Palestinians and other Arabs. But he still insists (or seems to side with the writer who implies) that there is some magical action that the prime minister could take to square that circle.