Bernard Avishai has written an important book about present realities in Israel, not by delivering yet another partisan tract but by interviewing leading figures among the warring parties and ethnic groupings within Israel. He poses to them the question of what "nationality" and nationalism should mean in Israel. He explains that Israeli law assigns to everyone a nationality, and as in Jim Crow America this assignment is not voluntary. Citizenship is a separate status, and only those assigned to the vaguely defined category "Yehudim" (Jewish nationals), like whites in Jim Crow America, have full citizenship. The result has been that the state and the principal institutions of civil society are dominated by a primitive sort of nationalism which powerfully unites an idealized version of common ancestry, common religion, and ancient claims to the land: "The nation, in this view, is a kind of biological fact, but also a territory, a common experience, like a family." (Quoting A.B. Yehoshua.) In truth, such nationality is only fully shared by a minority, but it is taken as the ideal for the nation as a whole. With such a definition of nationality, it is plainly impossible for non-Jews to be equal citizens. This kind of organic nationalism feeds on its mirror opposites, pan-Arabism and Palestinian Islamism.

The best parts of the book are AVishai's long interviews with leaders of rival nationalisms within Israel, exploring the question of how much they would surrender their claims to control of the state, and retire into private observance and celebration. He poses to them the hope that a secular state, albeit one rooted in European Jewish history and traditions - a "Hebrew Republic" - would allow room for religious and ethnic diversity, while granting genuine equality of rights. The reward for surrendering control of the state will be peace, equality, and the prosperity that follows entry into the global economy, now blocked by constant warfare. It is notable t hat none of his interlocutors seem to share his optimism about this vision of a secular state.

The model of a secular state, with strict separation of church and state, yet resting on the traditions of the dominant culture, is modeled much more on the United States than Avishai notes and perhaps more than he realizes. If the book has defects, they seem to me to be two. He is excessively optimistic that shared economic interests will trump the passionate nationalisms that he describes. He is touchingly devoted to the rational dialogues he describes in this book. A related defect is the failure to discuss the manner in which the Bush Administration for this last seven years has fed and encouraged and allied itself with just the evangelical Iraeli nationalism that Avishai decries. In both respects, his book resembles arguments being made in this country. Perhaps he is right, but recent history seems to suggest otherwise: Kansas continues to vote Republican, against its economic self interest. But Avishai's saving virtue is that he presents the arguments against his own position, and leaves the reader to form her conclusion.

Those readers interested in an equally realistic and fact-based (and hence important) account of the situation across the border in Egypt might want to read Inside Egypt: The Land of the Pharaohs on the Brink of a Revolution.

This is an essential book for anyone who cares about Israel. Bernie Avishai goes beyond the usual shibboleths to open up a more attractive vista.

The book has two main parts: (1) the great diversity within Israel, and (2) the economy and other attractions of the secular part of Israel that are its great hope. Perhaps the latter can become a beacon that shines brightly enough to overcome the centrifugal forces produced by the diversity.

The Israeli economy is strong, especially that part of it that participates in the global economy. This leads Bernie Avishai to propose something that we might label the Greater Eastern Mediterranean Scientific Technologically Organized New Economy (GEMSTONE). Enhance this as a shining beacon to all who are not "wrapped in the hands of the Lord;" i.e., all who are not constrained by religious orthodoxy, and we can see a way forward. Bernie believes that most of the people of Israel, Palestine, and Jordan would be attracted to this.

Bernie makes a major point of the role of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) in energizing the economy. There are many technological spinoffs. However, it is just here that I have a concern.
In the United States the defense industry is a monopsony industry. The characteristics are only a few customers, in the limit only one, few competitors, and strong external rigidities, especially the government. The monopsony corporations have never been subjected to real international competition in the way that the competitive-commercial enterprises have been. Their projects are considered successful if they are competed, and the resulting product does more or less what was intended. There is not any significant measure of Quality, Cost, and Delivery time (QCD) as there is no basis for comparison. Many weak practices have grown to be traditional. There is little incentive for improvement. DoD executives change too often to ever lead any significant improvement.

Now back to the IDF. I worry that it fosters dysfunctional monopsony practices, as in the United States. Are the IDF-inspired industries really a sound basis for an economy to be a shining beacon? Can GEMSTONE work? I hope so.

Now let us return to diversity. Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Israeli Arabs, and secular adherents to the Thomas Friedman view that the world is flat, all in one small space. Oy, vey is mir!

My wife and I just saw the movie My Father My Lord (Hofshat Kaits) . The Ultra-Orthodox father, played by Moshe Dayan's son, is wrapped in the hands of the Lord to such an extent that he is not much connected to reality. In the end this leads to tragedy. Can the government continue to subsidize these people to maintain them outside of the economic society?

I like Bernie's characterization of Diaspora Jews as being frozen in 1938 and they are Churchill. They seem to me to have only one concern: Jews should never again be led to the slaughter like lambs. This trumps all other concerns. Get along with the Arabs? No! It might reduce our resistance to being led to the slaughter like lambs. This is never said, but that is the overriding fear. So the Diaspora Jews will be of limited help for GEMSTONE.

My family includes mainline Protestants, evangelical Christians, Catholics, and Jews. In past generations there were some serious schisms. Now we have all learned to coexist. So maybe the lesson is that it takes a generation or two to ameliorate the strains of diversity. Perhaps the best approach is to start the ball rolling towards GEMSTONE, and keep Dr. Deming's admonition in mind: constancy of purpose is required.

Let's give the final word to Red Auerbach, the legendary coach of the Boston Celtics basketball team. It has now been revealed that a racist wrote a long and threatening rant to Red in 1982 because Red played black players. Red, who was Jewish, is quoted in a book about him, "When I grew up in Brooklyn race was never an issue. Jews, blacks, Catholics - no one ever paid attention to what you were when you played ball. The only thing that mattered was if you could play." Maybe GEMSTONE can make Israel like that - the only thing that will matter is if you can play the global-economy game.

The final section of the book (Closing the Circle) seems to be an attempt by Bernie to convince himself that his view will really work. He does not seem to be completely convinced. I am not convinced either.

However, it seems clear that nothing else has a chance to succeed. Many comments about Israel are essentially a one-dimensional emotional rant. The implicit suggested path forward is to maintain ancient traditions - no change. One is reminded of China in 1500. Bernie shows us a rational path to the future. Whether you like his path or not, this is an essential book for anyone who cares about Israel.

Bernard Avishai is a thinker and writer I've admired for some time. His rather unfortunately-titled 1985 book, The Tragedy of Zionism, was not, as one might think, a statement of opposition to Zionism. Rather, it harkened back to the roots of Zionism, calling for their ideological re-establishment while offering an insightful analysis of how out-moded Zionist institutions, mixed with the ongoing conflict with the Arabs, were impeding the full establishment of Israeli democracy.

In Avishai's 2002 afterword to the updated edition of his book, he gave hints of where he would go in The Hebrew Republic. Even in the original, Avishai began to crystallize his vision of a centrist, business class in Israel, playing the game of globalization as well as, or better, than anyone. In The Hebrew Republic, Avishai goes to great lengths to demonstrate that the current state of affairs-the ongoing occupation of the West Bank and conflict with Hamas in Gaza, as well as the increasing stratification of Israeli society, most particularly the growing numbers and political power of the Orthodox Jewish community and the increasing marginalization of Israel's Arab minority, mixed in with the influence of more recent immigrants from the former Soviet Union-cannot be sustained while also preserving Israel's role in the global economy.

It is in this globalized class of centrists that Avishai places his hopes, and frankly, it's a good place to place them.

Avishai mentions a few times, but doesn't really dwell on, the natural disconnect of capitalist entrepreneurs and left-wing peace activists. But even though he's not explicit about it, this book is a call for a union between those two forces. In this era, where there is considerable overlap on regional political issues between moderate peace activists and independent entrepreneurs, this is not a pipe dream. But neither would it seem to be on the horizon in the immediate future.

Avishai does an excellent job of diagramming how the ongoing occupation of the West Bank and, most crucially, the increased influence of the settler movement in Israeli politics, impact Israel's present and its future. But perhaps his greatest contribution in this book is his presentation of Palestinian pragmatists and business-people, who have every reason in the world to wish the conflict over and a mutually beneficial relationship between Palestinians and Israelis to emerge. It's a group not without influence among the Palestinians, but one whose voice has been much quieter than it needs to be. Avishai reveals the sector among Palestinians that Salam Fayyad represents, and, one can hope, whose influence will continue to grow.

Indeed, it is this sector that must be supported if Avishai's vision of peace, or some form of it, can possibly emerge. Where I find my most profound difference with Avishai is in his vision, after which he titled the book, of a "Hebrew Republic."

Once again, Avishai tempts those who don't read the book to believe he is blaming Zionism for all of the Middle East's ills. He isn't, but he is, I believe, promoting a vision of a transformation of Israeli society that would take a very long time, much longer than is suitable to stop the killing of innocents in Israel, the Occupied Territories and beyond.

Avishai wishes Israel to become a secular democracy similar to many of the countries of Western Europe. Not unreasonable, as Israeli society has, in recent years, begun to resemble Europe more and more, more so than it has the USA, which had been the trend for quite some time.

But it's hard to ignore the sheer magnitude of destruction and bloodshed that brought Europe to where it is now. Indeed, as Avishai envisions, it was a lessening of nationalistic fervor that brought the EU about. But it was also years in developing, and a distance from intra-European conflict was a key ingredient at every stage. Israel doesn't have that kind of time, particularly since it remains situated in a place where its very existence is, at best, resentfully accepted and at worst the target of attack. That's not an atmosphere where nationalism diminishes, no matter what happens inside Israel. Even in the event of peace with the Palestinians and the establishment of relations with the Arab League nations, it will be a long time before true acceptance of Israel takes full hold, and some time after that before Israelis begin to really trust that acceptance en masse.

But Avishai's fundamental premise is a sound one. His view of Israel is more than a Jewish state. It's a state which was built by Jews, will always be culturally Jewish and always be a homeland and refuge for Jews fleeing persecution. But Avishai's Israel must now come to grips with the new Israeli nation it has created and complete the work of creating a democracy begun so many decades ago.

That's a worthwhile goal to pursue, and its various aspects have the potential to greatly improve Israel's daily existence as well as its prospects for peace and place in the world long before the country reaches the point where fervent nationalism has lost its appeal.

It takes courageous authors as Avishai to stimulate a dormant generation of Israelis and Jews in Israel and around the world to confront the delicate issue of Jewish/Israeli national identity. The author, ahead of his time, presents the readers with a vivid and relevant description of the major problem that Israel faces today and more so in the future - the lack of a unifying and modern national identity definition that can support the entire citizen population of Israel, Jewish or not.

Since the state of Israel was born, its citizens were habituated to settle for a lesser democracy in favor of security, religion and "winning" the demographics of the Middle East. It has left the land and its people (Arabs and Jews alike) with an intolerable situation - we have failed to put in place a constitution, we did not separate religion and state and for years "security reasons" served as grounds for racial and ethnic discrimination.

Despite the gloomy state of democracy described above, along with the wars and conflict and a number of economic downfalls - surprisingly, the Israeli peace movement and its ideas prevailed. Today the majority of Israelis believe in the concept of two states and agree to territorial concessions - and we are talking about people who were not too long ago the core of the political right wing! But this did not happen overnight, it took over 40 years of occupation and bloodshed.

The people who started the peace movement were also motivated by ideas that Avishai wrote about in previous works such as the Tragedy of Zionism. It is therefore clear that the major contribution of this book is the beacon it will provide for a new generation of Israelis that can in due time catalyze the much needed change of thought and action that will transform if not completely, then in baby steps the reality of Israeli democracy.

The author of the book is a self-described member of the Israeli "elite" that has sunk into deep despair in recent years with the collapse of the so-called "peace process" they foisted on Israel and the demographic rise of groups they fear such as the Zionist and non-Zionist Religious communities and the working class people of non-European origin. This "elite" are the successors of the secular, largely Ashkenazic Labor Zionists who controlled the Jewish community in Eretz Israel both before and after the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. The author, seeing that their control is in danger attempts in this book, to create a new ethos for the State of Israel which he hopes will allow this group to maintain its control and to weaken the political power of the right-wing and religious groups they (unjustifiably) fear. Avishai's solution to this "elite's" existential crisis is to try to ally it with the Israeli Arab sector which is also demographically healthier than the secular, Ashkenazic elite. This, he suggests, can be done by replacing the view of Israel as a "Jewish State" and replacing it with, as he calls it, a "secularized, globalized Hebrew Republic." Avishai is not the first to suggest something along this line, in actuality it is a more "fleshed-out" version of Shimon Peres' "New Middle East" of the Oslo 90's. That was when Peres wanted Israel to join the Arab League and he stated that the "Arabs had no choice but to make peace because they don't want to miss out on globalization".
The basic premise, is, as I understand it, that if Israel makes itself less "Jewish" and more "Hebrew", it will become less offensive to the rest of the Arab Middle East. Avishai, to his credit, says he is not taking a "Canaanite" line and saying the Jews should transform themselves into something else, but Jewish values and tradition would be restricted to the realm of private religious observance and cultural expression, but "national" expression would be more culturally neutral (although "Hebrew"). The basic premise of this book is that while the Arabs presumably find "Jewish nationalism" offensive, it is thought that an Israel without this "Jewish" national identity and in which the Arabs are seen as full partners (as they are not today, due to Israel's definition of itself as a "Jewish state"), would eventually find the Arabs reconciling themselves to this "Hebrew" entity in their midst.

Like so many ideas "progressives" fall in love with, it may sound fine in theory, but the reality is quite different. In reality, such a state would be far MORE threatening to the Arabs than the current "Jewish state" with which they have so many problems. In spite of what Peres said about the "inevitability of globalism", the Arabs (along with many "progressives") FEAR globalization and certainly don't want this Hebrew state in their midst spreading its influence. The Arab states organize their economies not around maximizing economic growth and increasing the standard of living of their people, but rather, preserving the economic and political control of the various families and clans that have that power today. Also, Islamic groups that wield varying degrees of power in the different Arab countries FEAR the cultural tide that comes in with the "globalized" economy and culture. Avishai has stated that he is convinced (based on polls of unknown reliability) that most Israeli Arabs really want to adopt the culture of the secular Israeli Left. This scares the traditionalist elements in the Arab/Islamic world....bringing with it things like pornography, feminism, disrespect for elders and authority figures and most of all, Islam. These things are very important in the Arab world and yet Avishai is promising somehow that having a Hebrew state spreading these values will NOT spark even more Arab opposition to Israel.
The Arabs also fear Israeli economic domination. Alon Liel of Israel's Foreign Ministry, (a close friend of Yossi Beilin) stated that Egypt, for example, opposes any more normalization of Israeli's relations with the Arab world since they view it as damaging their position in the Middle East for this reason.
In reality, the Arabs would have an easier time accepting a MORE Jewish state...a state more based on Jewish tradition because traditional Jewish life is much closer to that of the Muslims/Arabs than Avishai's secular Hebrew state. It will be easier for an Israeli gov't run by what Bernie considers to the "settlers and Ultra-Orthodox" to reach true peace with the Arabs than his secular Hebrew state.
By tempting the Israeli Arabs with his vision of a globalized secular Hebrew state, Avishai is trying to tear these Arabs away from their brother Arabs and Muslims. This is, in the eyes of the Arabs, simply another Crusade aimed at converting the Arabs/Muslims to another "religion" or culture. Traditional Judaism is not a "missionary" religion, so it poses much less of a threat to the Arab world.
Avishai is also very concerned that Israel's economic standing in the world would be threatened if it isn't seen to be "accomodating" to the demands of "progressives" in the West, but this fear is greatly exaggerated. Most informed people in the world realize that the the impossibility of reaching a contractual peace between Israel and the Palestinians is not based on any policies Israel is carrying out, but rather extremist, rejectionist policies of the Palestinians themselves (both HAMAS and the supposedly more "moderate" FATAH) tied in with the spreading influed of anti-Western radical Islam. In any event, Taiwan is prospering economically and they have diplomatic relations with very few countries, so we see that if a country makes products people want to buy, they will be able to sell them.
The bottom line is that if Israel were to convert itself into Avishai's "secular globalized Hebrew State", it would lead to GREATER antagonism and hostility from the surrounding Arab/Muslim world. Only by Israel returning to its Jewish roots can a true modus vivendi (even without formal peace treaties) ever be reached.

Avishai does point out many of the anachronisms of Israel's political system and the desperate need to make it more representative, efficient and democratic, but the basic premise of this book is flawed. I call upon those who realize that a "Jewish State" is as relevant as ever today to take up the challenge that people like Avishai represent and come up with their own view of how Israel can move forward and can do more to accomdate the interests of the Arab minority as well.