Voodoo History

While researching a paper on “Jewish labor”—the movement to employ Jews in the economy of the pre-State yishuv, now proposed by some as a way to combat the Palestinian erosion of the Zionist enterprise—I read the history of the “Jewish labor” phenomenon published (in Hebrew) thirty years ago by Prof. Anita Shapira of Hebrew University This book gave me a sudden insight into the post-Zionist mind.

This blog is not really about “Jewish Labor” but it’s worth investing a minute to understand the problem, which hasn’t changed in eighty years. Back in the 1930s urban factory workers were expected to have finished eighth grade or to have a skill, and there was no problem keeping those jobs in Jewish hands. The problem arose with simple, unskilled, hard physical jobs like fruit-picking or spadework: Jews didn’t want to do them, and in any case Arabs would do them for less.

Nonetheless, for some unskilled Jewish workers in the 1920s and early 1930s, agricultural jobs—and an above-market wage for them—were very important. The interests of Jewish fruit farmers, many of whom were barely breaking even, conflicted with Jewish workers who wanted jobs in the orchards reserved for them. Sometimes the conflict wasn’t pretty: Jewish workers would drive Arabs out of the orchards. The rest of the Yishuv, led by the socialist Labor party, castigated the farmers for pursuing their private interests at the expense of Zionism. In the end the principle of Jewish labor became accepted throughout the pre-state Yishuv.

Now here is what Prof. Shapira has to say in conclusion:

"Most of the workers’ movement in the first half of the 1930s did not understand the meaning of a genuine compromise [emphasis added]. For its part, compromise had to be at least a partial victory, the result of pressure and power, and not of discussion [emphasis added]. [Futile Victory, “Conclusion,” p. 349]."

I had to read this twice before I understood it. When people have a conflict, it’s because some objective is very important to them. Even when they negotiate, they apply sanctions—“pressure and power”—to make the other side accede to their interests. The final disposition of the conflict depends on the balance of power between the two sides, and on how important to them their respective objectives were in the first place. To the degree that each side succeeds in partially realizing its objectives, it will consider that a partial victory. That was the point of the exercise all along.

But Shapira appears not to be able to accept this simple fact of life. She is distressed by the very notion of a conflict of interests turning into a conflict in fact. She is convinced there ought to be a better, nobler way. Her term for it is hidabrut, discussion. This is exactly the same term Israeli leftists use when asked for their solution to, say, the genocidal Hamas regime in Gaza. We ought to sit down and discuss things with them: “OK, you want us dead. We wouldn’t like to be dead. Can’t we come to a meeting of minds?”

The Left refuses to acknowledge the existence of a world in which fighting and killing us is a genuine, clearly articulated objective that other people think it worth sacrificing their lives to achieve. A world in which hidabrut is futile because it means asking people to give up on what they consider the most important objective in the world, the one that gives their lives meaning. A world in which it is possible that there is no compromise resolution to our conflict with theAccording to the Leftist perspective, this entire point of view is illegitimate. Force applied in the pursuit of an objective is morally wrong, no matter what the objective of the other side is. A world in which no compromise solution to our problem with the Palestinians is possible because the Palestinians really, truly don't want one. In which case our wanting one is completely beside the point. This may indeed be a tragedy, but that doesn’t make it an avoidable one

According to the Leftist perspective, this entire point of view is illegitimate. Conflicts aren’t real. They shouldn’t be expected to govern people’s behavior. Force applied in the pursuit of an objective is morally wrong, no matter what the objective of the other side is. The real way to treat any conflict is through hidabrut, a meeting of minds. People who refuse to accept this are mindless warmongers, and in the wrong by definition.

Somehow an essential aspect of human relations seems to have escaped Prof. Shapira’s notice. Her analysis of conflict is Utopian, and seems based upon willful ignorance of an essential aspect of human nature. Call it voodoo history: a happy ending will spring into being, detached from anyone’s real interests or determination to realize them. I doubt she pursues such an attitude in her daily life. Applied to international relations, this approach is crippling, deadly. Alas, it also explains a lot about Israeli foreign policy.