Another Tack: Alas, poor Labor

Paraphrasing Hamlet as he contemplated the skull of the late-lamented court jester Yorick, we might muse aloud:

Alas, poor Labor, we knew you well…

Now and then you did positively excel,

But oftentimes you put us through hell.

In all, it was your own fault you fell.

The Labor Party’s demise has been only a matter of time for a long time. It was an eminently avertable atrophy, yet for decades the party mulishly rendered itself incurable. It not only refused to acknowledge the causes of its terminable condition but actually persisted in exacerbating them.

It was one thing if feverish delirium impeded objective self-assessment, but then Labor’s own coup de grace administrator, Ehud Barak, spelled the cause of the party’s fatal decrepitude so unmistakably. Labor, he said as he delivered the decisive deathblow, had veered too far leftward, dabbled in postmodernism, and dallied on the brink of post-Zionism.

We couldn’t have pinpointed the pathogen more precisely. But this leaves us with a crucial carp: If Barak is such a brilliant diagnostician, why didn’t he forewarn the patient, why didn’t he take preventive measures in real time, why did he abet Labor’s self-destructiveness and actually help magnify it? It’d be disingenuous to perceive Barak as anything but part of Labor’s problem, the enabler of its disgraceful disintegration.

There is no denying that Labor is Kadima’s direct victim. Parasitic Kadima didn’t bite into the Likud, but it devoured the Left. That said, Labor had already been steadily declining for a long while. Its hotshots, Barak included, refused to honestly address what made them such easy prey to Kadima’s predations.

For one thing, Labor, though claiming to be socialist, alienated the common man. This transcended the fact that Labor paradoxically became the party of big business, of millionaires and billionaires and their emulators who aspire to sidestep pesky Jewish travails and struggles, live high on the hog and pretend they’re in Davos all year round. Belittled plebeians are uncannily insightful. They see right through the hypocrisy.

Indeed the commoners’ estrangement from Labor’s preachy elites wasn’t just on pocketbook issues. The proletariat Laborites profess to represent is patriotic and retains commonsense self-preservation instincts.
The jet-setters hadn’t entirely debilitated the basic existential logic of regular folks – once the hallmark of Labor under its mutating monikers.

What started out as Poalei Zion (Zion’s Workers) and became Mapai (Hebrew acronym for Workers Party of Eretz Yisrael) eventually opted to ditch all reference to Zion or the Land of Israel. Thus Labor began losing its soul. The 1977 upheaval that brought the Likud to power gave further impetus to Labor’s psycho-political dissolution. Shimon Peres, isolated after his electoral defeat, became Yossi Sarid’s and Yossi Beilin’s virtual captive. Far to his left, both eventually meandered to Meretz, yet at the time the Yossis became Peres’s sole sounding boards and filters to the outside world.

Transformed, Peres later brazenly hoodwinked his party into the Oslo fiasco, but the party (which he ultimately abandoned for Kadima’s allure) remained unrepentant, as if deliberately doing its darndest to achieve irrelevance and turn its face backward. Labor bloody-mindedly grated against the masses’ underlying intuitions, which survive despite the left-dominated media’s shrill cacophony. Failure to realize this marginalized Labor and left it to vie with Meretz for the same mini-constituency.

Labor neglected to put the Jewish connection to the Jewish homeland atop its agenda. It wasn’t obliged to espouse the ideals of the Eretz Yisrael Movement (which ironically arose from Labor’s own ranks following the Six Day War) or to avoid pragmatic remedies. But it shouldn’t have painted Jews in Judea as occupiers.

Labor could have insisted on Jewish rights as vehemently and passionately as David Ben-Gurion sincerely did, even as he countenanced territorial compromise when that seemed the sole alternative. When consenting to the pre-state partition plan that left embryonic Israel in an untenable puny patchwork, he gave up what wasn’t then in his possession. Yet subsequently Ben-Gurion resolutely hung on to additional land liberated in the War of Independence which the Arabs forced on Israel.

And Ben-Gurion didn’t agree to partition jubilantly. On July 15, 1937, while recommending partition, he wrote: “The Jewish people always regarded and will continue to regard the whole of Eretz Yisrael as a single country which is theirs in a national sense and will become theirs once again. No Jew will accept partition as a just and rightful solution.”

Soon afterward, he told the 20th Zionist Congress: “No Jew is entitled to relinquish the right of the Jewish nation to the land. It is not in the authority of any Jew or of any Jewish body; it is not even in the authority of the entire nation alive today to give up any part of the land… Even if, at any point, Jews choose to decline it, they have no right to deprive future generations of it. Our right to the entire land exists and stands forever.”

This isn’t about territorial divisions but about the enduring link, the collective memory that binds us and returned us here. Ben-Gurion knew that the Jewish people didn’t surrender its link to its geographic cradle during two millennia of unimaginable persecution. That the sovereign Jewish state should weaken if not altogether break that link would have been unthinkable under Ben-Gurion’s Mapai, despite all its manifold faults.

What is nationhood after all if not collective memory? Ben-Gurion knew it well. Testifying before UNSCOP in 1947, he noted: “Three hundred years ago, a ship called the Mayflower left for the New World … This was a great event in the history of England and America. But I would like to know: Is there a single Englishman who knows the exact date and hour of the Mayflower’s launch? How much do American children – or grown-ups – know about this historic trip? Do they know how many people were in the boat? Their names? What they wore? What they ate? Their path of travel? What happened to them on the way? Where they landed?

“More than 3,300 years before the Mayflower set sail, the Jews left Egypt. Any Jewish child, whether in America or Russia, Yemen or Germany, knows that his forefathers left Egypt at dawn on the 15th of Nisan. What did they wear? Their belts were tied and their staffs were in their hands. They ate matzot, and arrived at the Red Sea after seven days.

“He knows the path of their journey … The child can even quote the family names from the Torah. Jews worldwide still eat matza for seven days from the 15th of Nisan, and retell the story of the Exodus, concluding with the fervent wish, ‘Next Year in Jerusalem.’ This is the nature of the Jewish people.”

Today’s Laborites failed to enunciate the same sentiments as forthrightly, as genuinely, as unambiguously and as proudly as Ben-Gurion had, and hence couldn’t win back people’s hearts. Labor’s bungling radicals-cum-apparatchiks left their once-great party as lifeless as Yorick.

3 thoughts on “Another Tack: Alas, poor Labor

  1. “Belittled Plebeins are uncannily insightful. They see right through the hypocrisy.” This very situation is building right now in the United States where I live. This week our president presented his state-of-the-union address which was filled with meaningless phraseology, intended to hoodwink the “stupid and uninformed citizens” and showcased his desire to take this nation down with him. But it appears that the silent plebeians, maybe even the majority of the people, those who are the least in the status of the “elite upper class” in our nation, are catching on. Our “Barak of Israel” is our president, but he hasn’t yet delivered his final address.

    What a masterpiece of writing this blog is, Sarah. It is stimulating to read an analysis such as this, on Labor’s demise and the cause of this situation, and feel the emotions of the birthright of every Israeli welling up in my chest. Thanks, Sarah. Good work!

  2. Great article based on thorough research and analysis. Thank you Sarah – keep on writing. Your article presents a real challenge and opportunity for a Labor response. In fact Sarah why don’t you send a copy to Michah Harish and invite him to respond and then publish his reply on this site?

  3. Time for Israel to open her eyes. All the sub-set issues point to one preamble at the top: the term 2-state; 3-state; Muslim Palestineans – are covert [if these are not seen as in fact blatant] – agendas of Israel’s negation. But it is very blatant and Israel’s eyes are shut. Please consider:

    How can Israel be in Palestine by any peace agreement – if Muslims obsessed with her demise are called Palestineans!? How can Norwegians be in Norway – if Chinese are called Norwegians and hold claim to Norway? And how can Muslims be Palestineans – when they hated this name pre-Arafat as they do Zionist today? What’s next – Muslim Zionists being apartheided by Israelis – or Muslim Israelis being genocided by the occupying Zionists in [ALL OF] Palestine? And how can those European people who dumped this name on Judea – the Jewish homeland – support its transfer to those busting for another Holocaust – what is its message and import? How innocent are the Europeans here?

    How can a 3-state be presented as a 2-state in the same miniscule landmass? Supported by those who already commited a grevious crime with the first 2-state which created the ficticious state of Jordan? Does not the math say, serial 2-states in the same land = covert genocide?

    Israel and Jews are saying nothing – unless they totally and unconditionally reject any and all references to Muslims being called Palestineans and a 3-state presented as a 2-state. Here, Israel must realize, this covert genocide is not conducted in gas chambers anymore – its done with Heil Hitler salutes at the UN – by those who control the UN. It is nothing short of a PC covert holocaustian agenda.

    For sure, the world will mock us, boycott us, ridicule us – after all their main game has been pierced. But Israel must nonetheless make this the preamble in her Constitution – at any cost. Its not optional – the alternative is a total negation of everything Israel and Judaism is, no matter what sub-set issues she confronts. The sub-set issue don’t impact. Wake up to some rocket science.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s