BOOKS
345
transformation into a binational polity with a growing Arab popula–
tion deprived of equal rights. Yet it would be equally wrong to
search for solutions to these complex problems on the basis of past
Western historical paradigms such as voluntary decolonization, ne–
gotiated international systems, legislated civil rights, and the like.
Even in our time of "accelerated history," the transformation of
a group into an independent state is bound to disturb for a long time
the existing "political ecology." The White House was burned down
by the British decades after American independence had been for–
mally won; it took seventy years and a half-dozen wars for Italy to
become united and independent, centuries for Holland and Switzer–
land to adjust to the political environment created by their emer–
gence as sovereign states. To think, therefore, that this rule of
political ecology does not apply to Israel and the Middle East is
il–
logical. The State of Israel may not last, but if it does, it will cer–
tainly not achieve sincere recognition, acceptance, and peace in this
century , nor should it be expected to do so.
Both O'Brien and Benvenisti insist on the seriousness of the
emergence of religious fundamentalism in Israeli society, a process
which not only undermines the Zionist, socialist democratic institu–
tions of the country but reinforces the tendencies towards nationalist
expansionism. This perception is correct, but it cannot be conceived
as a particularly Jewish phenomenon. Rather, it is part of the wider
process of decolonization that makes Israel a political society closer,
despite all the obvious differences, to Afro-Asian countries than to
those of the West . One characteristic of the former colonial states is
that the legitimacy of their governing elites, which brought about
their countries' independence, is everywhere being challenged by the
traditional religious or religion-linked elites, those who took little
part and even sometimes fought against national independence. The
reason for this challenge is that the groups who fought for and won
the struggle for independence have adopted, consciously or un–
consciously, the political ideologies, cultural habits, and institutions
of their former colonial masters, ideas, and policies without which
these now governing elites could not have won their battles. In so
doing, these "Westernized" groups have estranged themselves every–
where, including Israel, from the traditions and cultural habits of
the masses, over which the traditional religious elites claim a monop–
oly. This alienation allows the traditional elites , heretofore luke–
warm if not antithetical to independence, to rise and demand their
share of the political pie .
