Israel, and how no one mentions it

Remove all ads!

Darkthrone,

IMO the struggle, the dedication, the sacrifice of the Israelis and the achievements they made in building today’s Israel deserve respect – but unfortunately, they have been and are fighting for a dangerous cause.

Zionism came into being as a part of the nationalist revolution in Europe and as a reaction to its generally anti-Semitic character. It originated the theory that the Jews are a nation like other European nations, and that this nation must set up its own state in the country now called Palestine. Not by accident did the teachings of Herzl arouse the violent and vocal opposition of almost all the great rabbis of his time, whether Hassidim or their opponents, the Mitnagdim, whether orthodox or reformist. What were these critics – anti-semites? Self haters? I don’t think so.

The idea to claim back Israel, the land God gave to King David looks great on paper – but then – Italy would rightfully be ridiculed for claiming back the city of Cologne from Germany because Agrippina, emperor Nero’s mom, founded it in the year 50 – even though they sure as hell have the older right.
I don’t consider the dogmatic “but GOD gave it to King David” part that the US christian right brings up a valid argument.

That Israel came into existence at the expense of Arabs is it’s birth-defect, much like the Versaille treaty was the birth-defect of Germany’s Weimar Republic. That it consolidated itself and expanded on further cost of the Arabs is only adding to the original problem.

The foundation of Israel had to result in conflict. When Zionist settlers came to Israel to found their settlements they did it on land the Arabs had used for some perhaps 10 centuries to herd their cattle, only briefly disturbed by the crusaders. Small surprise they took offense on that. Imagine the stereotypical Arab shepard going to herd his sheep for the winter to feed his family – and find a wall or a fence and a settler telling him to piss off or be shot. He then went to his clan and they organised a raid and the settlers started to fight back or acted in prevention.
The conflict then escalated and the Arabs paid the largest price in the whole conflict and there has never been much sympathy for the losers.

But I feel you wanted to talk about something else with me – antisemitism.

Now let's be good sports. Let's try defining antisemitism as broadly as any supporter of Israel would ever want: antisemitism can be hatred of the Jewish race, or culture, or religion, or hatred of Zionism. Hatred, or dislike, or opposition, or slight unfriendliness.

But supporters of Israel won't find this game as much fun as they expect. Inflating the meaning of 'antisemitism' to include anything politically damaging to Israel is a double-edged sword. It may be handy for smiting your enemies, but the problem is that definitional inflation, like any inflation, cheapens the currency. The more things get to count as antisemitic, the less awful antisemitism is going to sound. This happens because, while no one can stop you from inflating definitions, you still don't control the facts. In particular, no definition of 'antisemitism' is going to eradicate the substantially pro-Palestinian version of the facts which I espouse.

What difference does that make? Suppose, for example, an Israeli rightist says that the settlements represent the pursuit of aspirations fundamental to the Jewish people, and to oppose the settlements is antisemitism. We might have to accept this claim; certainly it is difficult to refute. But we also cannot abandon the well-founded belief that the settlements strangle the Palestinian people and extinguish any hope of peace. So definitional acrobatics are all for nothing: we can only say, screw the fundamental aspirations of the Jewish people; the settlements are wrong. We must add that, since we are obliged to oppose the settlements, we are obliged to be antisemitic. Through definitional inflation, some form of 'antisemitism' has become morally obligatory.

It gets worse if anti-Zionism is labeled antisemitic, because the settlements, even if they do not represent fundamental aspirations of the Jewish people, are an entirely plausible extension of Zionism. To oppose them is indeed to be anti-Zionist, and therefore, by the stretched definition, antisemitic. The more antisemitism expands to include opposition to Israeli policies, the better it looks. Given the crimes to be laid at the feet of Zionism, there is another simple syllogism: anti-Zionism is a moral obligation, so, if anti-Zionism is antisemitism, antisemitism is a moral obligation.

What crimes? Even most apologists for Israel have given up denying them, and merely hint that noticing them is a bit antisemitic. After all, Israel 'is no worse than anyone else'. First, so what? At age six we knew that "everyone's doing it" is no excuse; have we forgotten? Second, the crimes are no worse only when divorced from their purpose. Yes, other people have killed civilians, watched them die for want of medical care, destroyed their homes, ruined their crops, and used them as human shields. But Israel does these things to correct the inaccuracy of Israel Zangwill's 1901 assertion that "Palestine is a country without a people; the Jews are a people without a country". It hopes to create a land entirely empty of gentiles, an Arabia deserta in which Jewish children can laugh and play throughout a wasteland called peace.

Well before the Hitler era, Zionists came thousands of miles to dispossess people who had never done them the slightest harm, and whose very existence they contrived to ignore. Zionist atrocities were not part of the initial plan. They emerged as the racist obliviousness of a persecuted people blossomed into the racial supremacist ideology of a persecuting one. That is why the commanders who directed the rapes, mulilations and child-killings of Deir Yassin went on to become prime ministers of Israel. But these murders were not enough. Today, when Israel could have peace for the taking, it conducts another round of dispossession, slowly, deliberately making Palestine unliveable for Palestinians, and liveable for Jews. Its purpose is not defense or public order, but the extinction of a people. True, Israel has enough PR-savvy to eliminate them with an American rather than a Hitlerian level of violence. This is a kinder, gentler genocide that portrays its perpetrators as victims.

Israel is building a racial state, not a religious one. And I think we both share enough morality to say that all racially or religious based acts and hatreds are bad.

The Palestinians aren't 'collateral damage' in a war against well-armed communist or separatist forces. They are being shot because Israel thinks all Palestinians should vanish or die, so people with one Jewish grandparent can build subdivisions on the rubble of their homes. This is not the bloody mistake of a blundering superpower but an emerging evil, the deliberate strategy of a state conceived in and dedicated to an increasingly vicious ethnic nationalism. It has relatively few corpses to its credit so far, but its nuclear weapons can kill perhaps 25 million people in a few hours.

In other words there is a choice to be made. You can use 'antisemitism' to fit your political agenda, or you can use it as a term of condemnation, but you can't do both.

Besides, it is often said that the PLO charter demands the destruction of the state of Israel. That is true. Ever wondered why? Because they do hate Jews? Are Antisemitic? These options have the appeal of simplicity.

But why not think about it? When you have been dispossessed like the Palestinians and want to restore the status quo of 1939, when they still lived on their land, that neccessarily and logically means the abolition of Israel – because as long as Israel exists they will not get their land back. These demands are of course unrealistic today - the arab leaders like Arafat promising it to them are feeding illusions. With a nuclear armed Israel there is no right or chance of return to the status quo. Have they ever received a compensation from Israel for their loss? No. Is this injust for the Arabs? Of course it is.

To blame the Arabs of antisemitism for anger about that is misleading. Why aim so high? Their wars and acts of terror are just as well fought in the name of justice for Arabs and immigrants or a demand for retribution. Sure, the Palestinians can’t excuse their atrocities with “everyone’s doing it” – but so can’t the Israelis.

In your world everything’s well sorted, nice and clear as well I see: The Arabs are evil terrorists, and the Israelis are saintly fighting against them. Well, I don’t think so.

The path Israel has taken, not only since Rabin was murdered by a true believer in zionism, and America’s support for it deserve critique.

[ October 09, 2004, 22:19: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

First off, hats off to Ragusa and others for holding such a good debate with such touchy topic such as Israel!

I would just like to add my thoughts to what Chandos said on the previous page:

It really disturbs me to see anyone use the word "democracy" in an automatic-positive-connotation kind of way in order to describe various nations and states. Of course, I don't mean that the converse (autocratic and totalitarian regimes are always good) is true.

One of the common pro-Israel arguements out there is that it is democratic, while failing to address some of the major human rights issues that Israel has today. Mandatory conscription, forced migration (not sure on the exact terminology, but you guys had it before with the Arabic/Palestinian population living in ghettos inside Israel.. which is strange because under Israeli law, they are supposed to be granted equal rights), illegal settlements which the government both supports and opposes, censorship of a lot of literature, and many more exist too.

Afghanistan is another place where "democracy" is used to "market" the nation, but that's for a totally different thread.

I guess what I'm trying to say is... democracy is not a good way to determine whether or not a nation or state is healthy, because there are so many other factors!

And... that's the end of my rant. Sorry for my lack of debate skills.

 

Yes, I have an appreciation for the tenor of your comment. In our current political atmosphere it has become a buzzword, and as a result it has lost some of its meaning. Nevertheless, Big Tank, if one compares Israel to countries such as Saudi Arabia and Syria there is no comparison. We may suggest that Israel is not perfect; yet where is the criticism of a despotic regime, and the lack of rights, in a country such as Saudi Arabia? Even the royal family admitted that "reform may be a long way off" when they were asked recently about the progression of women's rights there.

If we wish to take Israel to the "wood shed" for it's lack of liberty, then we must be willing to compare them to their neighbors to get a more complete picture - that is if we wish to be democratic about it.

[ October 11, 2004, 05:13: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Just wanted to make a comment -- this is one of the best debates I've seen here in some time.

Cheers

[ October 11, 2004, 04:25: Message edited by: Spellbound ]

 

Chandos: Heck, I don't think any Middle-Eastern country can get away from criticism nowadays. From what I see, SA gets as much flak as Israel, along with other countries such as Eygpt, Libya, etc. Surprisingly enough, Jordan is more or less docile. I wonder why.

I really think that the whole problem with the Middle East, along with other areas such as Africa and India, are reminants of colonialism from centuries past. A lot of bad decisions were made which upsetted the balance of power for centuries.

 

BT - Although I strongly disagree with the comment that Israel is building a racial state, I think that Ragusa's comment about religion is closer to the mark. Most of the countries there have built religious states and as a result, there is little regard for individual rights outside of relgious dogma and customs. But I think Israel is closer to being the exception. Certainly religion is a potent force there, but Ragusa is correct in saying that it is not a religious state.

Israel is fighting for its own identity. It is torn by many different forces - to be sure some are racial, some are religious and others, political. The common thread is the survial of the state of Israel. I don't pretend to be an expert on the internal politics of Israel, but I know enough to realize that there is more than just hard right line of "Zionism" at work there.

I think this remark by Jefferson applies to some countries in the Middle East, as it can apply to some in the West as well:

 

I was satisfied to leave this topic be – but after people do find this debate interesting and entertaining I will give it another go. For all that it’s worth…

@Dendri:

I see everything that is wrong with this. Unfortunately, it becomes wrong in the “ground belonging them no less” part, whereas you seem to believe it is more wrong in the “finery next to a slum” part. What do you mean? Bad enough that the Israelites oppress the Palestinians – they should have at least the decency to oppress them humbly and politely?

You say Israel should live up to its standards as a democratic nation. Well, agreed. Chandos has answered this already.

“Have been driven”. Hm. By whom? You say Israel, Sharon and the like. Certainly the names Arafat or Jassin do not cross your mind? I gather Jassin had no other choice, poor puppet that he was…

Whatever – if what you claim is true and there is no organized structure behind Palestinian actions: then who should be the negotiating partner for Israel regarding de-escalation? And if Israel reaches an agreement with PLO – what could this be worth if the PLO doesn’t have the power to enforce this agreement?

@Ragusa:

Hm, can’t blame you for wordy replies – I’m often not one to post concisely as well. But I try to avoid deliberate misunderstandings where possible. I feel your first five paragraphs are justified – the rest, however elaborate, is mostly circumstantial.

But one thing after another: in your opinion Zionism was wrong, the foundation of Israel was wrong, its birth defect was the foundation on the expense of Arabs. You are entitled to this opinion (...I somehow suspect, although I can’t think why…), but I don’t agree with this. The formula is much to simple to my liking. Are you aware, Rabbis agreeing or not, that there has been a treaty between Chaim Weizmann (WZO) and King Feisal of Syria in 1919 in which the “Arabs” acknowledged the Zionists claims on Palestinian soil? In which the Balfour declaration has been ratified?

Next you assume “That it consolidated itself and expanded on further cost of the Arabs is only adding to the original problem.”

Consolidate? What do you mean? That more Jews migrated into Israel? “Well, we could have tolerated a Jewish state – if it wasn’t for them damn Jews living in it…”

The “expansion on the cost of Arabs” (who the **** is them, anyway?) was a response to military acts against Israel – not the other way round. Sure, they staid in the occupied areas instead of giving them back. They felt this step was necessary for their security – one doesn’t have to like this, but I think it’s hard to argue against that. With “Arab” mortars firing into Jewish bodies from the Golan highs and all that.

And then comes that lengthy bit about how I want to talk to you about anti-Semitism. I said it before, I will say it again. One more time. I have not brought the topic into this debate – I rather tried to keep it out of it because I felt that you wanted to exploit it.

Your argument ran as follows:

People don’t criticize Israel in the US – This is because they fear being marked as anti-Semites – All Israel critics cannot be anti-Semite, however – Therefore, no criticism with regards to Israel can be anti-Semite.

Hm.

You talk of the “double-edged sword” that the accusation of being anti-Semite is – all the time ignoring that one of the edges clearly swings into your direction. In other words: don’t try to insinuate I was calling you anti-Semite. I was merely pulling the teeth out of the argument that no criticism towards Israel could ever be anti-Semite. Be it yours or anyone else’s.

The racial state remark has to wait a bit. I’m not finished, but Football’s waiting. We all know the importance of Football, yes? Take your time to ponder my scribbling. See you.

 

As luck would have it, this story appeared today:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/saudi_women_s_rights

What a surprise here:

'nuff said.

 

Dorkthrone,

As you rightly stressed - being anti-zionist doesn't make me antisemitic, even though I could still be Maybe I try to tempt you with my arguments - to come to me on the dark side?

Actually it was more like "not all criticism with regards to Israel can be anti-Semite".

But how can you tell when you ignore arguments and focus on a my alleged bias? To be taken serious you are required to make a judgement based on arguments sooner or later.

To say it as blunt as possible, zionism is an ideology. Worse, it is a supremacist ideology. It denies people who have dwelled in Palestine for a millennium any right to live there. I happen to have a problem with supremacist ideologies.

As an ideology zionism is open to people ot various backgrounds. Some of the most fervent zionists aren't even jews - but (IMO) crazed US bible-belt dwellers (hoping for a shortcut to paradise on armageddon - halelujah). Funny enough a good deal of those christian-zionists supporting the Israeli right's every move are antisemites.
So they are christians. I'm a christian too. By criticising them and their actions, refusing their distorted (IMO again) reading of the bible ... am I anti-christian? A self hater? Hardly.

I criticise them because they are feeding a conflict in the egoistic hope the middle east blows up soon enough to allow them to get to paradise without dieing. Sweet, if only the jews wouldn't have to die first to allow them heaven. And never mind the Arabs who would get nuked in the process. I think both, Israelis, Jews, Arabs and Muslims deserve better.
And as for the zionists among the US Christian Right: Patience is a virtue.

So, coming back to my point: How about dealing with my arguments? It is more work, sure, but more rewarding too, like, for the readers here. Also, I wouldn't have to divine what might be goin on in your head. Till now you haven't brought up anything but: "I have my suspicions" and "I don't believe you." Why? Please, be more specific.

You could start with telling me: What the **** are the Arabs - in your opinion - and in particular? Please explain to me why the Arabs have no right to live in Palestine because I cannot understand you.

[ October 13, 2004, 11:43: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Okay, second try. (After I accidently closed the window last time. Damn slow Opera.) I hope I do not repeat anything.

Since Feisal wasn't even King at that time (Syria was french protectorate until 1949), I don't think this treaty has any significiance. Yeah, well, not every arab was against jews in his backyard. But would-be king Feisal wanted political support for his claim, IMHO. Even if it came from the jews. Strange bedfellows, eh?


I don't deny Israels right of existance. The state exist for a long time now, the israelis are settled down. Basta. Anit-Zionists regularly claim that they are not anti-semitic, but the line between these ideologies (you read right) is a very thin one. Sometimes, the border fence is build on the wrong side.

Since this is settled I can write something about the conflict.
I think that Israels problems with terrorism are to at least 60% home made. Through it's still tight grip on the occupied territories (well, only the Westbank now) and the settlement, they virtually invite terrorist attacks. Not because they oppress the arabs, but because the israelis extended their borders to river Jordan, provide targets and easy access to their mainland. Additionally, Hamas is partial an israeli creation. the organisation was funded by israeli tax money in the eighties. The goal was to create an competitor for the PLO. Well, that part worked rather well, didn't it?
Also, israel made the PLO strong. During the first Intifada, pictures went around the world with israeli troops shooting at stone-throwing children. Even if the PLO didn't organize the uprising, it took over and garnered massive international support for representig the oppressed palestenians. If Israel reacted a little bit less harsh, the PLO probably would still be in it's exile in Tunis.

But what are the main reason for staying? IMHO, it is 1) security, 2) ideology and 3) water.

1) Originally, Israel maintained the occupation regime in Westbank because it was a buffer zone against a invasion from Jordan. Since both countries signed a peace treaty in the nineties, there is no need to keep the occupation up for outward reasons.
Now, Israel tries to control and suppress terrorism. And very inefficinet so. Airstrikes against supposed terrorists and frequent inraids with ground troups didn't seem to do the trick. The Wall/Fence on the other hand seems to be more efficient. I they only build it on israeli territory...

2)Ideology. Eretz Israel, anyone?
One problem with Israel is that it is no secular state. It's laws are written on the base of jewish law. For example: If you want to marry in Israel you have to do it by jewish tradition, even if you are muslim or christian. Otherwise, the marriage is invalid.
This backs the religious right wing part of which claims more land than Israel + occupied territories. As far as I can see, disbanding settlements is very unpopular in Israel, even if they lie in worthless Gaza strip (no offense intended).

3) IMHO, the main reason for Israel in staying in Westbank is the water supply. IIRC, Israel draws 60% of it's water demand though the National Water Carrier out of Lake Genezareth. (I think, it's Tiberias in English.) If someone is interested in the exact numbers, I got to have them lying around somewhere.
This water supplies mainly the needy agriculture in the Negev desert. Sounds absurd? It is.
Naturally, the israeli goverment fears for the security of the water supply, especially since the palestenians and jordans dearly need additional water. (The river Jordan is very brackish south of lake Tiberias. Jordan cannot use the water, because Israel diverts so much.)
For the same reason, Israel don't want to give back the Golan Heights. It even annexed the land, because it can control 2 out of 3 tributaries to lake Tiberias.

Is there a solution? I don't know. But I think that Israel has to start de-escalating since they are the stronger party. There was a time in the nineties when the occupied territories were relativly quiet. No terrorist attacks, no israeli raids.
Why? Because Israel kept a low profile. Hamas and friends couldn't afford terrorist action and was very unimportant. Terrorits were very unpopular at this time. Hamas activits even begged foreign journalists for interviews.

Unfortunatly, the arab public is very radicalised now. I don't know if a de-escalating strategy would work. But the withdrawal out of Gaza is a start an so would be the fence. If it is build on israeli territory.

[ October 14, 2004, 12:37: Message edited by: Fabius Maximus ]

 

Another Lengthy Sidenote to Darkthrone,
as for being smeared antisemite when criticising zionists - thry this:

The dreaded "Arabists" in the state department did it again - they smeared jews as terrorists! Oh, what an outrage! Now what are these Kahanists? In a nutshell, settlers. And pretty militant ones.

On 31 December 2000 one Benyamin Zev Kahana, the leader of the extremist Jewish group known as "Kahana Hay" was murdered by Palestinians. His group openly calls for the expulsion and/or extermination of Palestinians in the territories delineated by the British mandate in 1920.

Benyamin Zev Kahana is the son of the late Rabbi Meir Kahana, founder of the Jewish Defence League and the Kach group, responsible for numerous attacks on Palestinian and Arab targets in Palestine. Meir Kahana, who was assassinated as well, wrote numerous books, including his book "They Must Go" published in New York in 1981, in which he urged the Israeli government to expel the Palestinians to ensure the racial purity of the Israeli state.

Do you remember the guy who provoked five Hamas suicide bombings that effectively killed the Oslo accords, soon before Rabin was slain by another rightwing Israeli by the name of Yigal Amir? It's Baruch Goldstein. Goldstein murdered 29 Arab worshipers on 25 February 1994 while they prayed at dawn in the Ibrahimi Mosque located in downtown Hebron. In return Hamas bombed five busses in Israel, killing numerous Israelis, and their predictable acts of terror predictably made Goldsteins deed slip from the public's mind.

In 1983, Kach terrorists attacked the campus of Hebron University, killing two students and wounding fifteen others. Three years earlier, they were responsible for placing time-bombs in the cars of three Arab mayors, seriously injuring one of them, former Mayor of Nablus Bassam Al Shaka'a.

Besides, a quote from an enthusiastic reader of Meir Kahane's "They must go":

Sure, folks like him are a minority, but well funded and well organised, and as their record shows, determined: Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir killed the Oslo peace process by means of political murder.

When I criticise zionism that is exactly because such quotes and it's record, and when I criticise Sharon that is exactly because he supports these people - they are his powerbase.

One of Sharon's senior advisors, Dov Weisglass, recently said, that the Gaza withdrawal supplies the formaldehyde necessary so there is no political process with the Palestinians. When you freeze the process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Asked about Sharon's motives, Weisglass said: "Time was not on our side. There was international erosion, internal erosion. Domestically, everything was collapsing."

"The economy was stagnant, and the Geneva initiative (the plan advanced by Israeli and Palestinian moderates) had gained broad support. And then we were hit with the letters of officers and letters of pilots and letters of commandoes (refusing to serve in the occupied territories). These were not weird kids with green ponytails and a ring in their nose. These were ... really our finest people."

Weisglass' comments border on the incredible. If he is to be believed, Gaza withdrawal is a huge trick played on everyone, Israelis, Palestinians, Americans and world opinion. If Sharon's plan is to block a Palestinian state, U.S. policy in the Middle East is in tatters - because officially Bush is still committed to a palestinian state - whatever his neocons say behind closed doors.

It seems that I, unlike Sharon or you, agree with the fraction in Israel Weisglass dubbed their "finest". Not too bad a company methinks.

And as far as the right of Israel to exist is concerned: Now that it is there it can only be undone in a disaster - an unacceptable result. Mistakes made cannot be undone, how much we however may wish they should have never been made. We have to live with the situation as it is today and find a way out before the sh*t hits the fan again and again and again.

 

@Ragusa:

You’re cute when you are enraged.

@Spellbound:

See?

Well, what have we here? I spent quite some time on preparing a lengthy reply addressing your concerns of anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism, Zionism, Racism, and Stuff. Now what have you done? It's all useless now, because Fabius and you have beat me to a quick answer. Oh my...

I'll improvise now.

Ragusa, you don't get it. Anti-Semitism. Is this some kind of cunning plot to drive me mad? Do I have dejà-vus? In my first response to Dendri I clarified all there is to clarify with regard to why I criticized you for bringing the heavy club of anti-Semitism into this debate. I wanted you to leave it out of the discussion. Not to bring it in with every new post to show how unjustly you have been treated. Is being the victim essential to your arguments? I don't think so. Fabius got it in the first go:

There, was it all that hard?

Fear not, you don't have to "divine what might be going on" in my head. I'll assist:

Yay, I did it! I quoted myself! I reached the next level!

What does all that mean? It means we're not even discussing this on the same level.

My idea is: let's start with the idea of why a Jewish state is justified and see how we evaluate Palestinian and Israeli actions working up from there. Maybe we'll learn something new.

Your idea is: let's start with how Israel and Sharon suck today and work downwards from there to see that the creation of Israel in Palestine had been a bad idea in the first place.

You see? I don't even oppose your ideas concerning Sharon and his actions. I'm no Zionist, either. Therefore, I don't see why I should be in the same boat (like in "... unlike Sharon or you, ..."). I rather try to provide the big picture. At least, a picture big enough, so that it contains the creation of Israel not only as a mistake and arbitrary act like you draw it.

Apart from this, I liked what Fabius Maximus has written. One thing: the Weizmann Feisal Agreement of 1919 was rather short lived, that's true. I brought it in because it shows that a) the idea of Jews in Palestine was not spat at by Arabs at all times, and b) that the Palestinians were looked upon with disdain not only by Zionist but by Arabs as well. And no, this is not meant by and large, but it shows that the world is nowhere ever merely black and white.

Just for the sake of completeness: I don't deny Palestinian territorial rights in Palestine. How could I? There’s one belief rooted deeply in my heart: you can’t really be pro-Palestinian without being pro-Israeli at the same time (and vice versa), not if your motivation lies in a philantropic view of the world – without having to nod to the left or right.

 

Well, the terms Zionist and anti-Zionist should probably be better defined in this discussion. I can be against the expansive kind of Zionism that sings songs about "both sides of the Jordan," while being for the Zionism that establishes borders with adjustments along 1967 lines. I can be against religious arguments for Zionism, at the same time that I'm sympathetic to the secular arguments.

At the same time, I can deplore the ethnic cleansing of Arabs in 48 etc., while I can also understand why it happened. One of the things that sometimes troubles me about criticisms of Israel from the left is the extent to which they want to see a black/white situation: something really surprising from the left. Nation building is often ugly and cruel, and leaves many innocent victims in its wake. There's no doubt that many Palestinians suffered and continue to suffer today due to the establishment of Israel, but the same could be said of *any* large historical event. Not to minimize their suffering, but history produces victims, and such victims are easy to find all over the globe. No doubt many of the ethnic Germans expelled from eastern Europe were innocent victims, and had claims on their land just as valid and time-worn as anyone else, but in a broader historic context, the expulsion happened, and it would be reactionary to an extreme to think they should all get their land back. Events in Israel may be amplified on the world stage by certain symbolic cultural elements, but I still hold to the position that these are overplayed in justifying unrest in the Middle East that stems from other conditions entirely.

 

Disdain? You left out one nice bit about the Weizmann-Faisal treaty: While Weizmann had called the Palestinians "treacherous", "arrogant", "uneducated", and "greedy" and had complained to the British that the system in Palestine did "not take into account the fact that there is a fundamental qualitative difference between Jew and Arab". After his meeting with Faisal, Weizmann reported that Faisal was "contemptuous of the Palestinian Arabs whom he doesn't even regard as Arabs".

Well, I don't think it shows what you see. You say that the Arabs from the desert and the first settlers only had contempt for the Palestinians - and what does that show? Imagine a KKK guy and a nazi talking about jews and you get the idea. With Weizmann and Faisal you have two supremacists agreeing that a third party is not as great as they are.

For a solution today the way Israel eventually emerged in the middle east is not pointless. As the Weizmann quotes indicate, zionism resulted in a state favouring Israelis only, he claimed that the Jews were better than the Palestinian Arabs and therefor should settle Palestine. For them Palestinians not only had no right on their land - they didn't even have a land.

From a practical point of view we have to accept the idea of a jewish state - it has undeniably manifested itself in Israel. But todays situation daramtically underlines the problem that haunted Israel since the first days of the settlers: That they were a minority to begin with. And that they took the land instead of inheriting it. And then there is the supremacist element in zionist ideology.

Todays problem that Israelis soon will be a minority in their own country while controlling the rightless majority by force is imminent. I can't help thinking of South-Africa. Israel cannot hold up the settlements indefinitely and it cannot continue to deny the Arabs rights.

I agree with you about that a solution has to do justice to both sides - and therfor has to include Arab grievances - and not only to focus on Israel's security concerns as it is today. The way, with a free pass from an indifferent Bush Jr., Sharon handles it today only spirals up violence.

The way Sharon handles the situation can only succeed and result in peace when he wants to go much further - and deports the Arabs from Palestine - which is exactly what the radical settlers movement wants. Sharon's solution can only make sense when Israel goes for massive ethnic cleansing. That 'success' will mean a few million pissed off Arabs outside Israels borders instead of the occupied territories, and pissed off neighbous having to host the refugees - and will only shift the problem beyond Israels borders and destabilise the middle east even more. Sharon's approach will only modify the problem, not solve it.

And why I brought the topic to antisemitism is just because that's how Likudniks and the radical Zionists deal with criticism:

The U.S. State Department is anti-jewish because they label jewish terrorists as terrorists ... Try this link ... or take neocon Michael Rubin seeing himself not so much a victim of his own neocon policies but of -- you guessed it -- antisemitism.
When you're as radicalised as they are you see your enemies in a radical way. Anything short of antisemitism can't work. Radical settlers pictured Rabin in Himmler's uniform and called for his death when he was about to sign the Oslo accords. For a fanatic, dissent is nothing less but treason.

And why do I all bring this up? It has been said that Israel and trouble Bin Laden had nothing to do with each other. I don't think so. Fervent zionist Meir Kahane was assassinated in 1990 after giving a speech at a New York City hotel, by El Sayyid Nosair from Egypt. Nosair was part of a terrorist cell involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and which has also been connected to the planners of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

It isn't necessary that you get the link linking Israel and the US, or see it but consider it irrational. It's enough that they do to cause you trouble. If someone has a problem with you you usually do have a problem with him.

Israels occupation of Arab territories has everything to do with the current conflict with Islamist fundamentalism in the middle east. It does have a great influence.

PS: I pretty much agree with you Bion, but what do you mean with:

[ October 14, 2004, 17:47: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Well, the Kach movement was outlawed in Israel quite some time ago, and even though it still has some underground presence, it doesn't seem like it's representative of anyone except for some of the more radical settlers. And the racial debate has gotten alot more civil in the last 50 or 80 years. Witness the debate in Israel right now over whether or not Jewish-only communities are legal: alot of Israelis, whether Arab or Jew, are still very aware of racism in their society, and are motivated against it, even after the events of the last 4 1/2 years.

Also, before consigning Sharon to the status of bogeyman, remember that through building the wall he is basically following a plan outlined by Labor's Mitzna. Granted, Mitzna wouldn't have tried to get away with all of the border hijinks Sharon has, but that is a matter of adjustment. The facts remain that in the last 4 years or so, a number of *positive* things have happened in Israel, including an admission among *all* parties involved, including Israel's right, that Palestine as a country has a right to exist. This would have been unthinkable even for mainstream Labor not so long ago. Thus, the terms of debate, if not the facts on the ground, are getting closer to some kind of tangible settlement, even if the actions of various parties might seem shortsighted, aggressive, cruel, etc.

As for the region, it was suffering from alot of problems even before Israel came into the picture: colonialism, lack of modernization, tribalism, widespread sectarian and religious violence, etc. You can find (often racist) quotes from Ottoman rulers in the 16th C, along the lines that the Palestinian region would never find peace. Granted, Israel stirred things up in Lebanon -- through refugees, through military presence in the 80s -- but they certainly don't bear full responsibility.

From the quote above: the "Holy Land" has had a weighty symbolic value to the entire Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition for a long, long time. That, in addition to all of the "clash of civilizations" talk today, makes the Israel-Palestine situation stand out in world awareness, even when other situations are far, far more problematic (Darfur, etc).

Finally, to return to the racism issue, in terms of child mortality, education, life expectancy quality of life, etc., pretty much the best place to be if you are Palestinian is in Israel, if you have Israeli citizenship that is. Granted, they are often treated as second class citizens, but the mechanisms are in place for that to improve over time. As for population transfer, I simply don't think that could *ever* happen.

It seems to me that alarmism over Israel, as though they are the entity most responsible for upsetting the world balance, is way over-played, and almost a secular left version of the apocolyptic religious right...

 

Well, the Kach movement was outlawed. Anyway, I don't need to remind you of the infamous 1995 Likud rally, addressed by then party leader Benjamin Netanyahu from a balcony, beneath which a hate filled mob let off steam with a poster that had Rabin's head superimposed on a picture of SS commander Heinrich Himmler in full regalia.

Netanyahu and his Likud directly used the extraparliamentary settlers movements' tactics that year, cooperating with the Settlers, and a good deal of their leaders and activists were close to Kach. They are so quiet atm because their leaders atm sit right in Sharon's cabinet. They are so quiet because they have won.

With Bush Jr.'s blessing or indifference Sharon has thrown back the peace process for ten years at least. While not having unballanced the world it hasn't contributed to it's stability either.

Israel can be happy they have a Bush Jr. blundering around in Iraq so that the Arab world is distracted. In the unballancing the world part Bush beats Sharon by far.

 

Yeah, the role of the right at least fostering the conditions of Rabin's murder is still a hot issue.

But the settlers' movement is anything but quiet at the moment; for the first time since Sinai, they're dead scared they might lose real settlements, and there are ominous signs that someone might try to "rabin" Sharon. Granted, he's played it for effect, to show what a tight position he's in, but in any case, he's having very public fights with the far right and his coallision is in danger of collapse.

So I don't think things are going backwards there at all; a different direction than one might have hoped maybe, but definitely not backwards.

Granted as well that Bush and Co. were pretty lousy on Israel/Palestine, starting out all blustery that they could solve things by putting pressure on the PA, and then quietly slinking away from the issue when it turned out to be more intractable than they had thought.

But as for unbalancing the world, I'm not quite sure yet whether the damage is as great as you think. Strangely, one can see this in the localization of so much world vitriol in the person of Bush, as opposed to against the US in general (that is, the US of Clinton, etc). Iraq might turn out to be an unqualified disaster, but there is also a distinct chance it might turn out not so badly. Time will tell, and one hopes that with Kerry elected, which seems likely at this point, there will at least be more intelligent policy at work, as opposed to political activism.