A month back I went to a highly emotional talk at Columbia University Hillel that Iâve been meaning to blog about because it shows how much the discourse on Israel/Palestine is changing. Mine is a report from a liberal university, not a Washington thinktank, but it reflects shifting attitudes among young Jews.
Amazingly, the title of the talk--âIs Zionism Racism?ââwas chosen by Lionpac, Columbiaâs undergraduate version of AIPAC, the Israel lobby. About 35 students jammed a small conference room on the fourth floor of Hillel--a room in which Iâd seen two men studying Torah just an hour before. Just when it seemed no one else could fit in, a darkhaired man wearing a black kaffiyah slipped through the door and dropped his scarf on the back of his chair: a Palestinian graduate student.
The speaker was Anita Shapira, an Israeli Zionist scholar. Seated at the conference table, she began by dismissing the question. She likened it to an insult in a joke in which a man calls another manâs sister a whore. If you donât like someone you accuse them of racism. âWhy do you ask me if Zionism is racism?â Having spoken 7 or 8 minutes, she opened the floor to questions.
Iâll now reprise the Q-and-A. The explosive moments come during an exchange between Shapira and the Palestinian, Saifedean Ammous, that I found cathartic. But the more intriguing exchanges were between Shapira and young Jews, who are struggling with the same questions Ammous is framing, but in a more tentative fashion.
The first question was from such a student. âArenât Arab citizens always going to feel alienated in the Jewish state?â
Shapira: âMaybe this is true but this is not racism. Israel defines itself as the state of the Jews. But it has non-Jewish citizens.â For instance, about a quarter million of the recent Russian immigrants were not Jewish. It is true that many Israeli Arabs donât feel at home. But then Israel had been in a constant clash with their Palestinian brethren, and so how could you expect them to identify with Israel. âThis is a very tragic situation, but it has nothing to do with racism.â
Q. Why should we embrace Jewish nationalism?
Shapira: âIsrael was founded according to a nationalist concept from Europe. That statehood goes with nation. The idea that state and people are more or less one and the same is not something that is considered illegitimate or out of place in Europe. Finland is the land of the Finns â¦.Maybe the idea of a nation having a state is an outdated concept. Maybe itâs time to move on to multinational units [and here Shapira spoke of American pluralism]. But why should we always be the first to try it?â
Q. Why should we rationalize the law of return, allowing any Jew to move to Israel tomorrow?
Shapira. âThe fact of giving preference to a certain ethnic group in your laws because you want to promote the convergence between nationhood and statehood is something that many nations have and is not something we should apologize for. What is so awful about the fact that Jewish identity is a strange mixture of the ethnic and religious?â The Israeli population was diverse. âI come from Poland. There are Ethiopian Jews. There are Russian Jews. Ethnically we are anything but a race.â
At this point, Ammous, who had been seething in his chair, burst forth that Shapira was dishonestly trying to ennoble Israeli nationalism. âWhy is there a clash between Jews and Arabs? Because Zionism is racism. That is why there is a clash.... I donât believe in God. But my Jewish friends who were born to a religion which they donât believe either can go and get my grandfatherâs land from the Jewish National Fund.â This was a racial distinction; Ammous said that the Holocaust demonstrated how destructive such distinctions are.
Shapira seemed stunned. âThe Jews are one of a kind. Both a nation and a people if you wish.â
Ammous: âI find it hard to believe that is an acceptable concept in the 20th Century. Howâs that different from [Afrikaanersâ ideology in] South Africa?â
Shapira insisted that Ammous was racializing a simple conflict. âYou have two national movements fighting for the same piece of land⦠This is a normal clash between people. There are hundreds around the worldâ¦. I do not accept the fact that because Jews are a strange mixture of religion and ethnicity, I have to deny my own identity.â
Ammous said that her definition of citizenship, involving religion/birth and all those non-Jewish Russians, was arbitrary. âYou might as well base citizenship on the Horoscope. No Scorpios are allowed, and my family are Scorpios. I see that as equally irrelevant, and absurd. The reason there is a conflict is because you set up an identity that excludes me and my grandfather. Donât you see the absurdity of this racism?â
Shapira was now upset. âI am what I am. The relationship between the Palestinians and Jews goes back more than 150 years. Putting the label of racism on it is unfair.â
A pretty blond girl broke in. She thanked Ammous for coming, then said, âIsrael was created as a safe haven for Jews. Very few nations have such strong claims to nationhood as Israel: a common culture, common land of origin.â
To which Shapira added, âBahai people found a refuge in Haifa. There are Christians living happily in Israel.â The Palestinian case was special. The refugees created by the founding of Israel in 1948 were âan unfortunate situationâ¦.I know a lot of the invading Arab countries told them to get out.â
Ammous. âWrong⦠You had to ethnically cleanse the land in order to set up the state.â
The room was in shellshock. Finally a leader of Lionpac broke in to move the conversation along. âI really appreciate your coming,â she said to Ammous. âI appreciate the liveliness of the debate.â But she said that the â48 war was not part of the topic.
I raised my hand. I was upset myself. In a calm tone, I said that on a trip to Hebron I took with an Israeli group last summer, religious settlers who had taken over the center of the city had thrown rocks at us. Later we watched a video of young settlers throwing rocks at Arab girls who were just trying to go to school. The Israeli next to me wanted to run from the room and vomit when he saw this. After I came home, Avigdor Lieberman, who believes in the transfer of Arabs out of Israel, became deputy prime minister, without significant protest from anyone. As a progressive Jew, I said, I want to wash my hands of the whole country. Why shouldnât I?
Shapira said that such things make her want to vomit too. âThe fact that Israel is not perfect, that is a fact. We have our better moments and our worse moments. We also make mistakes.â But she said that it was wrong to conclude â that everything is premeditated and everything is a conspiracy to bring about the suffering and displacement of the Palestinians â¦. I wish other states would be so open and critical of their government.â
At this point, Ammous began playing a video game on his blackberry, and his role was taken over by a student named Noah Schwartz. âThe issue of 1948-- thatâs the main argument we have here,â he said. âYou couldnât have a Jewish state without the displacement of another people. The idea of a distinct people in a vacuum may work for Antarctica. But the standard history, and it is not dispute, is that transfer arrangements were [discussed by]... the Jewish Agency, once the civil war broke out after Partition.â Because nobody believed the Jewish state could actually function, with a large Arab minority.
Shapira: âYou take for granted what happened after that as if it were planned in advance. In â47 [at the time of Partition] Jews were so happy to receive even a small portion of the landâ¦â
Schwartz seized on the issue of Jewish immigration during the Mandate period. âYou live in Philadelphia, and all of a sudden 1 million Chinese move to the place. Speaking a different languge. You wouldnât like it.â
Shapira: âThe connection of Jews to Palestine was not the same as the connection of Chinese to Philadelphia.â
Now Saif Ammous broke in. âNo, but how does that relate to the Palestinians living there.â
Shapira seemed to throw up her hands. âItâs a tragedy,â she said.
Ammous: âSo we can just go fuck ourselves.â
("a PhD candidate hurling an f-bomb at one of the world's foremost experts on Zionism..."-- per a mocking/defensive post on a Columbia blog)
Shapira gathered her dignity about her, and concluded with a discussion of refugees. âAfter the war, we are talking about a period in which all over Europe we had movements of population. There were many many questions of refugees. All of them found an answer in the country where they landed. Later, Israel received 1 million refugees from the Arab world. She absorbed them and didnât claim that they are refugees. The Arabs refused to absorb their people in order to immortalize the problem. I donât think it had to be like this. I am sorry for the Palestinians.â
It was a good point (one that Alan Dershowitz makes, too). I know Ammous, and need to challenge him about it. As I say, the discussion was cathartic. Thanks to Hillel and Lionpac, I left the room smarter than when I went in. Later I thought that I should have followed up my own question. âWhen you say that Israel is not perfect, I am sure segregationists defended their system in the American south in the 1960s in the same way, 'Itâs not perfect.' At some point, as an outsider, you stop accepting rationalizations for injustice and just say, âThis has got to change.ââ That would have struck a chord with some of the young Jews in the room.
On that last point:
I seriously do not understand how that can be a good point, and the reason I never answered it is that I thought it was too ridiculous to answer.
Does the fact that other refugees settle somewhere automatically make the plight of all other refugees in the world their fault?
If I stole your house, surely you wouldn't accept that as OK if someone else, somewhere else in the world decided they were OK with someone else stealing their house.
There's a name for kicking people out of their homes against their will: it's called ethnic cleansing. It is no way justified, tempered or 'placed in context' by mentioning that it happened to other people who got over it.
The key thing to remember is that the people who were ethnically cleansed did NOT want to become citizens of other countries, they did NOT want to forget about it; they wanted to go to their homes, which is a very fair and legitimate demand.
It is a demand that is surely more fair and legitimate than millions of Jews from all around the world, who have never lived in Palestine, having an automatic right to migrate there at any time and set up their lives on the remains of the ethnically cleansed Palestinians.
Phil, placing the blame on the refugees that were ethnically cleansed for not accepting their ethnic cleansing more graciously, while exonerating the racist state that ethnically cleansed them and allows people from all over the world to take their place based on an anachronistic definition of race/religion/ethnicity is really not a good point.
Saif
Zionism is the self-determination movement of the Jewish people.
We are a people, and we deserve to self-govern.
That we came to this via external circumstances and stimuli is the way reality works.
EVERY assertion is an assertion. It does not come to be without making waves, literally.
The shift among the Jewish people from walking apologies, to walking self-assertion is permanent, at least among those that have experienced that catharsis.
Among those that are Jewish, the question remains of how do we right wrongs that we observe and acknowledge, and how do we currently regard and treat our neighbors.
The expansionist Zionist parties (Likud, Israel Beitenu) disregard their neighbors. They treat them like insects. (Similarly to how they had been and fear being treated by the Islamic parties of Hamas).
The moderate Zionist parties (Kadima, Labor) regard their neighbors conditionally. IF they treat us well, we will treat them well.
The liberal Zionist parties (Meretz) regard their neighbors also conditionally, but seek to create the good conditions that they hope their neighbors will respond to in kind.
All Zionist parties though. NONE seeking for Israel to not exist as a Jewish partioned state.
None imagining that a one-state solution in which the Palestinian majority supports a religious party and solution (rather than a primarily civil) results in anything but bloody civil war (with a partition as the nearly inevitable result anyway).
The moral questions of what is proposed, should also be asked of those that describe Zionism as racism.
What would the theoretical young people in the room think about forced removal of Jews from Israel?
(Would that be racism? Objected to? Or accepted like Jim Crow was for the 80 years prior to the mid-50's?)
The necessary distinction that MUST be made at every statement by a dissenter, is do you object to Israeli policies, or do you object to Israeli existence?
To not disclose that answer is to indulge in intentional opportunist moral ambiguity.
Richard,
That you do not comprehend the answer means you are indulging in bigoted close-mindedness.
The problem is with the actions of the Israeli state, because they are borne out of the fundamental racism at the heart of the Zionist ideal, which assumes that the goal of a Jewish state should be the most important thing in the world, and that the millions of Palestinians that would suffer from it are at most an unfortunate footnote.
Therefor, to answer your previous question, as a consistent opponent of racism in all its forms, I, and millions of anti-Zionists, would object to the forced removal of anyone from Israel, and would object to any racist constructs of nationalism there.
Instead, what we would call for, is a secular democratic nation state where whatever God you believe in, whatever tribe you think you belong to, whatever baseball team you support and whatever race you believe yourself to be does not in any way impact your citizenship.
To argue against this by saying that the Muslims would then kill the Jews is at best stupid, at worst bigoted and criminal. This is no different from the arguments that slave-owners made about maintaining slavery, that segregationists made about maintaining segregation, and that apartheid South Africa's leadership made about apartheid: "If we give them freedom they will murder us all."
History has shown, in all these cases and many others, that once the oppression is over, the oppressed doesn't really care to go out of their way and take revenge. They are all, after all, normal people who want to get on with their normal lives, and once their oppression is over, are very happy to get along with it.
Further, the real racism in this statement is to justify Israelis ethnically cleansing Palestinians, murdering them, locking them up behind walls and persecuting them, on the premise that the Palestinians COULD do the same. This is pre-emptive persecution and makes pre-emptive war sound very intelligent.
Also, by this logic, every crime in history can be justified: "We had to commit this genocide, they would've done the same to us."
This is utter bullshit. If the Israelis stop suppressing Palestinians, Palestinians have no reason to care to suppress Israelis.
Please stop this idiotic racism of yours and let's learn to live together in peace, where genocide is not Ok, whether it's pre-emptive or not.
Richard is suffering from "pre-traumatic stress disorder."
The one-state solution is not in the cards.
There is no racism in Zionism as constructed as the self-governance movement of the Jewish people.
Actually, the flipside is true, that prohibition against the Jewish people self-governing is in fact a racism (or ethnicism).
In the case of Palestine, the situation is not so simple as the civil-minded coexisting in a single state (as appealing as that hope would be), as there are historical and regional precedents that conflict with your rosy assertion that "They are all, after all, normal people who want to get on with their normal lives, and once their oppression is over, are very happy to get along with it".
Your history denies that the holocaust occurred, or presumes that it was inconsequential to the chain of events, and does not effect the math of what is possible.
The holocaust did occur. The Jewish refugees of Europe were not accepted anywhere in Europe or the US, and decided for good or bad reasons that Israel was the best option for them.
They were not accepted in their natural numbers into Palestine prior to WW2, during the early stages of Nazi persecution, post WW2, and post Israeli independance.
There is no precedent of even conditional acceptance of large-scale Jewish residence even as peers prior to Oslo.
As a small and easily managed minority, there was often acceptance, as there is often acceptance in fact between Israeli and Arab residents (even among some of the settlements), but no acceptance of even significant minority.
In contrast to the rhetoric, there is nothing resembling genocide occurring in Palestine. ("Genocide" is a specific term referring to the organized intended annihilation of ALL of a people. There definitely is persecution, which is an example of a wrong policy, but not of an essence of racism.
Palestinians deserve self-governance. Jews do similarly.
Your rosy pictures of Palestinian intent, does not bear out to a level of satisfaction. There are too many Islamicists that regard even the presence of Jews in the region at majority or near, to be a violation of the Islamic right.
The construction of states is that, a construction. Jurisdictions are chosen, not inherent.
In that construction, the two-state solution is far preferable as realizing self-governance for a much larger proportion of the society than majority rule in an imposed single state.
Its time to accept it. Israel exists, will for your and my lifetime, and most likely for generations if not millenia.
The options that we have are how the states will get to live in relation to one another.
Saif,
Personally, I am becoming more and more sympathetic to the ulimate goal of a binational solution, partially because I recognize that Palestinian refugees are never going to give up on their to pre-1948 Palestine, to the towns and villages that are now part of Israel. However, I think your notion of a secular democratic state is a mistake. Any solution that requires the privatisation of the distinctive ethnic, religious and national affiliations of Arabs and Jews would be unworkable. Whatever you feel about Zionism or the creation of Israel, the reality is, a strong Israeli identity has emerged, and Jews and Israelis are very attached to the idea of a Jewish state as a means of defending and protecting Jewish rights.
I think a more realistic model for an Israeli-Palestinian state would a be a consociational/federal solution along the lines of Belgium, post-1995 Bosnia, Northern Ireland, rather than a completely deconfessionalized unitary state like post-apartheid South Africa. Are you familiar with the group Alternative Paletsinian Agenda, which has proposed 2 states (with borders roughly along the lines of the 1947 partition proposal) within the framework of a federal union?
Dear Peter,
Thanks for your comments, indeed you do make a very important point which I think more and more people are beginning to concede. While I personally favour a completely secular state, it does seem that such a solution might be slightly unacceptable to a majority of people.
Perhaps a binational state, or a federal state is a more suitable option given the religious sensitivities and the special identity that both sides have. This is an immensely important debate whose time will come, but since this is a debate usually carried out among rational honest non-racist people, it is usually a very civil one.
But yes, ultimately, I agree that perhaps in a unitary or binational staet, so sorts of concessions need to be made for religious identity, and perhaps even reconciling the state with some benign ethnic-cleansing-free aspects of Zionism, like the cultural aspect of it and maybe the spiritual aspects.
I yearn for the day where this will be THE debate we have about the Middle East, and we don't have to deal with nutjobs telling us that Zionism is necessary and that ethnic cleansing was a necessary tragedy we have to live with.
"After the war, we are talking about a period in which all over Europe we had movements of population. There were many many questions of refugees. All of them found an answer in the country where they landed"
Yes, answers such as Operation Keelhaul, or the assasination of hundreds of thousands of ethnic germans fleeing form Eastern Europe. By the way where is Salomon Morel? Is he happy living in jewland among his equals?
Richard,
You said: "Your history denies that the holocaust occurred, or presumes that it was inconsequential to the chain of events, and does not effect the math of what is possible."
Where on earth did you get that? This is a serious accusation that should not be bandied about lightly. You do not know me, yet are willing to pass such judgements. Speaks volumes.
You said: "Actually, the flipside is true, that prohibition against the Jewish people self-governing is in fact a racism (or ethnicism)."
What kind of utter pathetic bullsh1t is this? By this twisted "logic" of yours, saying that Christians should not self-govern America is racist.
America is a land that is 80% Christian, if you say that the country should be run by Christians and everyone else should have second-level rights, you're (rightly) branded a bigot. If you say that everyone should be equal under the law, you are NOT a racist.
In your beloved Israel, and in what passes for a brain in your head, to say that Jews should self-govern the whole land (of which they make up less than 50% of the population) is correct, but saying that everyone should live in equality is racist.
George Orwell would piss his pants laughing at this. The most pathetic part about it is that I know for a fact that you actually believe this, and are not just saying it to score points. Which is really pathetic.
"…do you object to Israeli existence? To not disclose that answer is to indulge in intentional opportunist moral ambiguity."
Always the same idiotic claims. First you should clearly define the borders of your proposed jewish state THEN let's talk about right to exist.
Saif,
You don't need to resort to ad hominem attacks on me personally.
It paints you poorly.
Please read other posts of mine here. You also guess, and guess wrong, as to my worldview and efforts.
"What kind of utter pathetic bullsh1t is this? By this twisted "logic" of yours, saying that Christians should not self-govern America is racist."
The claim of Zionism is the self-determination movement of the Jewish people, is not saying that Zionism is relative to religion, but to the Jewish PEOPLE.
That is the basis of the secular assertion of self-determination.
Its worthy of respect, not of condemnation.
The reconciliation required is to co-exist, as things are, perhaps working towards how things might be, but not taking fantasy jumps.
As far as everyone living in equality, I oppose the discrimminatory laws in Israel (the few) against Arabs and other minorities, as well as social discrimmation. I subscribe to the view that all be afforded equal due process of law.
Specifically, I oppose the 1952 law that prohibited Palestinians from asserting claims to lands that they left in 1948, for example.
I don't however believe that a single-state solution manifests in democracy.
Given the current makeup of parties in Israel and Palestine, by my math, a single-state would yeild subordination to roughly 45%, whomever is in the minority.
In contrast a two-state solution leads to a small minority in each state. And, as a small minority is not threatening to the existence or norms of the state, minority rights are more easily affirmed.
Nearly certainly, as the political associations are currently constructed, a single-state effort would result in civil war, with the ultimate result being a partitioned society anyway.
In Palestine, the civil parties just don't have the predominance to provide the confidence to even consider it.
Your assertions conflict with the history of relationships between the peoples.
Please consider practically the current situation in which Jews comprise a slim population plurality in the land from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.
Would you accept, would your compatriots accept, a majority rule by Jews in the single state, as modern democracy based on one-person, one-vote would yeild?
On the other hand, if Palestinians comprised a majority, and the dominant party sought to impose sharia, even incrementally, would that appeal to your democratic sensibilities?
Jews are 2% of America yet they control it. If they were 45% in Israel, they would do absolutely well.
In it's overextended current stage Israel is going to have the same fate of this Israel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Kamakawiwo'ole
Richard:
"The claim of Zionism is the self-determination movement of the Jewish people, is not saying that Zionism is relative to religion, but to the Jewish PEOPLE.
That is the basis of the secular assertion of self-determination."
So it's not based on religion, well, then my analogy can stay the same for America, but replace Christians with whites/Anglos/Irish/Scorpios/Italians/Yankees'-fans/etc…
I am not interested in entering into an endless discussion of what is a 'Jewish people' and have no interest in whatever that definition is; I respect it like every other 'people-hood' in the world, but the problem I have, again, is when any of these groups of people decides to kick me out of my home to have their country alone. This is the case with Palestine. This is why it is racist, it is not about the particulars of the definition, it is about the fact that this definition entails millions having to be ethnically cleansed from their homes.
Otherwise, whatever the definition is, as long as the people who maintain it do not want to kick me out of my home and set up an exclusive state, I am very fine with it.
You continue to harp on about the reality and the hatred of Muslims/Palestinians/Arabs to Israelis/Jews/Zionists, and I will reiterate that two problems with this argument:
1- You ignore that this hatred is only the result of decades of ethnic cleansing and persecution; without it, this wouldn't be there. If you want to be a Daniel Pipes and posit that this hatred is genetically engrained in Arab children who want to kill Jews just because they like to kill Jews and has nothing to do with ethnic cleansing and occupation, then I wish you luck in your travels in cuckoo-land.
2- You continue to use this very same hatred as the excuse for perpetuating the suffering that caused it. That's not a very good idea. That's like continuing apartheid in the fear that blacks' hatred for whites is too overwhelming and will cause them to kill all the whites. This only prolongs the suppression, increases the hatred, and makes the transition harder. And it's very racist because it assumes blacks are just born to hate whites.
As the great William Sloane Coffin Jr once said: "Those who fear disorder more than injustice invariably produce more of both."
"1- You ignore that this hatred is only the result of decades of ethnic cleansing and persecution; without it, this wouldn't be there."
History conflicts with that view. Prior to 1940, during the worst of the persecutions of Jews in Europe, the Palestinians successfully influenced the British to severely restrict Jewish immigration to Israel.
You paraphrase me as using the term "all of the land", as if that is what I ever said.
It is the oppossite of my view. I believe in and publicly advocate for the two-state solution, comprised of a healthy and secure Israel, next to a healthy and secure Palestine, at the green line.
The difference is that the formula "Zionism is racism" logically mandates the denial of rights to self-governance to the self-defined Jewish people (as the Palestinian people are self-defined).
In contrast, the presence of Zionism, can be Jewish self-governance of enough land (say a consented border at the green line), not "all of the land".
Its easy to quote that Coffin reference to prove any point.
You also quote the parallel that Zionism is apartheid.
If you study history, you will note similarities in form, but also glaring differences in substance.
For one, Jews are currently a majority in the land from Mediterranean to Jordan, and they do NOT seek to annex it (Likud and Israel Beitanu does, but in violation of Israeli treaty with the PA). Even as they comprise a current majority, and would likely rule.
(In contrast to Israel/Palestine, apartheid was constructed to enable a small minority to control a majority, not even a significant minority as 45% would be.)
I would hope that your assertion that "this hatred is only the result of decades of ethnic cleansing and persecution" is true in your use of the term "only".
Some events that diminish the certainty of your point include:
When Palestinians forcefully removed the original Jewish residents of Hebron in 1929.
Was that not also self-fulfilling, as in an example of Coffin's quote?
Peace happens by mutual acknowledgement and acceptance. Both the peace of a two-state solution, AND the peace of a federal solution, AND the peace of an integrated single-state solution.
In that sense, how is the invocation of "Zionism is racism" a path to either of those "peace".
We agree that occupation of the West Bank, unequal application of law within Israel, and importantly the prohibition against Palestinians receiving due process for their 1947-9 land claims, are a deterrent to either of the "peace".
I don't get how a formula that suggests that Israel should not exist, that 7 million people there now, human beings, should not self-govern is either democracy or peace-seeking.
Another thought occurred to me in thinking about the prospect of a single-state election.
That was the history of the United States prior to the civil war.
In the 1850's, when the issues of the balance of slave states vs free states first appeared, there were two that had successfully applied to become new states. One was Nebraska which opted to be a free state. The other was Kansas, which opted to have a plebiscite.
During the year leading up to the election, proponents of each attempted to stack the deck by recruiting as many of their side to move to Kansas so as to shift the outcome of the election. Each side sought to terrorize the other. The brutality of the plebiscite foreshadowed the brutality of civil war.
Eventually, Kansas entered the union as a free state, but through a maze of constitutional oddity.
Because the Kansas consent was unclear civil war ensued.
I don't wish the brutality either of the plebiscite.
In contrast to the Coffin quote, I would suggest that failing to consider the prospects for brutal civil war (war being the state where brutality is sanctioned), is a moral negligence, and the oppossite of justice, whether fear of disorder is a motivator or not.
Richard, as a Jew living in America, do you "self-govern"?
I think Saifedean is absolutely right to insist on the issue of justice. The core of the matter is the cleansing of a land's inhabitants in order to make room for a racially/ethnically pure state. Until Zionists are willing to address this root evil, all this talk of "self-governance" is just a diversion.
But as an aside, I'm afraid Richard is a little late in his claim that "Jews comprise a slim population plurality in the land from the Jordan to the Mediterranean." The point of no return was passed a while ago–
"The proportion of Jews in the combined population of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza had dropped below 50 percent for the first time."
Ethan Bronner, New York Times, August 16, 2005
The reason? Immigration to the Jewish state is drying up.
"Your history denies that the holocaust occurred, or presumes that it was inconsequential to the chain of events, and does not effect the math of what is possible."
I didn't state this clearly.
I did not mean to ascribe "holocaust-denial" to you.
"or presumes that it was inconsequential to the chain of events, and does not effect the math of what is possible", I think is reflected in the isolation of the issue from its historical context.
Both people should raise their integrity.
The Palestinians cities were clearly hit by a massive immigration of poor and uncultured Jewish people about 100-120 years ago.
The rest was mismanagement of anger, and greed.
The Palestinians were the first who applied defensive racism.
The rest is history. The Palestinian and Arab leaders underestimated the Yishuv, the diaspora and it is time to deal with each other without Soviet, Saudi and Iranian… uncles.
A brave Palestinian leader – with integrity – will lead his/her people to an enlightened compromise and coexistence with Israel.
Many Palestinian friends have told me that the life of their sons is more important to them than some lost land.
I agree with them and hope to be allied with them against the cheap propaganda on both sides.
Instead of the Blame Industry – let us inventory the errors on both sides calmly, and in cooperation with each others.
Steve, what are these "errors" you talk about? We're talking about intentional acts of ethnic cleansing.
"and it is time to deal with each other without Soviet, Saudi and Iranian… uncles"
Only good mother America will suffice, I guess.
Saif,
I apologize for offending you if I did.
Jews have experienced subordinated status in all Muslim dominated states that they've lived. Their experience alternated between love of those communities, even if they were not legally peers, to hatred of those communities, in which their subordination was imposed bitterly.
Historically, among European and Muslim contexts, Jews have been blamed for every wrong befalling the communities, in nearly all cases innaccurately and malevolently.
Our catharsis as a people from abused to self-asserting is a good in the world, from my understanding.
I wish that every subordinated people experience similarly, shifting from abused and living in existential apology to living in some freedom.
For Jews the experience was both physical and psychological, and happened fast.
For most American Jews, the experience of the holocaust was foreign, and the catharsis was in sympathy more than experience.
So, us children of WW2 American Jews, missed that catharsis largely. Growing up during the Vietnam War, our references were different.
Our assertion was in dissent.
We, American Jews, did not have the stimulus to need to be a "we". We had the luxury of self-defined objectivity.
For me personally, I shifted when I married a child of a holocaust survivor and got to know her family well, and also when I had children and had to decide how to bring them up.
What was just a story, an often overly sentimentalized one, became a reality.
I sympathize with my family's need for safety following slave labor camps, harrassment upon returning to their home town in Hungary, fear in being human cargo to emigrate to the only haven that was offered to them in Israel, and more fear at experiencing two more all-out wars in eight years.
Regarding Israel, I primarily seek a confidently safe solution for Jews, for the even distant relatives that are there, and secondarily seek a just solution for humanity and Palestinians.
I don't negate the prospect of seeking justice for Palestinians, but its definitely not first on my list.
When progressives articulate a single-state solution that offers confident safety and ACTS to make that safety happen, then maybe the single-state solution can be presented as a better one, as more just, than a two-state solution.
Its not happened yet from what I've heard.
I've heard the contemptuous "Zionism is racism", and not "I respect how given the circumstances, Zionism would be understood as the most appealing approach to Jews", and definitely not yet the proposal of how a single state solution could comprise a confidently better solution for all concerned.
How's are needed. Proposals. Complaints are everywhere and construct a maze through which any destination cannot be reached.
Ammous: âSo we can just go fuck ourselves.â
That's what the Palestinians have been doing to themselves since they made up their "people hood". You have defined the national goal quite succinctly.
Richard,
No offense taken.
A few points: You are absolutely right that the tragedy of the persecution of the Jewish people is a horrible tale; and it is in fact one of the most sordid chapters of human history, whether in 20th Century Europe or anywhere else. I entirely agree. And I also, in no way view it it as irrelevant to the conflict as you had earlier said.
Where you and I differ is in how it is relevant to the conflict and how it is relevant to our worldview in general.
For you, the problem was the persecution, abuse and extermination of Jews and that had to be stopped at all costs. And if the cost was the ethnic cleansing of another population then so be it. Jewish history has had so many horrible chapter to be able to allow Jews to not have their own country; they needed that country and everything else pales in comparison to this priority.
While I can understand how this view came along, I can in no way justify it. For me, as the victim of the ultimate victim, I learned the hard way, that the problem of persecution of Jews has to be understood as part of the greater evil in humanity, the ability of humans to group themselves into groups and carry out atrocities against each other. The lessons from the Holocaust do not just apply to European Jews, they should be learned for everywhere in the world whenever someone forms a group that seeks to exterminate and murder people who do not belong to this group, whether in Rwanda, Nigeria, Gujarat, Yugoslavia, or, indeed, Palestine. It is from this humanist stance that one must oppose any ethnic cleansing and any attempt at mass murder and persecution, regardless of who the perpetrator and the victim are.
By continuing to view the conflict in Palestine from the narrow prism of "Jews were persecuted so they need a home at all costs" one can easily degenerate into despicable and criminal positions that justify some of the most horrendous crimes being committed in the world and the implementation of an enormous system of apartheid that is leaving a populate of 3million people living in one big prison.
In conclusion, yes I have learned from the Holocaust and I view it as extremely relevant to the conflict; and what it has taught me is that when a criminal like Ariel Sharon unleashes his murderous and criminal soldiers on a civillian population and builds a ghetto around them, there is no morally justifiable position whatsoever that can be in support of him.
As a little follow up, I think this statement you wrote sums up the differences between us completely:
"Regarding Israel, I primarily seek a confidently safe solution for Jews, for the even distant relatives that are there, and secondarily seek a just solution for humanity and Palestinians.
"I don't negate the prospect of seeking justice for Palestinians, but its definitely not first on my list."
I view safety, peace and justice for everyone as top of my list, regardless of their religion, ethnicity, race, or horoscope. And this is why I want to work towards a One State Solution.
And many people have talked about this extensively and about how to guarantee it works peacefully. Off the top of my head, you should check out Ali Abunimah's 'One Country' and Virginia Tilley's 'The One State Solution', and Mazin Qumsiyeh's 'Sharing the Land of Canaan'.
Mr. Weiss – thanks for opening up this discussion. I just want to say – wow.
"Mr. Weiss – thanks for opening up this discussion."
Indeed. There aren't many places where you can hear such a frank conversation. Thanks to all concerned.
"I view safety, peace and justice for everyone as top of my list, regardless of their religion, ethnicity, race, or horoscope. And this is why I want to work towards a One State Solution."
Is it in fact possible? Can you convince the Islamacists that 7,000,000 Jews in Israel are peers, warts and all?
Can you convince the Israeli expansionists?
You can't say with confidence that you can effectively stop the persecution of Jews around the globe, even among the Arab states and peoples that historically forcefully removed them.
You personally may have wanted to, but the historical reality was of people NOT rising en masse to oppose anti-semitism or other racism.
So, you then can't say with confidence that you make the necessity for refuge less than necessity.
If the choice is between severe risk and refuge with ambiguity, refuge with some moral ambiguity (unrighted wrongs), is the better construction.
Especially, if that choice includes some restitution for those that are displaced by history, and mutual commitment to include the other's health as a close second.
The test of your thesis includes the degree that you are willing to stand up against those Palestinians that adopt a hateful response (or agitation). Those that support such a mutually accepting one-state solution would have to then clearly and publicly distinguish themselves from the pan-Islamic movement that does propose sharia, with the prospect of dhimmi status for Jews in those countries.
When the same phrase "Zionism is racism" is adopted by pan-Islamics and one-state civilists, there is no distinction at all. You appear to stand together.
As Phil stated earlier of the appearance of standing in the same circle as Israel Beitenu under the slogan "Zionism is the self-determination movement of the Jewish people".
When in fact the Zionism of Israel Beitanu is a Zionism of expropriation, the Zionism of Meretz is social, of communities and communities of communities.
If it turned out that in reviewing the math of the degree of justice (there is no perfect print of justice, as history is dynamic not static), that the two-state solution were the least unjust of the solutions available, would you adopt it?
Even if it were less than perfect, as all of the possible solutions on the table are, pragmatically?
"those that are displaced by history"
I'm referring to the 1947-1949 displaced Palestinians.
I do want to thank you for your last respectful comment, and also for being willing to present your perspective here.
Finally,
If self-governance for Jews (Zionism) did not involve displacement of Palestinians specifically, but somewhere else (say 4000 sq miles in Nebraska), would you regard that as a social good in the world?
Is it that the displacement of the Palestinians is close to home for you and that you then know it well and can convey that witness to the world?
As those Jews that have experienced persecution can bear that message to the world?
Even as that experience among some Palestinians results in bitter hatred, and that experience among some Jews results in bitter hatred.
What's the best "Palestine" can be?
Another shit hole Arab country -like Syria, Egypt, etc- like the other Arab countries without oil- with no GDP, no rights, not much of anything.
Why would Israel want to absorb all of those Arabs? Let them have their own county so they can kill each other instead of Jews.
Leave Israel be so they can solve the worlds water and energy problems and invent next generation computing technologies.
As is, the Israeli Arabs contribute 200 million dollars to the Israeli tax rolls and receive 2 Billion in benefits.
It's obvious why the "Palestinians" want to be part of Israel- to freeload off the booming Israeli technology- based economy.
If the "Palestinians" wanted to succeed and they wanted a country and they wanted Israel's support they could have had it a long time ago. They prefer to shoot guns in the air and play the victim.
Thanks, Pierre. But those of us who can read between the lines already learned of the depth of Jewish hatred from reading Richard's comments.
You would have been better off saving your post for a time when the subject was not the racism inherent in Zionism.
If the Arabs were productive, good citizens, like the Druze, Zionism would not be so "racist" and Israel would have been a "Bi-National State" a long time ago.
It's not "hatred" – it's practicality.
Jewish/Zionist racism?
————————
Since the term 'racism' is a general concept, it can't be applied – by virtue of the Jewish/Zionists self-definition as 'a people apart' – to them. They live in their own moral universe that defies Kant's priciple of the categorical imperative. It's futile to convince believing Jews that a concept of the Gentiles should also be applicable to them.
Klaus
Frankfurt, Germany
The arguments and the anger exhibited here are painfully familiar. I don't see how this kind of back-and-forth can change anything.
There are, however, Jews who consider themselves Zionists and who are trying to figure out how to wrestle with these issues in a different way. I suggest going to the latest post by Dan Fleshler at Realistic Dove (link to realisticdove.org
as well as the one a few days before, "Reclaiming the Z Word." (at least read the comments on the latter).
I know Philip Weiss has been tangling with him. And I am sure David and Klaus and others will not be satisfied with some of the ideas and sentiments offered there. They'll probably be furious at the very idea of a "Progressive Zionist." But note that some of the commentators are Jews who say Israel owes the Palestinians an apology, and believe Israel ought to deliver it. There is a long letter of apology from Roger Kamenitz.
Isn't that what David has been calling for in previous posts? Note how one of them wants to change the Law of Return….I don't think all is lost…
Here is the letter of apology I referred to. It was written in 2001. If I had know about it, this is one American Jew who would have signed it.
AN APOLOGY AND A PRAYER
> An open letter to the Palestinian people from Jews in Israel and the Diaspora
>
>
> In the period between the religious festivals of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, Jews are enjoined to take steps to repair the wrong we have done to others. This is an attempt to reach out to you, our Palestinian cousins, to change the nature of the bloody and merciless exchange, which currently
> dominates relations between us.
We who sign below, ordinary Jews, want to tell you that we are sorry.
>
We are sorry for the calamity you experienced in 1948, for the loss of your > homes and land, for your dispersal and exile, and for the families that have grown up for three generations in refugee camps without a sense of home or
belonging.
>
We are sorry particularly for the Jewish part in your exodus – the
expulsions, the shelling of villages, and those killings which created the climate of fear which prompted many to leave. We our sorry that our terrible
century of tragedy became your tragedy. You did not ask for it and you did not deserve it. And we were blind to it.
>
Our people were blinded by our own suffering and loss, rage and grief,desperate to > survive, desperate for a home, a refuge, a place we could call our own. We
> were unable to see the magnitude of the sacrifice we were asking of you.
>
In 1948, and again in 1967, we were also blinded by the joy and relief of the military victories which secured our homeland.
We apologise unreservedly for the increasing harshness of our occupation > since the victory of 1967, and for the further losses we have inflicted on the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza. Losses of land, of water, trees and homes, of dignity and humanity and freedom. This occupation has been perverted by greed and hubris, and it has corrupted our people as it has
> humiliated and angered your people. It has created hatred and a thousand new > wounds between us. It needs to end.
>
We want you to have your own state, that you can take pride in, a refuge and symbol of hope for your own people, with Arab Jerusalem as its capital. We
want to return to you that land and those settlements which stand in the way of the wholeness and territorial integrity of your state.
>
We will not now give up our own state. We have yearned for it for too long, fought for it too hard, and need its sanctuary too much to let it go. But we want our two states to work together as partners for the good of all our
> peoples.
We want your refugees with our help and the help of the community of nations to receive reparation and help to build new lives and re-settlement if they
wish. We will welcome a certain number to Israel. They will not find the country that their forefathers left, but we hope they will find through this
process a new climate of acceptance and tolerance.
>
We respect the determination of the people of the West Bank and Gaza to resist the occupation.
But we ask you urgently to stop the suicide bombings
and the shooting of innocent people. These acts generate a climate of fear, hatred and mistrust, and the belief that there is no rational partner in
peaceful dialogue. For our part we will resist the aggressive and
intimidatory acts of our own leaders. The shelling of villages and assassination and destruction of homes and crops must stop.
>
> At this time of darkness and war, it is incumbent upon us to search out every glimmer of light and hope. We wish for our people and your people, for our
> children and our childrenâs children, joy and prosperity, peace and Godâs
> blessing.
>
> Rodger Kamenetz
"I don't think all is lost"
—————————–
I don't think so either. My German Jewish friend Hersh (of Polish-Jewish WWII Ghetto decent) reassures me to that end. He for instance doesn't buy ADL's Abe Foxman's interpretation of the Holocaust which goes like this: "The Holocaust is not just an (extreme) example of a genocide because it was the near successful attack on God's chosen children." – Note: In Foxman's view it's the victims that sets the German mass-killings apart from say the Turk's killing of the Armenians. – This for todays Holocaust Memorial Day.
Klaus
to me there's no debate. no one disputes that israel is "better" in terms of human rights and whatnot, but it's illegal. it wouldn't matter much if the surrounding counries were all jewish, but they're not.
if the pilgrims of the mayflower had faced the odds the israelis now face: being surrounded by enemies of similar levels of civilization with a clue as to their real intentions, they would have been wiped out at plymouth rock.
as arab countries advance, they are not becoming more accepting of israel or US hegemony. its only a matter of time before both are driven out.
Dear Richard,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, and I apologize for not replying earlier. I don't have much time, so will try to answer as many of your questions as briefly as I can.
RW:âIs it in fact possible? Can you convince the Islamacists that 7,000,000 Jews in Israel are peers, warts and all?â
-History has clearly shown us, in countless examples that once equality and justice prevail over persecution and racism, people generally have no trouble getting along. Donât you think that in America this same argument was being made about freeing the slaves? Slavery makes Israelâs suppression look like a joke really; and yet slaves and their children, once their suppression ended, had no interest in revenge or murder. Apartheid South Africa is another example; all of Europeâs blood-soaked war-fields that are now practically one nation are another example. I could go on forever. Nowhere is it written in the genes of Muslims and Jews and Christian children that they should hate each other, but leave it to apartheid, suppression, war and ethnic cleansing to write it into their psyche. End all of these, and theyâll live together in peace.
RW: âCan you convince the Israeli expansionists?â
-Thatâs why Iâm on this blog! And I have no doubt that like all humans, Muslims, Christians and Jews really want to just live in peace. Letâs stop supporting the forces of oppression that prevent this and engrain hatred in them.
RW: âThe test of your thesis includes the degree that you are willing to stand up against those Palestinians that adopt a hateful response (or agitation).â
-I absolutely do.
RW: âIf it turned out that in reviewing the math of the degree of justice (there is no perfect print of justice, as history is dynamic not static), that the two-state solution were the least unjust of the solutions available, would you adopt it?â
-Absolutely. And it is only because I think that a 2-state-solution has by now become an impossibility whose implementation will be a travesty of justice that I support a one state solution. If we wanted to have two contiguous, sovereign and meaningful states in a just and equal division, weâd need to ethnically cleanse half a million Jews from the West Bank, and weâd have more than a million Palestinians living under discrimination as second class citizens in Israel (or have them ethnically cleansed), and deny millions the right to go back to their rightful homes, and continue to perpetuate the racist laws of Israel. And weâd need the most complicated and meaningless forms of separation to cut-up what is an integrally and indivisibly small piece of land whose division will be impossible.
Indeed, in my support for a one state solution, I rely on Solomonâs wisdom. The mother that was willing to cut up the baby to gain half a baby was obviously not the one that wanted whatâs best for the baby. Lets all be the other mother. Cutting up this tiny land will kill it and make it an inhospitable apartheid where walls foster hatred and suspicion. We can knock down the walls and live together in peace. If slaves and slave-owners can do it, why canât we?
RW: âIf self-governance for Jews (Zionism) did not involve displacement of Palestinians specifically, but somewhere else (say 4000 sq miles in Nebraska), would you regard that as a social good in the world?â
-If it did not involve the displacement of anyone (Palestinian or not), then I wouldnât object to it; however, I could never find it in my heart to support it as a secular humanist, because I could never support the existence of a state built on religion, whether itâs Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan or Israel in Nebraska. It wouldnât really bother me, but I think it would also be unsustainable in the future, what with globalization, immigration, intermarriage and people converting away from religion. The whole idea of a nation state with a concept of citizenship built on anything that someone is born with (religion/race/ethnicity/etcâ¦) is something that is whittling away, and thatâs certainly for the better.
âIs it that the displacement of the Palestinians is close to home for you and that you then know it well and can convey that witness to the world?â
-In a sense you are right. As much as I would like to think of myself as a universalist humanist, I am most concerned with Palestine, not out of any morbid fascination with the land or place (land really doesnât matter to me) but out of the fact that I grew up there. I stood for hours at checkpoints. I had cousins murdered. I saw my best friend get shot. I saw another friend lose an eye. I saw my neighborâs house get demolished from my window. I saw my math teacher come out of three years in prison physically disabled from torture. My father still has to spend 2 hours at least every day standing in the sun or rain or snow waiting to get to work, while his whole life is being determined by the whims of a 19-year-old with a machine gun who decides whether he gets to go to his hospital and operate on the patients that would die if he doesnât.
In a sense, I am most concerned with this issue because I know that if Palestinians like me, who lived there and saw it first-hand and do get out of Palestine and make it to America, do not do anything about it to inform people, then millions of people in Palestine will suffer forever under the most suffocating oppression that is impossible for anyone who hasnât been there to fathom.
"Will suffer forever under the most suffocating oppression that is impossible for anyone who hasnât been there to fathom"
Yeah, your own corrupt, power-hungry, despotic leadership.
How anyone can admire Yassir Arafat is beyond my imagination. He was a corrupt slob that stole billions.
I also thank you for your thoughtful comments.
"RW:âIs it in fact possible? Can you convince the Islamacists that 7,000,000 Jews in Israel are peers, warts and all?â"
"History has clearly shown us, in countless examples that once equality and justice prevail over persecution and racism, people generally have no trouble getting along. Donât you think that in America this same argument was being made about freeing the slaves?"
Your answer didn't exactly answer the question.
I think describing your and others actual experiences, is the most effective means at motivating others to regard change as necessary and urgent.
Liberal Zionist Jews do not use the term "Zionism" as meaning the right to exclusive use of all of the land from Mediterranean to Jordan, but solely in the meaning of the right to self-govern.
Again, please consider the points that jurisdiction is a design choice, not a necessity, and also not permanent in form.
Both the two-state and the single-state solution require trust-building to succeed, and the results of that effort in either chosen solution, are what makes the difference between hate or respect as norm.
The title of the piece was on "Zionism is racism", which I just don't believe is true. Likud Zionism that regards all of the land as Israel, is.
But self-identification as Jew is not, anymore than my self-identification and more intimate sympathy for my father, uncles, aunts, wife, children is in any way a wrong.
And, self-governance of Jews is not, which is my working definition of what Zionism is.
Its a statement of disrespect to me and to others that similarly have the natural love of community of communities to describe it as inevitably racism.
I don't believe that reconciliation opens with a curse.
"self-governance of Jews"?
—————————-
Why the hell should a Jew born in Argentina want to 'self-govern himself' as a Jew in Palestine and not as an Argentinian in Argentina?
On face value this has nothing to do with racism but the concept of 'I want to self-govern myself in the land of my forefathers' turns racist when you claim a 'birthright'- as a born Jew – to return uninvited to that land of your forefathers.
Klaus
All of the concerns are valid.
The concerns that people's are safe. The concerns that people's have sentimental connection to a place and history. The concerns that humans can live securely without risk of being displaced.
The design process is to value the concerns and construct something that optimally applies the concerns, and confidently.
The problem with idealism is not the goal or sentiment, but the risk.
For those that are dependant (children, sick, elderly) and those that are depended on (parents, social institutions), security is MUCH more of a concern than it is for the young and "free".
So, in weighing the mix of characteristics of a two-state solution vs a single-state solution and various intermediate forms, different people will rationally have different emphasis in that design process.
That is why I consider dogmatic ideology and particularly slogans (that end up functioning as machines, not as information) as hindrances to the design and reconciliation process.
======================
INTEGRITY
======================
The basic problem with Saif's stand: lack of integrity.
His position would be stronger if he could find a balance between good and bad on both sides.
The Israelis and Jews have written lots about the errors or the past.
We have a Benny Morris, a Benvenisti……Howard Zinn and Chomsky….
Please breed some similar historians on the Palestinian side.
It is time for the Palestinians to look at the past, present and future with a maximum of integrity.
Only then can we hope to reach a compromise between two mature people.
Saif should adopt the honest attitude of the enlightened Western people, and leave the Soviet style demagogy behind.
The Nazi's dearest child
————————–
Maybe I shouldn't weigh in, as a German, on this discussion because Germany revoked the citizenship of her Jews and – in a first step – forced them to emigrate, among other destinations to Palestine.
Reinhard Heydrich, before the war head of the Central Authority for Jewish Emigration, worked with the Zionist Organization of Germany to promote and facilitate the illegal immigration to Palestine bypassing the British. He is on the record to having said at the time: "as a National-Sozialist I am also a Zionist".
I don't want to elaborate further on Heydrich, the quintessential 'Aryan' and one of the top ranking devils of the Third Reich. But I may ad one more quote. This is from an Austrian Jewish organization that said before the war: "The Zionists are the National-Sozialists' dearest child."
I am sick and tired that Germany supports Israel whereas our lesson from the Third Reich should compell us to do the opposite.
Klaus
Saif, Since I'm a lot closer to your position than Richard's, I want to take you on a little. One of the things I felt when I visited Syria (a place I loved) was that "Both sides are right." I walked away thinking, Israel was a land-grab (which needs to perpetuate itself with human rights abuses), and also, that the Islamic world is suffering from lack of opportunity, civil rights, women's rights, development. So Edward Said is right, and so is Bernard Lewis.
It's my temperament to be on the side of the oppressed, the Palestinians, but I do so as a privileged westerner, and I recognize that a lot of crimes are involved in western progress. The expulsion of the Palestinians is merely the one before our eyes now, because it's unsettling the Middle East.
To refugees. In Syria, I was struck by the amount of antisemitism in the newspapers. The English language paper. All it could do was bash Israel. (I know that's not antisemitism per se, but there was a lot of anti-Jewish stuff in there). It seemed to me that the Daniel Pipes neocon critique had some basis: that these gov'ts sustain their authority with their street by bashing Israel, rather than getting to their business and education… And that they have done nothing to absorb the refugees in order to distract their people from internal problems.
Rest assured, I dont drink all that Koolaid. It seems to me that this refugee problem is special, that when Shapira lumps it in with European refugee issues post WW2, she strips it of its imperialist and racial character, which were justly obnoxious to Arabs then and are now. There was a denial of a people's humanity in that. (The shock for me of reading early Zionsts, from Brandeis to Herzl, is how completely blind they were in a western way to the Arabs.)
But let's say that's addressed. LEt's say the central justice issue, which any cab driver in Damascus, can tell you about, is addressed, as I want it to be. There are apologies and compensations, and imshallah, peace, a binational state, two federated states, whatever. Don't you want that polity to be western, and Israel-like in its values, traditions. Ie, free speech, women's rights, individualist capitalistic.
Phil,
How would you summarize what is the relevant points of mine?
And how would you summarize the relevant points of Saif's?
How do you see yourself as closer to Saif's view?
"Don't you want that (Arab)-polity to be western, and Israel-like in it's values …"
Phil Weiss
———————————-
Here you go in the Western misunderstanding of supposing everybody wants to be free in the individual Western sense – denying the legitimacy of traditional (religious/tribal/ authoritarian) societies.
Our Western concept of 'freedom' is individual freedom. The traditional concept of a 'free society' only means 'free from foreign rule'. It doesn't mean internal freedom to worship and express your views in newspapers the way you want etc. The Spartans considered themselves to be 'a free people' because they were free from Persian rule – internally they were totalitarian. – Same thing today with Irak etc.. They just want to be free of foreign rule.
Klaus