More than five years ago, Adam Shatz, then the Nation magazine's literary editor, wrote an important piece about the left's response to 9/11. One of Shatz's targets was Dissent magazine liberals who were pushing for war in Iraq. For them, Shatz wrote, "America's struggle against Al Qaeda and Israel's war with Palestinian suicide bombers are one and the same." Then citing one of those liberals, he said:
The implication of [Paul] Berman's argument is that no change in Middle East policy could stem the tide of Arab anger, directed as it is not against specific American or Israeli policies but against "our" way of life. Though rarely cited explicitly, Israel shapes and even defines the foreign policy views of a small but influential group of American liberals. It's one reason Berman and like-minded social democrats at the journal Dissent may support a war against Iraq. Saddam Hussein has not attacked us, but, as Ann Snitow, a member of the Dissent editorial board, reminded me, "Who is 'us'? Is it New York or Tel Aviv? The 'us' slides around."
The Forward picked up Shatz's comments in fall 2002--before our country so disastrously invaded Iraq--and Mitchell Cohen, Dissent's co-editor, called Shatz’s assertion “a type of insinuation that reeks of the worst of the left.” But the Forward reminded Cohen that "many" Dissent writers are staunch supporters of Israel. Cohen responded: “If you look down the list of the editorial board you’ll see a lot of Jewish names, but none of them came to Dissent with a Jewish agenda."
Now Cohen, who supported the Iraq war, has gone further, saying that anti-Zionism is antisemitism:
A determined offensive is underway. Its target is in the Middle East, and it is an old target: the legitimacy of Israel....The offensive comes from within parts of the liberal and left intelligentsia in the United States and Europe.
When is criticism of Israel anti-semitic? Cohen suggests a smell test that includes such criteria as "If you judge a Jewish state by standards that you apply to no one else..." And who are these antisemites? Cohen mentions only two intellectuals by name: Adam Shatz, now at LRB, and Tony Judt. Both Jews, by the way. So Cohen is following in the footsteps of the AJC, which smeared progressive Jews who criticize Israel as anti-semites.
This is reckless and sad. Sad because Shatz was initiating an important discussion five years ago that is still not happening, in great measure because of slurs like Cohen's. What Shatz said was plainly true. Paul Berman repeatedly cited Saddam's attacks on Israel as a reason for us to go to war. He conflated American and Israeli interests. The same error was made by war-supporter Thomas Friedman. Other liberal hawks, such as Kenneth Pollack, insisted that the Israeli occupation had nothing to do with our policy in Iraq, and that the Arab street would welcome our presence in Baghdad. Delusion.
One of my themes on this site is that Jewishness played a role in the prowar movement (just as Islam plays a role in jihadist radicalism). Jewish neocons were aggressive about using American power to preserve Israel's security, while liberal Jewish hawks asserted over and over that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and completely neglected the apartheid road system that is talked about across the Arab world. Until liberal Jews come to terms with this element of the war support, Jewish intellectual life will remain in denial/crisis, the left will be riven by unspoken suspicions on this score and will remain ineffective, the neocons will remain unchallenged intellectually, and our foreign policy will remain broken.
This is the conversation Shatz was initiating, notably with the beautiful Snitow quote to the effect that for liberal Jews, the definition of national interest and identity "slides around" between the U.S. and Israel. This is a crucial conversation, and more than 5 years later, even in the wake of the greatest foreign policy disaster since Vietnam, it is still not happening! American Jews who care about Iraq owe it to themselves and the country to clarify these identity issues, and their affinities. As it is, Cohen's shrill piece is a continuation of his defensive claim to the Forward that Jewishness played no role in Dissent contributors' views of the war. (The great thing about his co-editor, Michael Walzer, is that Walzer openly acknowledges his Jewishness in addressing such matters--and offers a Jewish identity I find problematic).
Two other things about Cohen's piece. In dismissing Judt's view that Zionism is anachronistic and must yield to ideas of a binational state in Palestine, Cohen writes with typical bombast: "I suppose India can save itself from being an unfortunate anachronism by a reintegration with Pakistan..." The key error in this statement is that partition actually worked 60 years ago in India: Pakistan became a state. The Palestinians are stateless; the Israelis are expansionist. If the Palestinians had been given a state when real opportunity arose, there wouldn't now be a high concrete wall on their land, the hilltops wouldn't be colonized by religious settlers, and Muslims would have freedom to visit their holy sites.
Of course Cohen writes that he opposes the "settlements." He says this in passing as an example of legitimate criticism of Israel. The settlements. The issue here is how monstrous the Israeli policies in the West Bank are to you. One line about the settlements is like an American of 40 years ago saying, Of course I am opposed to those whites-only lunch-counters and bathrooms. The issue then was: segregation and the South were corrupting American society. We couldn't make any claim to real democracy in the eyes of the world so long as those conditions existed. This is Israel's situation today, and the reason that progressive intellectuals are attacking Zionist ideas.
It is, I suppose, people like Cohen who have brought about that the term anti-Semite has today virtually lost all moral resonance.
And who cares for his 'smell test'? Those people who for ever and anon are complaining about the 'double standards' Israel is allegedly judged by tend to overlook something. If they and their ilk didn't lie so assiduously about the place to begin with others would feel less compelled to speak the truth about it.
A long meandering post Phil, and containing logical jumps.
I and the majority of American Jews that are simultaneously liberal, opposed the war in Iraq, oppose Israeli expansion AND support the state of Israel as an entity and community, are examples of reasoning that has integrity, backbone and compassion simultaneously.
India/Pakistan is NOT parallel to Israel/Palestine. At the time of the partition of India/Pakistan, there had been developed national institutions that were capable of partition.
In the case of Israel/Palestine, there was barely a distinct Palestinian national consciousness. That took two generations to mature. Jordan, Egypt and Syria squabbled to land grab for what was to be Palestine.
If you want to blame anyone for their absence of sovereignty, it is their expansionism.
NOW is the time for Palestine. NOW is the time to urge support of confident and significant Palestinian sovereignty, in the logic that a healthy neighbor may be a better neighbor than a desparate one.
Agitation is NOT the same as friendship or even support.
How might anti-Zionism in fact be anti-semitism?
This is a discussion that has been elaborated on, and I'm personally surprised that you neglected to incorporate it into your thinking.
There are multiple forms of anti-semitism.
The one that is relevant to Zionism is that there are individuals (Jewish and non-Jewish) that cannot stomach that some Jews would desire to self-associate as Jews, that they would not desire to fully assimilate.
That their Jewishness is only residue, something past to gradual wither if it cannot be renounced.
In contrast, there are MANY that have chosen to BE Jewish, even if not in the degree that say orthodox would define. (I'm a nominal Jew to them. I write on the internet on Shabbat, today. I have lights on. I drive.)
Two tangible decisions FIRM Jews commitment to get on the Jewish side of "am I Jewish fence". Marriage. Children.
They of no other decisions, create Judaism as a river, moving, continuing.
There are other elements of continuing Judaism, values, rituals, family, culture. But, they dissolve. They assimilate. They gradually turn into mush.
In the language of multi-culturalism, the melting pot becomes a stew in which the original vegetables are indistinguishable. Multi-culturalism is the stew that is intentionally cooked to KEEP the vegetables identifiable and continuing.
Israel is the land in which the Jewish nation determined to self-associate.
As Judaism IS community life, and not particularly prayers, liturgy, dogma, to oppose Jewish self-association, self-governance, IS to be anti-semitic.
State is different than nation. State is a strictly secular material arrangement. It has defined borders (whereas a community is more organic). It has citizens and NON-citizens (whereas community has more organic interactions).
But, unless you are asserting the revolutionary view that states at all, that borders should not exist (an interesting concept), picking out Israel alone for criticism IS an example of a form of anti-semitism.
That is a different statement than opposing expansionism, or of reconciling wrongs committed (hopefully both ways) in the various traumas of the region.
"Israel is the land in which the Jewish nation determined to self-associate."
You mean like separate but equal? If you go to any of the websites on the pc shitlist, you will find similar reasoning.
I saw that weak Dissent piece (it was unfortunately posted high on AL Daily) and wanted to write a letter to the editor, but the format didn't encourage (allow?) that. I wonder, does Mitchell Cohen really believe that critics of Israel like me hold Israel to a different standard than we do other states? Is it not obvious to him that our main complaint is that the United States is so implicated in Israel's actions, which has very negative consequences for our own national life. I would be very happy to care as little about Israel/Palestine as I do about any number of other far away ethnic conflicts over land–but American policy doesn't allow that. We subsidize the settlements and the resulting oppression financially and politically. But that's obvious. What isn't obvious to me is whether or not Mitchell Cohen himself believes the arguments he is making.
Huummm……that's some amazing contortions of logic and definitions going on in the above posts. Wow!
Here's a non jew's,not very religious gentile's view of the anti-semite thing.
If you personally "hate" or even dislike a person(s) just because he(they) are jewish you are a anti-semite. Same as if you hate or dislike blacks just because they are black makes you a racist bigot.
Frankly it is ridiculous to say that criticism of Israel or zionism associated with Israel is anti-semitic.
Israel is a country and a government, not a person.
And to say us critics hold Israel to standards we don't hold other countries to is exactly backwards….it is exactly because we are applying the "same" standards to Israel we apply to other countries that Israel is getting bashed.
For Americans who own up to the immorality of racism and discrimination that went on here before civil rights, Israel's treatment of the Palestines and their laws regarding Arabs and Jews in Israel looks a lot like the same thing or even worse. Not to mention the "internationally illegal" occupation of Palestine.
So I hate the leadership in my government at the moment many of whom are big time gentiles because they are immoral,unethical scum and I critize this,what we in the south use to call white trash constantly..does that make me anti-gentile or a self hating gentile?
Now if you hate what some group does or stands for and think they are crazy or dangerous like the Aryan nations group or the old KKK or weird religious fundamental nutcases who want to impose their beliefs on the world…you are naturally going to have a low opinion of the individuals who belong to or identify with those groups.
Some Israelis and jews think they are "exceptions" to the rules the rest of the universe and mankind subcribes to and don't have to be accountable for their actions or crimes because of their past holocuast.
Well, the "I was an abused child and that's why I abuse others" excuse/defense doesn't work for serial abusers or killers and doesn't work for Israel either.
The reason so many Americans are piling on the US Israelis, pro (zionist) Israel jews and gentiles alike, is because they have made our country party to their occupation and disgusting actions like the Lebanon thingy last year. We think it is immoral,illegal and ruining the reputation of our country. So we are mad and we are going after them the same way we are going after the empire neo's and their kind.
What? You thought because Israel happens to be a jewish state or you happen to be jewish you were exempt from criticism or opposition?
Doesn't work that way. If you make yourself players in unpopular US policy and politics that majority Americans find repugnant and are against you can expect to take the heat that goes along with it.
>I wonder, does Mitchell Cohen really believe that critics of Israel like me hold Israel to a different standard than we do other states?<
of course not. this is the way that israels defenders use to deflect the argument. they want to point to other countries and never want us to look at israel.
when one starts to talk about jews in america…all the judaic sensors go up to see if they can magically percieve anti semitism in the rhetoric, historically theyve tried to keep a low profile…any mention of a preponderance of jews in any medium whether in newsmedia or wallstreet or hollywood is perceived as anti semitic by them…when does simply pointing out that someone is left handed make them an antilefthanding hating observer.
be proud of your achievements if youre jewish ….shout it from the rooftops, whats the big deal? but no, pointing out the obvious when it comes to jewishness is antisemitism, if they think it will bear negatively on the american mind.
if they perceive it to be positive though then thats another story…they shout it from the housetops when they start another organization to help the blacks in the south or the illegal community.
but any association with wealth….heaven forfrigginbid it.
say three mea culpas, attend some hollywood reconditioning and then maybe youll be forgiven.
pat buchanan will never be forgiven for making anti israel remarks, even if they are true.
witty wrote:
"There are multiple forms of anti-semitism.
The one that is relevant to Zionism is that there are individuals (Jewish and non-Jewish) that cannot stomach that some Jews would desire to self-associate as Jews, that they would not desire to fully assimilate"
But, unless you are asserting the revolutionary view that states at all, that borders should not exist (an interesting concept), picking out Israel alone for criticism IS an example of a form of anti-semitism."
>>>>>>>>>
Huh?…..people don't want jews to self associate? How about Quakers? Do we care that they are very self associating? Should we stop the Quakers from self associating? Is there an anti-Quake rmovement going on against theses non assilimated in the practical sense that we don't know about?
So unless you believe in the no borders, one world, criticizing Israel is anti-semitic? Wow! That's new one!
Gezzzzz….you need help fellow..some mental health or logic courses or something. Maybe just a day or two thinking of yourself as an unique individual instead of a Stepford tribe member would help.
good post Cal….Jews are experts at self manipulation as well as manipulating others..
Propaganda: how many documentaries have you ever seem on PBS on the dispossession of the Palestinians? When will Spielberg make a documentary on the agony of the Palestinians?
Answer: probably never.
Y'know Norman Podhoretz once said spoke about assimilation as a "brutal bargain"…hmm what have Jews given up for America?? It is hard to see….they want a special dual citizenship where one can serve as an advisor to Likud and be an advisor to Bush too.
It is a form of narcissism–a belief that one is special that the rules dont apply to one that prevents too many Jews from seeing things from others peoples' point of view.
"criticism" is different than "anti".
The reality of hatred of a people is still a racism.
Expansionist zionism is a flavor of zionism. Its reasonable and not racist to criticize, expose, and oppose expansionism.
Zionism though is NOT expansionism. Zionism is simply the assertion that the Jewish people are a people, and deserve to self-govern, if they/we choose.
There is no exceptionalism in that assertion.
Israel is Jewish in literally the same way that Ireland is Irish.
There are more Irish in the US than in Ireland. There are more Jews in the US than in Israel.
"When is criticism of Israel anti-semitic? Cohen suggests a smell test that includes such criteria as "If you judge a Jewish state by standards that you apply to no one else…" And who are these antisemites? Cohen mentions only two intellectuals by name: Adam Shatz, now at LRB, and Tony Judt. Both Jews, by the way. So Cohen is following in the footsteps of the AJC, which smeared progressive Jews who criticize Israel as anti-semites."
The paranoid schizophrenic Judeofascists have slowly backed themselves into a corner, and today, like rabid beasts, are turning on the sane contingent of their fellow Jews. Is it possible that Judaism is today, finally, facing a Protestant Reformation-like moment, with a schism developing between rabid Zionists destined to make Aliyah and loyal American Jews who want less and less to do with their fading brethren’s racist interpretation of Judaism?
We can only hope…
>Expansionist zionism is a flavor of zionism. Its reasonable and not racist to criticize, expose, and oppose expansionism.<
so instead of focusing on the rights of zionism or a jewish state why do we not then enumerate the crimes that the state is liable for and go from there.
Another excellent post, Phil.
I hope you continue to focus on the media. That's where the real battle lies, and that's where your background will allow you to make the greatest contribution.
Richard, one problem with the Ireland is Irish analogy with Israel being Jewish is that Israel was mostly Arab until 1948. I have problems with all forms of nationalism–they can be harmless, like being proud of one's state or town or culture or whatever, but nationalists often succumb very quickly to the temptation of believing their ideology gives them a license to act violently and unjustly against people outside the sacred group. (The same obviously applies to Arab or Palestinian nationalism).
"they can be harmless, like being proud of one's state or town or culture or whatever, but nationalists often succumb very quickly to the temptation of believing their ideology gives them a license to act violently and unjustly against people outside the sacred group."
That is the purpose of addressing the specific behavior rather than the group.
Its possible to accept zionism as valid, and still criticize.
But, a critical fixation on Israel is indicative of the unwillingness to accept that Jews are a people and can and do desire to self-govern.
NOT on somebody else's land, Witty.
Someone else's land?
I assumed that you were an advocate of democracy, either majority rule or parliamentarian.
Perhaps I was wrong.
The jurisdictions make sense, in that the two societies will get to self-govern.
How did you come by your home, Arie?
Richard-"But, a critical fixation on Israel is indicative of the unwillingness to accept that Jews are a people and can and do desire to self-govern."
But if the "self-government" you claim to seek denies civil rights to others who are not of your identity group, then criticism is not only necessary, but also a moral imperative-all the more so because you so stubbornly fail to see that denying rights to others based on their ethnicity, religion, gender, etc. is inherently unjust, no matter what "self-governing" group espouses it. Whites may have a desire to "self-govern" but that doesn't justify them oppressing blacks or others, any more than Christians' desire to "self-govern" excuses discrimination against Jews or others of differing faiths.
As Israeli human rights activist Oren Medicks said,
"Jews of the Diaspora must ask themselves if they should support a political system they would never have accepted in their own country. How many Jews would accept a "Christian-democratic" state in which they would be discriminated against on account of being Jewish?"
You've got a glaring double standard Richard, and yet you refuse to see it. Why is that?
Richard-"But, a critical fixation on Israel is indicative of the unwillingness to accept that Jews are a people and can and do desire to self-govern."
But if the "self-government" you claim to seek denies civil rights to others who are not of your identity group, then criticism is not only necessary, but also a moral imperative-all the more so because you so stubbornly fail to see that denying rights to others based on their ethnicity, religion, gender, etc. is inherently unjust, no matter what "self-governing" group espouses it. Whites may have a desire to "self-govern" but that doesn't justify them oppressing blacks or others, any more than Christians' desire to "self-govern" excuses discrimination against Jews or others of differing faiths.
As Israeli human rights activist Oren Medicks said,
"Jews of the Diaspora must ask themselves if they should support a political system they would never have accepted in their own country. How many Jews would accept a "Christian-democratic" state in which they would be discriminated against on account of being Jewish?"
You've got a glaring double standard Richard, and yet you refuse to see it. Why is that?
Apologies for the double post.
A little while ago I referred you, Richard, to my earlier post about Israel's alleged 'right to exist'. You then claimed not to have read that and asked me for a repeat performance. Going back to that post (it can be found way down under Phil's post of 14th September) I noticed that your reaction was right under it – so I saved myself the trouble.
What this means, of course, is that you don't heed anybody else's points and only remember your own – which is not a great feat of memory since you repeat them with mind numbing regularity.
I will elaborate here at somewhat greater length on one of the points made in my earlier post.
It was simply this: the UN acted "ultra vires", beyond its authority, when it decided, in 1947, on the partition of Palestine.
The international law scholar Francis Boyle
has argued this with great clarity and I don't know of any JURIDICAL refutation of his argument.
Professor Ghada Talhami has summarised Boyle's position quite succinctly. He wrote:
"… Article 22 (1) of the Covenant of the League of Nations stipulated that the newly created mandate systems would be based on the principle "that the well-being and development of such people form a sacred trust of civilization." These mandates (mostly entrusted to the British and French) were placed under the jurisdiction of the League of Nations CounciL The mandates were in actuality international treaties between the Council of the League of Nations and the mandatory powers.
These agreements included a fairly clear description as to who was legally entitled to settle any disputes which may arise concerning interpreting the mandate's clauses, namely, the Permanent Court of International Justice, the predecessor of the International Court of Justice.
When the United Nations itself was created, it allowed for the creation of an international trusteeship council under Chapter XII of the U.N. Charter. Under Article 77 (1) (a), the Charter also provided a mechanism for the transfer of the mandates' responsibilities to the jurisdiction of the U.N. trusteeship authority if an agreement was signed with the U.N. General Assembly. Since such agreements were never signed neither in the case of the Mandate of Palestine nor South West Africa (Namibia's former name) then all subsequent action, such as South Africa's refusal to turn over its mandate and Britain's decision to surrender the problem of the Palestine Mandate to the U.N. General Assembly, therefore bypassing the Trusteeship Council, must be considered illegal.
First of all, not only did the U.N. Partition Resolution of 29 November 1947, violate the Palestinians' right of self-determination, it should also be regarded as an illegal step. Furthermore, failure to create the Palestinian state then and there meant that the Partition Resolution was never implemented. Mandates cannot be changed in any manner until being transferred to the trusteeship system. Known as the "conservatory clause," this means that neither Palestine, not South West Africa, were ever transferred into a U.N. trusteeship.
Because of U.N. Charter Article 80 (1), the League's Covenant article 22 still survives as a matter of positive international law. This is a pivotal point, since the same article adopted in 1919, and the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, clearly recognized all the Arab territories, including Palestine, which used to be part of the Ottoman Empire, as provisionally independent nations."
Thus far Boyle (in Talhami's summary).
I don't know what you mean with your reference to majority rule. In 1947 the Palestinians had a 2 to 1 majority over the Jews and not only was their right to self determination totally ignored, not only were they not consulted at all, they were fobbed off with less than half of the remaining mandate territory.
What do you mean with your reference to 'my home'? I suppose you are asking by what right modern Australians (including aborigines) consider themselves legal occupants of their continent.
I have argued before on this blog that the eighteenth century occupation of Australia was based on the view that the land was 'terra nullius', since there was only a tiny population that did not have a settled abode. It was also assumed that these nomads lacked social organization. This assumption was quite wrong.
Nevertherless the occupation was performed in good faith on the principle, still valid today as far as I know, that 'terra nullius' can be settled by newcomers.
However, the Australian High Court came up in 1992, in the so-called Mabo-case, with the landmark decision that the eighteenth century view that Australia was 'terra nullius' was wrong. This decision acknowledged some form of native title and since then large tracts of land have been declared to fall under this.
The Zionist invasion of Palestine was, by contrast, not performed in good faith. From the beginning it was clear to those who came there that their preconceived ideas, if they had such, about 'a land without people for a people without land' were quite wrong. There can't have been any mistake there about the place being 'terra nullius'. When Ben Gurion came off the boat, around 1907 I think it was, he looked around with amazement: what were all those Arabs doing in 'his' land?
Even when we assume that the 1947 decision by the UN was legal there is still a legal argument to be made for the occupation of about 22 % of the territory Israel acquired through war (I am talking here about the land West of the so-called Green line predating June 1967).
As I wrote in my earlier post:
"We have then a situation in which on top of an ultra vires UN decision legitimation has to be provided by the acknowledgment of acts that were very clearly in violation of international law.
The Stimson doctrine of 1932, later confirmed in the General Assembly of the League of Nations, rejected the legitimacy of the reign over conquered territory, including such territory acquired by a state in actions of self defence.
UNSC Resolution 242, to which both the US and Israel are parties, talks again very clearly, in its preamble, of ‘the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war’."
I am not talking here about the West Bank.
The ICJ has of course categorically declared that the settlements on the West Bank are entirely illegal. That is not under discussion here (I don't know whether you ever looked at the legal manoeuvres Israel went through to 'legally' steal the land for the settlements. It is a tragi-comical tale).
It doent take a genius to realise that jewish people are especially prone to zionism a form of nationalism and so tribalism). That includes left wing jews. aNd they will attack critics with the old canards of 'anti-semitism' or 'self-hating jew'…
2. 'Paul Berman repeatedly cited Saddam's attacks on Israel as a reason for us to go to war. He conflated American and Israeli interests. The same error was made by war-supporter Thomas Friedman. '
Error? The war on Iraq was no error but policy. And conflating israeli and american interests is to be expected when sayanim have such a control over congress and government!
Arie,
So, you are Australian.
You can hold the view that all of Israel was "Palestinian" if you wish, but in doing so you:
1. Deny the present
The present reality being that there is a majority Jewish population in Israel and a majority Palestinian Arab population in Palestine. The principle of self-governance suggests strongly that partition is the relevant JUST selection of jurisdiction, and a single state Palestine is an absurdly and cruelly unjust selection. (Especially if by the logic, that descendants of European Jews be forcefully removed to Europe – without prospect of title claim, and North African and Middle Eastern be forcefully removed to Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Morocco, Yemen, also where they were formerly forcefully removed from or persecuted.)
2. Rationalize the past for a prejudicial conclusion
That the FACT that the holocaust occurred and the status of Jews in Europe at least unequivocially from 1933 – 1949 was horrid and unliveable and the ONLY state or community that accepted Jews in the end of that period was Israel. Australia did NOT accept beyond a handful. US, Great Britain, France did not accept beyond a handful.
And, for those that were allowed to emigrate, even the US, Great Britain, France, Australia, South Africa and other Western European dominated nations were also significantly anti-semitic in not trivial ways. It was clearly possible TO live in those states and attractive, but largely excluded.
3. The view that settlement or change is inevitably unjust, is a reactionary perspective
The whole world is full. (Your reference to Australian settlement is one of degree and an enormous rationalization. The areas of Australia that are highly populated now were also the areas that indigenous were residing and forcefully removed. It is absurd for you to claim otherwise.)
The consequences of holding "the land is ours" selectively, invokes genocides when peoples have need to settle somewhere. Ecological changes occur, and migration is and will be necessary into the future. Wars occurs, and migration is and will be necessary.
To make any people that are victimized into permanent victims is cruel and UNJUST.
In Israel, the land was largely unpopulated, as evidenced by historical comparison of the numbers of people that live there now compared to at any point in the critical reference dates. (1917, 1948, whatever).
The CRITICAL issues of justice are current ones. For any land for which title is not clear (that includes resulting from coercion both ways) there should be a formalized means to perfect title, with appropriate compensation from and to. Any claim that is identifiable should be court reconciled, and fairly. Any claim that is provable as coerced, but where the specific beneficiaries and harmed are not identifiable, should be resolved as a class, or state.
There are only two possible meanings of the term "the land was theres".
1. Sovereignty – Who governs and how?
2. Title – Ownership by some entity clarified
The rhetorical standard does not cut it, and ends up be a fascistic formula, rather than a healing or restoration of justice.
"the status of Jews in Europe at least unequivocially from 1933 – 1949"
do you mean in Germany? what was the problem with the "status of jews" in 1933 in France? or Britain? or Spain?
and what's this about 1949? didn't WWII end in 1945; what does the exstence of DP's after a world war have to do with the settlement of a "jewish state"?
Richard Witty, I wrote earlier, in the post you claim not to have seen but that you nevertheless reacted to:
"Israel exists and the attempt to wipe it off the map would probably lead to more massive crimes than those that led to its coming into being. That is about all that can be said.
The cant about its ‘right to exist’ is, however, nothing more than that: cant.
First of all, as Virginia Tilley has pointed out, the formula came about in international diplomacy with unique reference to Israel. It was meant to have a wider connotation than just ‘diplomatic recognition’ which is a matter of the ‘fact of existence’. Nobody can doubt that, in that latter sense, Israel does exist.
But the ‘RIGHT to exist’ does here imply a moral monstrum. Its acknowledgment means legitimating robbery and an attempt at genocide."
Sorry, I can't make much sense to most of your post but I will pick out a few factual points where you seem to me to be definitely misguided.
You claim that before the Zionist invasion the land was largely unpopulated compared to the population numbers now. You are pulling a fast one there. By that standard the whole of Western Europe was largely unpopulated in the seventeenth century (Holland, which was regarded then as one of the most prosperous and well cultivated parts of Europe, had less than ten percent of its present population – England likewise).
I have argued before that the population density in Palestine on the eve of the Zionist invasion was similar to that of Vermont NOW (you must remember the point because, even though you didn't address it, you came up with some rambling remarks about Vermont where you had lived at one stage you said).
The most authoritative source for demographic data about Ottoman Palestine are to be found in the publications of Professor Justin McCarthy. Have you had a look at these?
You wrote:
"The areas of Australia that are highly populated now were also the areas that indigenous were residing and forcefully removed. It is absurd for you to claim otherwise."
I am surprised to encounter an instant expert on Australian history. Anyway, this is beside the point. I didn't argue that the eighteenth century view that Australia was 'terra nullius' was justified, indeed the Australian High Court has decided that it was not.
My point was that this view was held in good faith whereas similar assertions by the early Zionists, after they had come to Palestine, were not held in good faith. You are resorting here to one of the oldest pieces of Zionist propaganda of the "they made the desert bloom" type.
You wrote:
"There are only two possible meanings of the term "the land was theres (sic)".
1. Sovereignty – Who governs and how?
2. Title – Ownership by some entity clarified"
Measured by the first criterion pre-revolutionary America did not belong to the Americans. I take it that you wouldn't go that far. Measured by the two criteria together, post-war Palestine certainly did not belong to the Jews. They didn't govern it and at the time of that fateful UN decision they only held a title to 6 % of the land.
Anyway, these criteria are untenable. Measured by them most newly independent countries cannot claim that the land was theirs.
While I'm in agreement with virtually all of yr post, Phil, this statement made no sense to me:
"One of my themes on this site is that Jewishness played a role in the prowar movement (just as Islam plays a role in jihadist radicalism)."
"Jewishness" played a role in the prowar movement??? What does that mean? I don't think you mean "Jewishness." I think you mean pro-Israel nationalism played a role in the neocon calls for war. Those are 2 entirely diff. things. The fact that you conflate "Jewishness" with being ultra-Israel is unfortunate.
As Richard Witty said above, I am proudly Jewish, anti-war, anti-Occupation, & pro-Palestinian state. What is more I am the majority of American Jews. The majority of Jews are not neocon, not ultra-Israel, etc. It's a bit inconvenient for yr argument.
Congratulations to Philip Weiss on his perseverance in trying to talk sense to those who will not hear it. This thread is discussed here:
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2007/11/irrevelevantization.html
Philip Weiss considers the Cohen slurring of the left. Note some of the comments to his posting to get a hint of the mess that American Jews are in. While there are some excellent American Jewish writers on the politics of the Middle East, they are overwhelmingly outnumbered, and overwhelmingly outshouted, by the haters. The growth in sanity in American Jewish opinion is so slow that it will never be a relevant force, at least not within a helpful time frame. If American Jews want to make themselves irrelevant, we have to oblige them.
Zionists are not upset that Israel is judged by a "different standard" than are other nations, but that it is judged by any standard.
"You are pulling a fast one there. By that standard the whole of Western Europe was largely unpopulated in the seventeenth century (Holland, which was regarded then as one of the most prosperous and well cultivated parts of Europe, had less than ten percent of its present population – England likewise)."
And the population characteristics of England, Holland, Germany, France, Spain, United States, Turkey even are VASTLY different than they were 100 years ago, (maybe not Australia, an exception I suspect, what is the largest non-aboriginal minority there now?).
By the definition "the land was theirs", England should exclude the large minority of non-whites from full civil rights or property. The 20% that is Indian/Pakistani would be sent "home".
Or even the Normans and their descendants (originating from France in the 11th century) might be excluded, even if they are antecedents of the crown.
Or the large minority North African population in France or Spain.
Or the blacks (descendants of former slaves), Mexicans (1/4 of the country WAS Mexico, all of Texas, most of California), Cubans, Jews, Irish, Italians, English, that now reside in the US (most refugees in some form when originally migrating). Only Native Americans would be allowed to stay.
"The land is theirs".
I don't know if you are an advocate of sustainability, Arie. Sustainability is a fairly conservative worldview in the long run, as it compels multi-generational residence, and skillful and attentive care for the land and people.
There are ways that the idea of strict borders horridly conflict with organic reality that is bound and separated in ways, specifically interacting in ways, and mush in other ways.
The question of assimilation/tradition is rationally of that organic accounting.
Is assimilation of the mush variety, of the interacting variety, or of the separation variety?
"By the definition "the land was theirs", England should exclude the large minority of non-whites from full civil rights or property. The 20% that is Indian/Pakistani would be sent "home"."
Are you suggesting that there is somehow a parallel here with the former and present position of the Jews in Palestine? If indeed the Indian/Pakistani minority had the ambition to someday have an Indian/Pakistani state in "England's green and pleasant land" from which the earlier inhabitants, that is the English, would be for the greater part expelled and the remaining ones would be treated as second class citizens you would have a point. As it is you have, once again, allowed your typing fingers to outrun your brain. Perhaps you like typing.
This also applies to your other examples.
It means that if a people NEED to migrate, that it is just that they have a path to.
Its hard to know what you actually assert Arie, as all I'm presented with is an incomplete silhouette.
I know what statements irritate you only, but not what you propose practically.
Also, on English history.
England is also a land of MUCH conquest, much displacement, much migration.
There is really no people that "have always been there", same as Palestine, same as North America.
Australia however is more substantially indigenous as the indigenous people settled there since the species' first migrations out of Africa, and NOT as a result of migration around glaciation, as the Native Americans did (not "native Americans as in the English attempting to keep out the Irish or Italians or Jews).
A take straight from Ireland on the Ireland v Israel analogy discussed above:
witty wrote:
"In Israel, the land was largely unpopulated, as evidenced by historical comparison of the numbers of people that live there now compared to at any point in the critical reference dates. (1917, 1948, whatever)."
>>>>>>>>>
Oh, Gawd!…plezze,plezze get thee some education on the real facts. Why do you make up stuff and make a fool off yourself? Is it that you just don't know the actual history? The amount of population is not the sticking point, the makeup of the population is the point.
Official British Census done in Palestine in 1935…..
653,000 Muslims and Arabs
52,000 Christians and Arab christians
28,000 Jews
Also witty…you will find no mention in any US or British or any other country's records or international documents of a "country" called Israel prior to the establishment of Israel…go the Library of Congress and check out the maps and documents. All of them refer to the country the Jews were immigrating into as Palestine. All the news articles of the time refer to "Palestine",all the records refer to "Palestine" as the country the Jews proposed to make their homeland..the only place the name of a country called Israel appeared was in the zionist movement begining in the 1800's, and in their pleas and proposals, first to Britian and then to the US. There was no Israel until the UN mandated it and Truman recongized it.
Please get the facts…you are making me work over time here for sake of historical accuracy.
To: Cal
Re: Witty's witlessness
You are wasting your time with that pseudo-intellectual Zionist who calls himself Witty…he does not know and does not care to know facts. He tries to:
cover his sectarianism with appeals to universalism,
he dismisses US patriotism since it would interefere with his loyalty to his true home
Israel.
Look, Cal what he is sowing in the wind he will reap in the whirlwind.
To: Cal
Re: Witty's witlessness
You are wasting your time with that pseudo-intellectual Zionist who calls himself Witty…he does not know and does not care to know facts. He tries to:
cover his sectarianism with appeals to universalism,
he dismisses US patriotism since it would interefere with his loyalty to his true home
Israel.
Look, Cal what he is sowing in the wind he will reap in the whirlwind.
As British MP George Galloway likes to remind listeners, there is only one country that has been "wiped off the map", and that is Palestine.
(BTW, notice how Richard Witty modulates his claim when pressed–now Zionism is not for people who like to "auto-associate" (after all, he hasn't packed up), but for people who MIGHT NEED to migrate in the future. Kinda like a backup homeland.)
"Look, Cal what he is sowing in the wind he will reap in the whirlwind."
Here's a link to an illustration by Boris Artzybasheff. It is called:
"The Triumph of Wit"
http://www.animationarchive.org/pics/artzywar14.jpg
People migrate, for good reasons.
In particular, its whats made America unique.
America vacillates between wonderful invitation, a real melting pot, and horrendous neo-fascist exclusion.
The idea that white descendants from "the Mayflower" call themselves "native Americans" is a horrible irony, especially when brought to the issue of Israel/Palestine.
People migrate, and have since the dawn of man. Otherwise we would be a very minor species living in a sliver of central East Africa, all of us black.
So, I see being jewish is first; the rest of us can just accept this or be gone effectively, after all we don't have the strong one issue clout and money, further handicapped as we are by actual principles of historical justice combined with roman circuses. The ultimate issue is abstract humanism versus useful abstract (and lucrative) shoah?
John wrote"
"Look, Cal what he is sowing in the wind he will reap in the whirlwind."
LOL…you are probably right. Maybe witty will have some kind of an "awakening" before his identity fixation drives him crazy.
It's just all that mangeling of history really bugs me.
Just one more thing about this statement witty:
"The idea that white descendants from "the Mayflower" call themselves "native Americans" is a horrible irony, especially when brought to the issue of Israel/Palestine."
I have never heard of anyone who refers to the Mayflower descendants as native Americans.
First, the Mayflower folks wern't the first or original settlers in America. And they called themselves Pilgrams.
They were mainly Dutch Linden seperatist.
After slithering onto Plymouth Rock, they married their cousins and proceeded to burn witches. They didn't even get here until 1620. The original settlers were the Englishmen who sailed up the James River and settled at Jamestown in 1612. And they were purely commerical adventurers, no religious motivations there.
And that isn't even counting the really first settlement, failed though it was, at Maneto NC,the Lost Colony.
If any white folks call themselves native americans it would probably be some of the blue eyed Lumbee Indians the Lost Colony settlement is believed to have gone inland with and intermingled and intermarried when they disappeared.
I wonder, being of British heritage why I haven't started a British/American Lobby?
Being ethnic British or European shouldn't I be lobbying for Britian? BAPAC sounds right. Or should it be a gentile lobby? The GAPAC?
Don't I have a right to self-associate and self govern as an ethnic "Britisher". I mean after all we are victims too…the Normans invaded us after all and laid waste to us poor British and I am sure some of my relatives must have been killed.
Yep…that is what we need…everyone in our US melting pot should have their own ethnic lobby and lobby for their ancestral homeland.
We can all have out own "hyphen" American organizations.
Maybe we should lobby for Christian Rule..shouldn't the Jews and Muslims be second class citizens? Or better yet let's insist on a "gentile nation" with christian rules and law….yea, just send all the Jews home to Israel and all the Muslims to Arab states. They can self govern over there and we can self govern over here.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The uber zionist should be careful of their warped resoning.
"First, the Mayflower folks wern't the first or original settlers in America. And they called themselves Pilgrams.
They were mainly Dutch Linden seperatist.
After slithering onto Plymouth Rock, they married their cousins and proceeded to burn witches. They didn't even get here until 1620"
Cal, don't blame the Dutch. The Pilgrim Fathers were of English descent and came originally to Holland because that was then the most tolerant country as far as dissenters were concerned. I think that witch hunting was also more of an English specialty. This is what Wikipedia says about this:
"England at one point had a "Witchfinder General", one Matthew Hopkins, who led searches, and who claimed to be able to identify a witch using techniques such as witches' marks."
And this is what it says about the Pilgrim Fathers:
"Pilgrim Fathers is the name commonly applied to early settlers of the Cape Cod in present-day Plymouth, Massachusetts. Their leadership came from a religious congregation who had fled a volatile political environment in the East Midlands of England for the relative calm of the Netherlands to preserve their religion. Concerned with losing their cultural identity, the group later arranged with English investors to establish a new colony in North America. The colonists faced a lengthy series of challenges, from bureaucracy, impatient investors and internal conflicts to sabotage, storms, disease, and uncertain relations with the indigenous people. The colony, established in 1620, became the second successful English settlement in what was to become the United States of America, the first being Jamestown, Virginia, which was founded in 1607. Their story has become a central theme in United States cultural identity."
Arie,
What about Australia?
Someone earlier here asserted that they were a "native American" referring to their English ancestry, not necessarily the Pilgrims or Puritans. The phrase "came over on the Mayflower" is a figure of speech.
The point is that people migrate, and that ANY claim to land or originality is less than authentic.
Its an arrangement. Neither God-given, nor always there.
Arie..
I am not bashing the Dutch and yes I know they were in England before they migrated and then returned to England to charter the Mayflower.
I just like to point out that for Most of our early founders religion was Not the motivating factor.
And yea, every society had it's primitives and witch hunters…still does, they will always be around.
To: Cal
Cal,
let Witty et al mangle history…dont waste your time engaging him..he cannot understand the concept of citizenship, loyalty, transparency, conflict of interest….I have tried to engage him with the analogy that a realtor cannot represent both sides in a transaction and that Jews in America cannot represent 2 countries….they gotta choose one or else suspicions of them will reach a point where they will have to migrate outtta here much like the Tories into Canada in the 1780's after the war of independence…
A society needs trust to thrive and trust is on the decline in America…..when the masses realise that the dollar is gonna be worth nothing and why we have so many enemies in the Islamic world (but China does not, for example) then there will be hell to pay. By Witty et al. (?I am not looking forward to that day, I must emphasise….)
Witty is here to mess with the board, divert discussion away from Phil Weiss' central thesis of dual loyalty and the moral dubiousness of Zionism.