God bless the LA Times for its intellectual leadership. I'm proud to know the editorial page editor, Nick Goldberg. Today the page goes further than any MSM page in America and prints an amazing piece by Ben Ehrenreich embracing anti-Zionism as a Jewish tradition. The article is called "Zionism is the problem."
This was bound to happen post-Iraq and in the light of Palestinian affliction. Now it's happened. I'll quote later. Just read it! Oh here's a quote. Brings tears to my eyes.
The fate Buber foresaw is upon us: a nation that has lived in a state
of war for decades, a quarter-million Arab citizens with second-class
status and more than 5 million Palestinians deprived of the most basic
political and human rights. If two decades ago comparisons to the South
African apartheid system felt like hyperbole, they now feel charitable.
The white South African regime, for all its crimes, never attacked the
Bantustans with anything like the destructive power Israel visited on
Gaza in December and January, when nearly 1,300 Palestinians were killed, one-third of them children.
Beautiful. Emphasis mine. Our long nationalist nightmare is beginning to come to an end, in the only place it can be ended: the United States. (Thanks to my friend "7", a Palestinian-American, for passing this along. And if you think Arab-Americans aren't sending this around to Jews and back again so the shock of recognition goes round–wow!!)
Thanks, Phil and 7.
Meanwhile, Charles Freeman will speak to Fareed Zakaria at 1 PM Eastern today:
"Fareed Zakaria GPS: Outspoken former U.S. Ambassador Charles Freeman on why he withdrew his name from his new post as chairman of the National Intelligence Council."
From link to cnn.com
/>
"The white South African regime, for all its crimes, never attacked the Bantustans with anything like the destructive power Israel visited on Gaza in December and January, when nearly 1,300 Palestinians were killed, one-third of them children."
The resident of the Bastustans, with all of their righteous indignation, with all of their real rights removed, did not launch missles into the white neighborhoods in a known genocidal act and war crime.
EXCEPT, by the definition of democracy as self-governance, yours and his comments miss at least a large part of the reality.
Its NOT that Zionism is the problem, its the particular application of Zionism, that does live AND let live, but only seeks to live.
The Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Iranian definition of "let live" does not include the right of Jews to self-govern.
Live and let live must dance with Live and let live stated by one's neighbors.
Its NOT enough even for just Israelis, or just American dissenters to say so.
Also, the comment on Buber, like other comments on Einstein are descriptions of tensions in the formula of Zionism.
BOTH, determined that given the choice between a suppressed Judaica, and a Zionism with some inherent tensions, they CHOSE the Zionism with some inherent tensions (even if not perfect).
You might derive some glee ("I told you so") that those tensions, with agitation, seem to be coming apart.
I consider that willingness to destroy what is imperfect, to be a childish attitude. As if you, or I, or Norman Finkelstein's views and prescriptions aren't each filled with some contradictions.
Actually, the ANC was just as "terrorist" as any Palestinian, or any other, insurgent group that uses urban guerrilla tactics. "Terrorist" is just an imperialist label.
You are repeating a grave and destructive distortion Richard. Yes, the binationalists continued to believe in a kind of cultural Zionism. But actions spoke louder then words. Judah Magnes came to the U.S. at the end because he feared for his life with the Irgun running amok. Einstein remained in the U.S. and was an outspoken pacifist in his last years. And while Buber remained in Israel, perhaps with some notion that he could make things better on the inside, he never once renounced his earlier positions.
I would like to contrast Ben Ehrenreich's thoughtful and morally based column with Marty Peretz's excreble comment on his blog defending and justifying the Gaza Cast Lead operation as essential to send the message: "Don't f— with the Jews." Peretz's view is excreble in three ways, first, because it represents a racist justification for inflicting disproportionate and collective punishment against a racial "other," the Palestinians. Second because it invites that which it seeks to defend against. And third, because it seeks to, and tends to, project these narrow-minded, racist and counterproductive views onto all Jewry, when such projection is no way justified, as Ehrenreich's article makes clear.
On this blog, Phil has long yearned for a shattering of Jewish unity on the issues discussed here, and he has noted the steady progress, which is now accelerating. As a non-Jew, I see the issue not as between Zionism and Anti-Zionism, but between the Neocon movement in US politics, and saner and more realistic and traditional views on the American system and its operation, well-expressed by Chas Freeman in the various speeches in which he has addressed the issue, and for which he was villified by Steve Rosen, Charles Schumer, Joe Lieberman, and the usual Neocon chorus.
As this issue is pulled from the deep, landing suddenly on our deck, flopping and writhing in its death throes, let American Jews sort out their own views, ethics and interests, in public and in private, and let non-Jewish Americans study the whole phenomenon in detail, and with neither Anti-Semitism, nor enforced naivete and intimidation.
And let the Neocons be held accountable for their crimes. Let their outsized influence in America end.
Fareed Zakaria just interviewed Chas Freeman on his Sunday Show (GPS). Freeman came off very well. I'm sorry he will not be appointed.
His GPS QUESTION OF THE WEEK:
We'd like you to think about the forces that influence Washington.
Listening to the show and all the rest that you have read, do you believe groups that lobby on behalf of Israel have too much influence? Or do you think this is a bogus, even scurrilous charge?
Email us at FareedZakariaGPS@cnn.com
" …its the particular application of Zionism,"
Richard, when you come up with that Zionism, anywhere but in your own imagination, give me a call, okay.
I consider myself a fervent Zionist; I believe that some day the Almighty will transport, wait, poor word choice, but never mind, all the Jews to Israel to live in peace and harmony with all. The Jewish theological provenance of my Zionism is impeccable, but somehow I can't seem to get any kind of workable movement going.
"Its NOT that Zionism is the problem, its the particular application of Zionism,"
You got another type Zionism, Richard? Anywhere except your own imagination, I mean?
Listen Rich, I've got a fust-cless style Zionism, its Jewish theological provenance is untouchable! I believe the Almighty will someday transfer, sorry, poor word choice, I mean transport all the Jews of the world to the Holy Land, where we will live in peace and harmony with all mankind. But for some reason I can't get any kind of a workable organisation going, I haven't got time, what with all the praying I've got to do to encourage Him to get busy on the project.
Sorry for the double post.
Its the Zionism of LIVE and LET LIVE, same as any civil relationship.
Jack,
You are right and you are wrong about both Einstein and Buber. In the end, when the choice was an indefensible social Zionism and a defensible political Zionism, they each endorsed the defensible over the indefensible.
The contradictions remained, and remain. And, as that is adult life, contradictions, we live with it.
The current flavor of Zionism is more defensive than it needs to be, and as all defensive attitudes get expressed offensively, that is what is seen.
But, the Palestinian nationalist, pan-Arab, pan-Islam flavors of their creeds are ALSO excessively defensive, and then offensive.
The skill is NOT in condemnation. That is a 5th grade skill. The skill is in design, proposal, and actual reconciliation.
If you stay at the 5th grade level, even though you are 30, or 50, you misuse your human capability.
Richard, if you are saying Zionists need very badly to grow up, I agree with you completely.
They act like little kids. Only they don't ask anybody to "live with it" if they can make them die for it.
And your implications of Arab childishness are bigoted.
Off topic:
Bin Laden's latest message is focused on what he calls the "Holocaust" committed by Israel on the people of Gaza. It is titled "Practical Steps to Liberate Palestine."
His last message, from January, was also focused on Israel's brutal campaign, and was called "A Call for Jihad to Stop the Aggression on Gaza."
I only mention this because there's not a chance in hell the New York Times will ever admit it's really all about Palestine and not "hating our freedoms."
It's always been an insistence of ones of personal interpretation of what Zionism means to them. The philosophy of "live and let live" sounds quite tranquil and benign but when applied to reality, Zionism infringed on another groups rights to their own land. Would Zionism be relegated to other forms of ideology and religion in one where ones interpretation and "applications" are a distorted form of what another calls the antithesis of .
Mooser, I wouldn't be so narrow minded in saying that only Zionists act like little kids. Most senior officials in this world seem to do everything with any rationale at all; why would Israelis, who have pinned themselves into a corner against hostile regimes, do anything close to common-sense, especially when they have benefited so greatly in being so belligerent.
Personally, like many here who disdain the effectualism of "anti-Zionists" and "the Left", I wonder how influential Buber, Magnes and all those other binationalist Zionists were in implementing their own vision of Zionism. (Likewise for those Palestinians who wished to do the same.) Last I studied it, it was VERY low, if they had any influence at all.
PS Berel, the Bantustans of South Africa and the blacks who inherited their ghetto, also had jobs were exploited and even had access to sugar, as well as resorted to a multitude of heinous acts, even necklacing.
Phil, did you read the countervailing piece by Judea Pearl, who argues that anti-Zionism is even worse than anti-Semitism?
I fully support this mantra, not because it exonerates anti-Zionists from charges of anti-Semitism but because the distinction helps us focus attention on the discriminatory, immoral and more dangerous character of anti-Zionism.
Anti-Zionism rejects the very notion that Jews are a nation — a collective bonded by a common history — and, accordingly, denies Jews the right to self-determination in their historical birthplace. It seeks the dismantling of the Jewish nation-state: Israel.
Email to FareedZakariaGPS@cnn.com
—–
I think there is absolutely too much influence by groups that lobby on behalf of israel. First, they stifle discussion as it is a third-rail of American politics. Secondly, media coverage and money are used to reward and punish politicians and academics depending on their positions. Thirdly, groups such as AIPAC should have to register as a foreign lobby, but do not.
Thank you for your excellent interview with Charles Freeman. I hope you have him back as well as continue an open and honest discussion of Israel and Palestine, and the US role in both prolonging and resolving this conflict.
@ Chris Berel
Re: The white South African regime, for all its crimes, never attacked the Bantustans with anything like the destructive power Israel visited on Gaza in December and January, when nearly 1,300 Palestinians were killed, one-third of them children.
Chris says: The resident of the Bastustans, with all of their righteous indignation, with all of their real rights removed, did not launch missles into the white neighborhoods in a known genocidal act and war crime.
I say: No, instead, after the whites volunteered to give up their stacked racist power (unlike Israel), the blacks proceeded to murder them–there's lots of supporting data for the on-going racial pogrom against whites in post-1994 S Africa on the internet–if you care to look. This information does reach the MSM USA because the dominant jewish interests calculate Americans should not know about it. The only reason the blacks did not mass murder whites prior thereto is that they, unlike Israel, did not
have the full USA financial support behind them. YouTube has video clips of Mandela calling for the blacks to kill the whites back in the day. Same guy who since then has said Israel is worse than old S Africa. You know, Mandela, who use to be called a terrorist? Nothing changes.
correction: "This information does reach the MSM USA…" should read: "This information does NOT reach the MSM USA…"
Landmark event? I've read many anti Zionist Jews in the Times.
Ben Ehrenreich gave an opinion and the opposing opinion was written by Judea Pearl.
link to latimes.com
/>
"First, anti-Zionism targets the most vulnerable part of the Jewish people, namely, the Jewish population of Israel, whose physical safety and personal dignity depend crucially on maintaining Israel's sovereignty. Put bluntly, the anti-Zionist plan to do away with Israel condemns 5 1/2 million human beings, mostly refugees or children of refugees, to eternal defenselessness in a region where genocidal designs are not uncommon.
Secondly, modern society has developed antibodies against anti-Semitism but not against anti-Zionism. Today, anti-Semitic stereotypes evoke revulsion in most people of conscience, while anti-Zionist rhetoric has become a mark of academic sophistication and social acceptance in certain extreme yet vocal circles of U.S. academia and media elite. Anti-Zionism disguises itself in the cloak of political debate, exempt from sensitivities and rules of civility that govern inter-religious discourse, to attack the most cherished symbol of Jewish identity.
Finally, anti-Zionist rhetoric is a stab in the back to the Israeli peace camp, which overwhelmingly stands for a two-state solution. It also gives credence to enemies of coexistence who claim that the eventual elimination of Israel is the hidden agenda of every Palestinian."
to eternal defenselessness in a region where genocidal designs are not uncommon.
There's a million good reasons why, if Judaism requires a state, we should try it someplace else. That may be one of them. There is no earthly reason why the Arabs should not suspect the Zionists of genocidal schemes. But we knew that from the first, didn't we? Weren't we told about it?
When is a Zionist apologist going to answer the one question which they always avoid: What can Jews do for God in Israel that they cannot do for Him anywhere else? and less important, but still relevant: What can God do for Jews in Israel that He cannot do for them anywhere else?
Why is an answer to that question never even attempted, as if God has no relevance for the Jews or their future?
Oh, Julian, by the way, your comment comes in under the first and second axioms of Israel apologetics. It's pretty much an "We Rock" and "They Suck" sort of deal. However if pressed, don't forget the next two parts of the schema (That's Yiddish for "plan") which are, of course "You Suck" and then "The Whole World Sucks" If you are confused about how to use the next two axioms, which are a bit more complicated, go here:
link to jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com
If you stick purely with "We Rock" and "They Suck" you will find your self at a loss sometimes. Use of the next two axioms will prevent this.
Is the Israeli Lobby Running Scared?
Because one man, conceding defeat, didn't issue the typical statement indicating that he preferred to spend more time with his family, and instead launched a frontal attack on those who had attacked him, the foreign policy equation in Washington might have changed in discernable ways last week. On withdrawing from his nomination as director of the National Intelligence Council, Charles Freeman, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia and a rare provocative thinker in Washington, let loose with a broadside against his enemies. Of accusations from the generally right-wing groups and individuals who claim to represent the Jewish community in official Washington, he wrote:
"There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government — in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel… This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States."
Thus began a firestorm of commentary, debate, and argument in the mainstream media about, among other things, the very existence of an "Israel lobby."
Witty: "The Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Iranian definition of "let live" does not include the right of Jews to self-govern."
I don't where it is written that every tribe has a right to self-govern. If that were true we wouldn't have the sectarian violence we now have in Iraq. Or the gypsies would have their own country instead of being scattered all across Europe.
Also there are several prerequisites for starting your own country, one of them being that you have to be big and strong enough to take someone else's land and keep it for yourself. (Or at the very least you have to make a deal with a bigger country to take someone else's land and give it to you.).
Roger Cohen defends his columns on Iranian Jews at an event in Los Angeles at Sinai Temple
Video available at Jewish Journal website
It's a wonderful article. Someone emailed me it and I posted the first paragraph before I had even read the rest and the rest was even better.
Can one really differentiate between Zionism and the existence of Israel? Certainly, the basis of the Jewish state as it has existed up to this point is wholly contingent on the racist philosophy of zionism. To do away with one is to do away with the other or at least, to recreate out of the ashes, an Israel that bears scant resemblance to the one which now exists.
In saying zionism must be defeated we are saying israel must be defeated–a formulation I am in 100% agreement with.
But let us not ignore the enormity of the challenge.
Zionism is a problem, but any effort to unwind the conspiracy to corrupt our elected officials is depressingly looking as dim as the two-state solution:
Top Ten 2008 and Career Recipients of Pro-Israel PAC Funds
From: link to washington-report.org
SENATE: 2008 CYCLE
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY), $107,956
Coleman, Norm (R-MN), 105,000
Lautenberg, Frank (D-NJ), 73,500
Levin, Carl (D-MI), 69,850
Collins, Susan (R-ME), 57,500
Pryor, Mark (D-AR), 53,500
Smith, Gordon (R-OR), 52,000
Reed, Jack (D-RI), 50,500
Landrieu, Mary (D-LA), 50,000
Swett, Katrina (D-NH), 49,000
Senate: Career
*Levin, Carl (D-MI), 728,737
*Harkin, Thomas (D-IA), 546,950
*Lautenberg, Frank (D-NJ), 507,578
Specter, Arlen (R-PA), 503,473
*McConnell, Mitch (R-KY), 485,141
*Durbin, Richard (D-IL), 372,421
Lieberman, Joseph (Ind-CT), 366,351
*Baucus, Max (D-MT), 352,648
Reid, Harry (D-NV), 320,301
Wyden, Ronald (D-OR), 277,562
HOUSE: 2008 CYCLE
Kirk, Mark (R-IL), $62,000
Hoyer, Steny (D-MD), 58,000
Cantor, Eric (R-VA), 47,500
Berkley, Shelley (D-NV), 45,350
Boehner, John (R-OH), 37,500
Engel, Eliot (D-NY), 36,500
Pence, Mike (R-IN), 32,500
Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R-FL), 29,750
Klein, Ron (D-FL), 25,000
Lowey, Nita (D-NY), 23,000
House: Career
Berkley, Shelley (D-NV) 291,555
Engel, Eliot (D-NY), 216,418
Hoyer, Steny (D-MD), 197,275
Kirk, Mark (R-IL), 191,882
Cantor, Eric (R-VA), 176,230
Obey, David (D-WI), 159,600
Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R-FL), 155,740
Lowey, Nita (D-NY), 141,738
Levin, Sander (D-MI), 123,727
Lantos, Tom (D-CA), 123,250
That you invent axioms do not mean they are such. In fact, if you invent them, it is almost a guarentee that they are not such.
On the otherhand, absed onj the voting patterns of the palestinian people, it would seem that they are genocidally minded.
By the same criteria, the Jews are not.
r – i disagree.. the usa was founded with slavery as a given.. it is no longer the case… i think the same can happen with israel and zionism.. as a matter of fact, i think it is necessary for israel to survive that it does away with zionism..
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=1464#transcript
Finkelstein: Number 1: it's going to mean steering clear of ideological debates and discussions. As Sumayyah mentioned in her introductory remarks, I did write a doctoral thesis on Zionism. However, whenever I speak on the topic — recent years when I've written on the topic — I never mentioned the word Zionism because I do not want to get involved in ideological debate about whether or not you are a Zionist. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether you are or you aren't. It's an interesting intellectual topic ,maybe, but it's of exactly in my opinion — it's of exactly zero political importance. So I'm going to recommend, and you'll see in the course of my remarks, I'm going to recommend steering clear of any ideological debates about the nature of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
[5:44]
Finkelstein: Number 2: I'm going to recommend that if you're seriously committed to trying to resolve the conflict, that the only way in my opinion to resolve the conflict at this point is to bring to bear the consensus of the international community on how to resolve the conflict — not to try to defy the international community with more radical radical slogans. (noise) .. OK, not to try to defy the international community with your own or someone else's more radical slogans, but rather to bring to bare the weight of international public opinion: bring to bare the weight of the United Nations resolutions, the world court — the International Court of Justice — decision and so on and so forth in trying to resolve the conflict. For some of you in this room, and maybe for the majority of you in this room, that's not going to be a satisfying answer. You're going to tell me you want to go out and advocate a one state solution, or you want to go out and advocate a democratic secular or whatever Palestine. And my answer is going to be to you, in my opinion, that's a dead-end strategy. It may be very satisfying for you in your little group; it may be satisfying for you in your living room, and maybe satisfying for you in your little club or grouplet. But if you're seriously committed — as I assume was my mandate from Sumayyah — if you're seriously committed to trying to lessen the suffering of the Palestinian people, to bring a little bit of sunshine into an otherwise very gray life of forty years and more, then that's not in my view the strategy. Because there's exactly zero support in the international community for a one state, democratic state, of whatever you want to call Palestine. On the other hand, there's a huge amount of international support for a two-state settlement, and it's that which we have to bring to the attention of People.
Was that really Finkelstein? "For some of you in this room, and maybe for the majority of you in this room"
Finkelstein, for as long as I've been reading him, has always left it up to the Palestinians and the Israelis to decide the conflict on the basis of what solution is best, and also on international law, the law buff that he is.
Finkelstein is awesome. I've learned more about the situation from his writings than from just about anybody. His "Image and Reality" is one of the best primers and "Beyond Chutzpah" was also a real eye-opener.
So it's with real regret that I feel forced to part ways with him on the matter of two states. The one-staters finally won me over. I think their arguments are MUCH stronger, much more compelling and I think Finkelstein is just being stubborn. His way has NOT eased the suffering of the Palestinians and things are worse for them than they have ever been. As Ilan Pappe put it, when Ariel Sharon and George Bush both come out as enthusiastic supporters of the two state resolution, it's time to admit that this is nothing but a cynical Israeli ploy to steal more land and continue the brutalization under the guise of a completely phony "peace process."
It disappoints me a lot to hear Finkelstein say "well…people want something new…something sexier than the two state settlement…they don't really care about the fate of Palestinians, etc" I think it's lousy of him to dismiss those like Ilan Pappe, Ali Abunimah and other very smart very dedicated individuals who have, like Finkelstein, devoted themselves to the Palestinian cause.
@…
LOL. Zionism is the idea that there should be a Jewish State. So the idea that Israel would survive without Zionism is absurd. It's like saying America would survive without the belief that America should survive.
Thom
Where is it written there must be a Jewish state? There's no Gypsy state. There's no Italian-Irish-American state (my own bias showing here). Yet somehow the world survives.
The gays in San Francisco could just as well say "hey—you straight people have ALL that land! All we want is ONE small city to ourselves, where we feel safe! So pack up, heteros. Beat it…or we'll blow up your homes, kill your families and starve you to death!"
oh…and p.s. … you homosexuals from Stockholm, Nairobi or the Trobriand Islands are welcome to move right in and make yourselves at home!
@r
Small problem with that idea. Most offspring of homosexuals are heterosexual.
@Duscany
There is however an Irish state and an Italian state. And about 25 Islamic states. And many Christian states.
I see nothing wrong with the idea of a Gypsy state. For that matter, I see nothing wrong with the idea of a Palestinian state, as long as they agree to stop attacking Israel.
We need to solemnly sign a New Balfour Declaration about desirability of a Gypsy state in Israel, as long, of course, as they do nothing to hurt local Israeli population…..
Of course you do. It would seal the opinion we all have of you.
The problem is the Arab thirst for land. They have 99.5 of the middle east and it's not enough.
A Missed Opportunity!
I was in Prague during the heady days of the Hungarian Freedom Uprising, employed as a research scientist in one of the institutes of the Academy of Sciences.
I first heard about it the very day the story broke. My Rumanian friend, Victor Toma, was arriving by train and I had been delegated to be his host during the two week visit. At the station he told that as the train rolled through Budapest and on to Bratislava they had had no word of trouble; by the time they arrived at Brno the air was full of rumors about riots in Budapest.
Soon the radio and the next morning’s newspapers confirmed the news. We were thrilled. Instinctively we turned our sympathy to the courageous Freedom Fighters. And there were anonymous messages in our letterboxes that we were next!
We knew that the new government in Budapest had appealed to the United states for recognition. We knew that John Foster Dulles, U.S. Secretary of State had declared that the U.S. would go to “the brink of war” to defend freedom. We knew that the Soviet tanks had withdrawn far from Budapest.
The institute party cell called an institute-wide meeting to discuss the events. We were told that the Hungarians had chosen to leave the family of peoples democracies, that they were going their own way, and that we could no longer consider them as our friends. The party could never have given us that message on its own, this was the party line, spun in Moscow.
And the Hungarians waited from a word of support from Washington, just a word.
And then the trio of Israel, England, and France struck at Egypt. The Security Council was faced with two violations of international tranquility at once. Of course Suez was more important than the Hungarian Freedom Fighters. Why the Soviet Union reversed course is explained by different analysts in different ways. The fact remains: the Hungarians waited from a word of support from Washington, just a word.
For years this was my personal interpretation of what I had heard at that meeting. It was a message I tried, in vain, to tell the State Department at embassies in countries where I happened to be. It was an interpretation confirmed by recently released minutes of the Poliburo!
There was an opportunity. It was thirty years before History offered a second chance.
Now again Washington has an opportunity. The Obama Administration will be young for only a few weeks. It can only make a clean break with the past during those few weeks. After that it is status quo and it becomes that much harder to break with the old ways. It was truly encouraging that Madame Secretary Clinton reaffirmed the administration’s support for the two-state solution, the solution that was proclaimed practically dead in the last months of the Bush regime. But it must be followed with rapid and decisive action. Nothing could signal a clear and complete break with the past more than the de jure recognition of Palestine! Now! Without preconditions! There are plenty of conditions we would like to attach to such recognition. They can come later but—you can’t negotiate with a committee. And nothing could reaffirm the old ways so much as missing this opportunity.
A Missed Opportunity!
I was in Prague during the heady days of the Hungarian Freedom Uprising, employed as a research scientist in one of the institutes of the Academy of Sciences.
I first heard about it the very day the story broke. My Rumanian friend, Victor Toma, was arriving by train and I had been delegated to be his host during the two week visit. At the station he told that as the train rolled through Budapest and on to Bratislava they had had no word of trouble; by the time they arrived at Brno the air was full of rumors about riots in Budapest.
Soon the radio and the next morning’s newspapers confirmed the news. We were thrilled. Instinctively we turned our sympathy to the courageous Freedom Fighters. And there were anonymous messages in our letterboxes that we were next!
We knew that the new government in Budapest had appealed to the United states for recognition. We knew that John Foster Dulles, U.S. Secretary of State had declared that the U.S. would go to “the brink of war” to defend freedom. We knew that the Soviet tanks had withdrawn far from Budapest.
The institute party cell called an institute-wide meeting to discuss the events. We were told that the Hungarians had chosen to leave the family of peoples democracies, that they were going their own way, and that we could no longer consider them as our friends. The party could never have given us that message on its own, this was the party line, spun in Moscow.
And the Hungarians waited from a word of support from Washington, just a word.
And then the trio of Israel, England, and France struck at Egypt. The Security Council was faced with two violations of international tranquility at once. Of course Suez was more important than the Hungarian Freedom Fighters. Why the Soviet Union reversed course is explained by different analysts in different ways. The fact remains: the Hungarians waited from a word of support from Washington, just a word.
For years this was my personal interpretation of what I had heard at that meeting. It was a message I tried, in vain, to tell the State Department at embassies in countries where I happened to be. It was an interpretation confirmed by recently released minutes of the Poliburo!
There was an opportunity. It was thirty years before History offered a second chance.
Now again Washington has an opportunity. The Obama Administration will be young for only a few weeks. It can only make a clean break with the past during those few weeks. After that it is status quo and it becomes that much harder to break with the old ways. It was truly encouraging that Madame Secretary Clinton reaffirmed the administration’s support for the two-state solution, the solution that was proclaimed practically dead in the last months of the Bush regime. But it must be followed with rapid and decisive action. Nothing could signal a clear and complete break with the past more than the de jure recognition of Palestine! Now! Without preconditions! There are plenty of conditions we would like to attach to such recognition. They can come later but—you can’t negotiate with a committee. And nothing could reaffirm the old ways so much as missing this opportunity.
Thanks Morton Nadler. Many of us regulars on this blog agree with you–how can we penetrate Obama on this issue? Many of us have contacted the White House and our senators and congress people. We get no response, or boilerplate hasbara talking points that don't even fairly directly address the issues we raised. Suggestions?
@ Witty, the proudly self-proclaimed Zionist quite often on this blog
Zionism is the problem–Ben Ehrenreich
It's not working. Opposing Zionism is neither anti-Semitic nor particularly radical. It requires only that we take our own values seriously and no longer, as the book of Amos has it, "turn justice into wormwood and hurl righteousness to the ground."
Establishing a secular, pluralist, democratic government in Israel and Palestine would of course mean the abandonment of the Zionist dream. It might also mean the only salvation for the Jewish ideals of justice that date back to Jeremiah.
link to latimes.com
Zionism has some "inherent tensions." –Witty
Don't throw the Zionist baby out with the bath water of justice?
The Israeli regime's de facto implementation of any definition of "let live" does not include the right of Palestinians to self-govern.
Live and let live must dance with Live and let live stated by one's neighbors.
Its just too little justice for the Israeli and USA governments to say a little Yes, but in fact allow and support a big NO. Actually, the expressionist Weimar artist George Grosz wrote and painted about this many years ago. "Live and and live," said the Cabaret host ironically, as the night streets outside the ca baret filled with blood.
@ Thom
We need to solemnly sign a New Balfour Declaration about desirability of a Gypsy state in Israel, as long, of course, as they do nothing to hurt local Israeli population…..
Posted by: Eva Smagacz
This comment by Eva is so acute it deserves repeating.
Small problem with that idea. Most offspring of homosexuals are heterosexual.
You really, really, really, don't want to go there. Put it down and walk, run away from it.
Why don't we start talking about how many Jews have voted with their feet. Way, way more than the Nazis even touched.
Remember, when a Jewish boy marries a Gentile girl, the kids are not Jewish. And if you add the number of Jews who simply dropped out, well, like I said, you really don't want to go there.
@Mooser
Children of a Jewish man and a non-Jewish woman can convert to Judaism if they want to, heterosexual children of homosexuals can't convert to homosexuality. Plus, we aren't talking about Jews who marry non-Jews, or walkouts like Phil. We are talking about the viability of Jews having a country vs the viability of homosexuals having a country. Most Jews are the children of Jews, most homosexuals are the children of heterosexuals. The emigration and immigration involved in making a majority homosexual country would wreck any semblance of stability in such a country.
Thom, you're being ridiculous. "We are talking about the viability of Jews having a country vs the viability of homosexuals having a country."
Yeah, sure we are, sure we are. Okay! I propose that Israel should be turned over entirely to homosexuals! Happy now?
"Children of a Jewish man and a non-Jewish woman can convert to Judaism if they want to,"
Whoops, you just piulled the rug out from under Zionism, idiot!