Today we're trying to counter the feverish Zionist obsession with Islamic fundamentalism. Occupation magazine (kibush) publishes a devastating review by Ran Greenstein, a South African, of Benny Morris's new book, One State, Two States:
The very opening words
invoke the spectre that is haunting Morris, the spectre of “Palestinian
Arab Islamic fundamentalists”. This bogey man makes its appearance
repeatedly, apparently as part of the overall “Islamic world’s assault
on the West” (p. 6). The entire history of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict has been re- written by Morris to reflect the ever-present,
uncompromising, never-changing opposition of fundamentalist Muslims to
Jewish presence in the country (and to the West in general – on p. 156
Morris warns it to expect Hamas suicide bombers on its doorstep,
seriously…).
Any other manifestation of Arab secular
nationalism, quest for human and political rights, opposition to
occupation, campaigns to prevent or reverse dispossession, demands for
equality, are nothing but disguises for the operation of this
fundamental and fundamentalist force…In France, the likes of [soccer players] Zinedine Zidane (of Muslim Algerian
background), or of Thierry Henry (of Caribbean ancestry) are entitled
to full equality and share in national wealth and power no less than
the descendants of the ancient Gauls, even if they have no ethnic
linkage to them at all, or to the Catholic church. In Sweden, the likes
of Zlatan Ibrahimovic (of Bosnian Muslim origin) are entitled to full
enjoyment of citizenship rights as the descendants of the Nordic tribes
of ancient times. This is not the case in Israel, in which citizenship
and access to resources are determined to a large extent by ethnic
origin and religious affiliation, and in which civic nationalism that
encompasses all citizens regardless of ethnicity and faith does not
exist. Even countries that may give preference in the acquisition of
citizenship to ethnic kin of the majority group (Germany, Hungary), do
not do that at the expense of indigenous non-German or non-Magyar
groups, as is the case in Israel.To fail to see this basic distinction is not just philosophically shaky but also plainly dishonest.
"This is not the case in Israel, in which citizenship and access to resources are determined to a large extent by ethnic origin and religious affiliation, and in which civic nationalism that encompasses all citizens regardless of ethnicity and faith does not exist. Even countries that may give preference in the acquisition of citizenship to ethnic kin of the majority group (Germany, Hungary), do not do that at the expense of indigenous non-German or non-Magyar groups, as is the case in Israel." This is a false statement currently. The only period when it was remotely true was in the period immediately following the civil war/independance war/nakba, in which Arab residents could not return to their former homes. Currently, an Arab born in Israel is an Israeli citizen.
On the fear, "the bogey-man". The fear of terrorists is REAL. It has been confirmed by thousands (literally) of attempted and carried out terror attempts directed at civilians only. It is necessary for Israel to distinguish between behavior that is law-abiding and racist statements based solely on ethnicity. I'm NOT convinced that Morris was talking about ethnicity, that "all Arabs are ….", but descriptive that "all Arabs that undertake suicide bombing or other terror acts are …."
Further, on terror. It is a fascist approach, an attempt to force extra-legally rather than argue in court (for title questions), or persuade (for legislative questions) ANY support of terror is support of fascism. It doesn't matter that you think that Hamas or Hezbollah is a "resistance" organization. To the extent that their dissent or resistance is taken in the form of random attacks on civilians, they are fascist in origin. If a leftist organization undertook terror, it would be also fascist. It is unconscionable to support.
Unless of course it is the Irgun doing it in which case it becomes a necessary evil.
"ANY support of terror is support of fascism." Would terrorism include the disruption of food, fuel and other necessities?
Yeah, the Irgun totally ignored the courts and took their case for wanting statehood to the streets instead. Was it them that bombed the King David Hotel or some of their other bretheren?
The King David Hotel was the center of British intelligence at the time. while occupying a civilian hotel, it was not a civilian target. The Irgun did far worse, habitually, and over an extended period of time.
Richard, I don't think you understand the word "fascism". Maybe you should look it up. I don't see what terrorism has to do with state control of industries, etc.
You seem to be suggesting that British Intelligence was a legitimate target. But for that to be so, the Irgun would have to have been a legitimate military force, rather than merely a criminal gang, as they were. Your argument is basically like saying that it would be okay for the Mafia to blow up a hotel if the police had established a temporary command center in it.
Still, shut up Richard. I don't see you condeming the birth of Israel, that was born out of sin. So once the Palestinians have their state, if not through other means, then through sin, they can come up with the sort of wishy washy stuff that you come up with. ok?
Can he go to any school in Israel, or does he have to go to Arab schools? Can he live anywhere he wants, or does he have to live in Arab neighborhoods? Can he get any job for which he is qualified, or are some jobs reserved for Jews? Does he have access to government-financed housing in the settlements on the West-Bank or are these for Jews only?
Are you aware that your justification could just as well be used to excuse both the Oklahoma city bombing and the WTC bombings, as both buildings contained "military targets" among its civilians? But you are right that the Irgun regularly targeted Arab civilians with their truck bombs, etc. for over 2 years prior to the 1948 War, with no military target.
Oh come on, Richard. Be honest here. Israel continues to prohibit non-Jewish Arabs from returning to their homes. While at the same time it continues to encourage Jews from other countries to immigrate and to become instant citizens, a right Israel gives only to those who fit their definition of Jews. Non-Jewish Arab Israelis(the ones who were not forced to leave) were governed under military rule for nearly 20 years after the 1948 War. Non-Jewish Israeli Arabs are continually discriminated against in jobs, housing, infrastructure,, and education. If an Israeli Arab takes a wife or husband from the West Bank or Gaza, that spouse can not live with the Israeli citizen in Israel. Israeli Arabs face continuing land confiscation and house demolitions. There continue to be numerous Jewish-only housing areas within Israel, where Israeli Arabs are not allowed to buy a house. I could go on and on. You know all this, or at least most of it. Ran Greenstein's statement was accurate. Israeli Arab citizens are not "entitled to full enjoyment of citizenship rights" equal to those of Jews.
Witty you are getting extremely sloppy, which probably means you are excited. Cool it with the word "fascist" or else use it correctly. This entry doesn't include what Mussolini called "corporatism". Main Entry: fas·cism Listen to the pronunciation of fascism Pronunciation: ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi- Function: noun Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces Date: 1921 1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>
The birth of Israel was like other births, a great joy involving a great deal of pain. i acknowledge that the pains have not been healed, and should be. But, I would NEVER suggest that a person, or a community, should never have been born unless it involved no pain. The ethical questions are two: 1. Were the least harmful choices that still achieved the just end taken? 2. Did the harms exceed the end? To both questions, I answer no. There were unconscionable actions taken. (As you referred, the Irgun were often ruthless terrorists, not all that different than Hamas, though with less emphasis on social service; they left that to other Jewish organizations). And, the harms did not exceed the ends. WHEN (if is a when, not an if) Palestine achieves sovereignty and when land title is successfully perfected by compensation (both ways actually), then the ends will have clearly justified the means.
Ran Greenstein's review is worth reading in its entirety. He demolishes Morris's Orientalist views by a calm look at the early resistance by the native Arabs/Palestinians to the Jewish settlers more than a century ago, showing that "Islamic fundamentalism" was not part of Arab/Palestinian thinking. This look at a fairly distant past is essential, because Morris and other Orientalists insist that Arabs and Muslims have an irrational, illogical hatred for Israel. The implication is that all you can do with such people is attack them.
You should quote to prove what Morris' sentiments are. I don't know what you think or feel. You don't know what I think or feel. You don't know what Morris thinks or feels. Does Morris use the generalization term "Arabs and Muslims have an irrational hatred" or does he state specifics?
Witty will twist anything to support the Jewish State. His passive-aggressive justification of the King David Hotel bombing could also be used for the 9/11 attacks as well.
Pain? Is that your euphemism for the rapes, torture, massacres, dispossession, ethnic cleansing, etc.? All the "pain" that has been inflicted upon the colonized people since then? Yea, I'm sure the Native Americans would love your euphemism that the birth of the United States was simply painful – like a human birth is painful. You are a fucking Nazi. Try saying that bullshit to the survivors of the Gaza massacre with the burn wounds and the dead family and friends. Your perspective has always been Zionist and pro-Israel. Nothing wrong with that rhetorically speaking. But you are morally repugnant at the point where you put on this act that your stance is universal and principled. It is not. You are a fucking Nazi.
Reparations to compensate the harm will far exceed compensation to perfect title. The holocaust reparations serve as precedent. If Israel is suggesting that compensation only to perfect land title is all that is required, I am afraid they have another PR disaster on their hands.
Richard, dear, colonialism is over. Israel came on the scene too late. Now, all we are asking it to do is leave, and stay within it territories. Simple. Not that hard.
"The birth of Israel was like other births, a great joy involving a great deal of pain." What sentimental twaddle.
the Witty fog machine.