Besides three contributions from the Podhoretz family, the latest Commentary includes a faintly-goosesteppish piece by Michael Oren, the new Israeli ambassador to the U.S., on the existential threats to Israel. It's true I liked Oren's appearance at AIPAC, but this piece creates a weird moral atmosphere. It makes repeated references to the perils posed to "the Jewish State" by Arabs and immoral Jews and even democracy, and thus, without intending to, answers the question of why Zionism finds itself in a spiritual cul-de-sac after a century of relative vigor.
But see for yourself. Ambassador Oren:
Israel, the Jewish State, is predicated on a decisive and stable Jewish
majority of at least 70 percent. Any lower than that and Israel will
have to decide between being a Jewish state and a democratic state. If
it chooses democracy, then Israel as a Jewish state will cease to
exist….
The breakdown of public morality, in my view, poses the greatest single
existential threat to Israel. It is this threat that undermines
Israel’s ability to cope with other threats; that saps the willingness
of Israelis to fight, to govern themselves, and even to continue living
within a sovereign Jewish state….
Preserving Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish state must become
a policy priority for Israel…. Israeli school children
must make biannual visits to Jerusalem; materials on Jerusalem’s
centrality to Jewish history and national identity must be introduced
into school curricula….
Similarly, to maintain Israel’s demographic integrity, measures must
be taken to separate Israel from the densely populated areas of the
West Bank…. The new
borders should include the maximum number of Jews, of natural and
strategic assets, and of Jewish holy places. [note that natural assets suggests capturing the water supply]…
In the specific case of Israeli Arabs, Israel must adopt a two-pronged
policy of assuring total equality in the provision of social services
and infrastructure while simultaneously insisting that Israeli Arabs
demonstrate basic loyalty to the state.
Imagine if a Christian writer issued such pronouncements about the U.S., or if a French nationalist made these assertions about France. People would find them creepy.
Which puts me well ahead of your usual formless AND substanceless nonsense.
I suggest that you read this to see what Oren means by "effective interlocultor": http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1082944.html He means the ability to deliver, and he is in favor of a unilateral withdrawal in that case. You tell me, on the Palestinian side, who today has the ability to deliver. I stand by what I said in my initial comment on this subject. The word I would use is 'racist'. Good for you girl, but that don't make it so!
You should probably try reading some history and not just the Snippets that appear on the Internet. During the 1948-49 War every single place that was populated by Jews that the Palestinian militias or their allies and patrons conquered was "ethnically cleansed". The fact that they did not capture more territory fortunate. However, no extra points are given for fecklessness. During the riots of 1929, Jewish communities, including the non-Zionist community of Hebron, were "ethnically cleansed", this despite the fact that Jews had lived for generations in some of these communities. Prior to 1929, the local Arabs responded to their leaders' calls by attempting to "ethnically cleanse" the Jews from Palestine. In most cases, the Arabs came out on top.
Perhaps, Shirin, you could share a reference to that book in your library with us?
Actually SimoHurtta, you raise an interesting point here. Even up to the 1960s, anyone who was not white and Christian faced a system of laws and social prejudices that go far beyond what Israeli Arabs face today. Jews were formally banned from living in many neighborhoods and from practicing their professions freely. For example, in many cities Jewish physicians were banned from hospitals altogether or their access was severly restricted. Up until the 1950s, there were strict quotas on the number of Jewish students admitted to universities. Despite these restrictions, Jews served in World War II and demonstrated their loyalty to the United States. Need I mention Japanese-Americans? And African-Americans suffered not only Jim Crow laws in the South, but also restrictive laws in the North. Yet for both of these groups a key argument for achieving equality was the fact that they had demonstrated their loyalty to the United States.
I grew up in the US, Shirin, as a Jewish child, so I know. And how exactly would you know what a Palestinian child would think about the Knesset or the President's residence? Since when are you a Palestinian? Or when did you grow up as a Muslim in a Jewish state (or, for that matter, when did you grow up as Muslim at all)?
"That part that you have bolded is some of the most damning part of what he said. " Isn't it amusing how often and how well Zionists make our points for us when they attempt to argue their case? Very, very early in my study of Zionism I made the discovery that some of the most damning material was to be found in Zionist literature.
JES overlooks the way Israel consistently destroys the ability of any Palestinian leader to "deliver" as he calls it. What we really need, of course, is Israeli leadership that is interested in delivering anything but more death, destruction, and oppression for the Palestinians.
LOL! You WISH all I had read was just the Snippets (sic) that appear on the internet. It would make your job so much easier.
You should probably try reading some history instead of just the talking points that are handed to you. If you did that then you would know about the history of "transfer" in Zionist thinking, and you would also know about the Iraq plan. Unfortunately, my books are in the US, and I am in Syria, and I have not memorized a catalogue of all of them, so I cannot provide you with a reference at the moment, but I'll bet if you really, really tried you could learn something about Zionist history beyond the nice, whitewashed information you received as a Zionist youth in America.
To the best of my knowledge, despite the whining of certain "Christian" factions, the United States is not a Christian State, there are no crosses or other religious symbols as "emblems of state", nor does the US national anthem or any other state symbol exclude Jews, so it is difficult to imagine how growing up as a Jewish child in the United States could possibly qualify you to speak for Palestinian chidlren growing up in The Jewish State. And one does not have to be a Palestinian to know what Palestinians think about being citizens of The Jewish State, where they are explicitly and implicitly excluded from full membership in so many respects, some very overt some less so. That information is readily available to anyone who really wants to know. As for how and where and under what conditions I grew up, you can let your imagination run as wild as you like, but of course you have no clue.
Yes, of course I have read Oren's book. In fact, I own a copy. It contains mostly all the same old lies we heard in 1967. Rather shameless of him to keep repeating them given the degree to which they have been discredited.
Well, when I was growing up in the 1950s, the U.S. was very definitely a Christian country and made no bones about it. We were forced to sing Christmas carols in school. And I still remember my first trip to Washington D.C. in 1964 at Christmas time. There were Christmas trees at the White House and Congress, but no menorah. As for your knowing "what Palestinians think", don't make me laugh. There are many Palestinians, and I dare say you haven't had a chance to communicate with them all by email.
Shirin, I don't think that I was speaking to you. However, I haven't seen any evidence that you have provided so far that you have read anything at all!
I think you're the one who needs to read some history. More than seven hundred thousand non-Jewish Arabs had already been ethnically cleansed before Israel declared itself a state. The ONLY areas that Arabs fought in after they finally started fighting back, were in the areas that had been allotted to the Palestinians in the partition plan. By that time, Jewish terrorists and paramilitaries had already ethnically cleansed all of the non-Jewish Palestinians from a large percentage of the land that had been allocated to the Palestinians in the partition plan. The riots were a backlash against the ethnic cleansing that was already taking place against the indigenous non-Jewish Palestinians, which was accomplished by Jews using the confusion surrounding traditional rights of tenancy and new laws that the Ottomans had put in place concerning land ownership to take land from the non-Jewish indigenous population… land that they had been living on and farming for hundreds of years. Then, after rendering these people homeless, and without a means to make a living (because they had always made their living from their land), they also had a program to ensure that they would not be able to find employment. It was a actual program initiated by the European Zionists, that had the explicit purpose of ethnically cleansing non-Jewish indigenous Palestinians from all of what is now Israel and occupied Palestine. The people who were in the process of being ethnically cleansed from their land weren't at all happy about that, and they rose up in protest.
Well then, Shirin, you should probably wait until you get home to consult your library before making assertions that you can't support without it! In the meantime, I'm just going to have to assume that you were trying to throw sand in our eyes.
I don't see anything in that Haaretz article that would indicate what sort of "effective interlocutor" Oren has in mind. Ability to deliver what? Ability to deliver the Palestinians doing the work of enforcing Israel's occupation of Palestine? The reason the Gaza pullout didn't work is because the removal of the soldiers and the settlers did not bring about the end to the occupation. It just turned it into more of a Warsaw Ghetto kind of occupation. It didn't give the Gazans sovereignty, and it didn't give them control of their borders. It also didn't end the blockade of Gaza and Israel was forcing on them which, even though it wasn't the complete blockade we see now, was nevertheless destroying the Gazan economy.
What Mr. Oren is saying in the piece we are commenting on here in Mondoweiss, is that Israel is going to dictate the terms no matter what. He is hiding behind the fiction of the absence of an effective Palestinian interlocutor, as a justification for what he really has in mind, which is to dictate terms to the Palestinians, terms that are very generous to Israel, and that are utterly unworkable for a viable Palestinian state. Just as was done in Gaza.
All the real evidence points directly at Israel's guilt, but if you want to deceive yourself, be my guest.
"anyone who was not white and Christian faced a system of laws and social prejudices that go far beyond what Israeli Arabs face today." Bullshit. And by the way, hasn't anyone told you that most Palestinian citizens of Israel dislike the term "Israeli Arabs"? Or is it that as a member of the master race you don't have to care what they like or dislike?
Sure, JES, sure. Anything you say.
"Our" eyes, JES? You seem to be a minority of one here, so I would suggest that the first person singular is more appropriate. As for my "getting home", you don't have a clue where home is, but you are welcome to speculate all you like if it makes you feel more secure.
Let me see Sarah. You maintain that more "than seven hundred thousand non-Jewish Arabs had already been ethnically cleansed before Israel declared itself a state." That would mean that Israel had "ethnically cleansed" the entire land allotted by the UN to the Jewish state (397,000) plus an additional 300,000 from the area allotted to the Arab state – all between November 25, 1947 and May 14, 1948 when Ben Gurion declared the State of Israel. Well, this just doesn't jibe with the reported facts. First of all, what about the "ethnic cleansing" that want on after the declaration of the state? I mean, according to Benny Morris, Israel didn't really implement tohnit dalet in earnest until after the first ceasefire in June 1948. But even more troubling are the final refugee figures. Even according to UNRWA, there were only about 700,000 refugees total. I think you had best go back and rework your argument here.
The ONLY areas that Arabs fought in after they finally started fighting back, were in the areas that had been allotted to the Palestinians in the partition plan. Oh, is that so? Well most of the accounts that I have seen – and particularly those of the British who were still the Mandatory administrators – cite that it was, by and large, the Arab militias that immediately opened fire on November 25,1947 following the UNGA vote on Partition. What's more, their strategy was one of cutting off Jewish communities with sieges, the most effective being in West Jerusalem where they denied the city's Jewish inhabitants food, water and medical supplies from December 1947 through July 1948. They also fired into Tel Aviv from Jaffa and, in the north Qauqji's forces cut off Jewish settlements in areas allotted to the Jewish state. Again, the fact that the Arab forces did not succeed in pushing the Jews into the sea is simply a result of their ineptness. Even during the planning prior to May 14 (according to Morris) the Egyptian forces fully intended to be in Tel Aviv within a fortnight.
First, tell me, was it the fault of the Zionists that the Ottomans issued the tanzimat reforms in 1858? Haj Amin al-Husseini even testified before the Peel Commission in 1937 that life was better under the Ottomans. (Perhaps this was because his family was one of the chief beneficiaries of the changes in land tenure.) And the Jews did not, as you say, "use the confusion to "take land from the non-Jewish indigenous population…" When they began arriving some thirty years later they bought the land from those who they assumed were the owners because they held legal title! (See Gabriel Baer and Arieh Avneri) The Jews of Hebron, who were "ethnically cleansed", after being murdered, raped and brutalized had lived in Hebron for generations. They didn't remove anyone from the land. Nor did the Yemenite Jews of Kfar Silwan.
The "actual program" that you refer to was the organizing of labor. The Histadrut (Jewish labor union) approached the Palestinian Arabs on numerous occasions offering to work together and help them organize – particularly against the effendis. They were consistently rebuffed. (See Anita Shapira.)
Shall I remind you: Unfortunately, my books are in the US, and I am in Syria, and I have not memorized a catalogue of all of them, so I cannot provide you with a reference at the moment…. So, perhaps you should save your comments until you get back to your library! BTW, I was aware of the rumor that circulated in the early Mandate period about a Zionist plan to transfer the fellahin to Iraq. The rumor was baseless.
the problem, JES49, is after centuries of constantly missing "effective Palestinian interlocutors", some of us do not want to hear this anymore. Could it be that the most popular and effective leaders are all in prison? What would have happened if the Jewish state instead of creating huge barriers for the meeting of Palestinians and Jews had conducted an open exchange with sponsored programs that brought people together? I know about a Palestinian and Israeli feminist group that had to meet initially in Belgium due to restrictions. As this narrative would be much more easy to accept if the reality of the settlement didn't show that quite possible nobody wants a dialog with the Palestinians. The "tragic moment" from a mainstream Israeli perspective is that they still sit on Judea and Samaria, which is Eretz Israel after all. As a basic philosemite …. I was really shocked when I encountered the first hawk who told me there are no Palestinians, they should all leave and go to Jordan, where they belonged. What puzzles me slightly is that this mindset is deeply accepted in the community, while people like Adam and Phil et al are constantly under attack. But I freely admit that since I study the larger topic more closely my head is often spinning to the point where it feels it would soon explode. Look I want this issue resolved for the best of both Palestinians and Jews. The article Adam sent, contains such a vision. Both sides have to move beyond the hardened image of the other. And maybe the essential thing is really to create a new atmosphere, were both sides can look at each other more freely beyond stereotypes. And yes, I wish Jerusalem would be an open city, Jewish, Arab and Christian, a place were dialog starts and not images of the enemy are created.
How did I get here, I again used the wrong reply button?
True, JES49, but ironically Israel is at the center of pushing us back into a more tribal view. The view that people from different countries cannot live together peacefully, but that they must split up into ethnic enclaves. They will always rival and compete or kill each other. Remember the models for Iran? It feels archaic. It completely contradicts my life experience and the reality around me. I am not a clairvoyant, but Israel's hawkish perspectives seem completely against my visions for the future.
Look, I was reacting rather hysterically, when I read Phil's (for me) first article on "double loyalty" . But after a while I realized that he somehow needs a coinage for a phenomenon he is watching. He is basically objecting to an easy association of US and Israel interests aligned in a "clash of cultures" scenario. In nuce/in a nutshell: the US has to guarantee and back Israel's supremacy in the ME. The Israelis decide which regional danger the US has to fight: "preemptifively". On the surface it threatens Israeli security, but below its military supremacy in the ME. The mindset celebrates power only. It surfaces everywhere, e.g. in Jeffrey Goldberg's latest piece. More sticks than carrots, and very, very much hubris. And it is highly irritating. He uses "dual loyalty" to ask the legitimate question, what influences Jewish-Americans views on foreign policy. Could their fear, their consciousness arrested by the Nazis and the Holocaust, their love for endangered Israel lead them to set the ME on fire?
Look Lea, take my advice: stop trying to rationalize what Phil and Adam are saying. He is not, as you say, using "dual loyalty" to ask a legitimate question. He makes the accusation very illegitimately to assert that which, I am becoming convinced, he really knows very little about. Jeffrey Goldberg is an individual with an opinion. While it may irritate you, Goldberg has a right to share his opinion. Most of the commenters on this blog are trying to stifle the legitimate opinions of Goldberg and others, and Phil and Adam give them the perfect cover to do so because their last names are Weiss and Horowitz.