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.
Faintly goosesteppish? I've half-written a number of comments, but I think I'm lost for words… ETA: Oh, and what happened to 'the only democracy in the Middle East'?
If I were kind, Phil, I'd say that you didn't read the Oren piece carefully, and suggest that you should go back and re-read it – possibly moving your lips while doing so. However, this is perhaps the most disingenuous misrepresentation I have seen you put forward in the short time I've been following your blog. I don't think there's anything wrong with Oren's suggestion that Israeli school children should visit Jerusalem – the capital – biannually. (And note, he said "Israeli" not "Jewish".) I would be interested in hearing your ideas on a similar suggestion for, say, encouraging US school children to visit Washington D.C.
(Continued) And Oren is very clear throughout the article that he expects "basic loyalty", not just from Arab citizens, but also from Jewish (and particularly Haredi Jews), while enforcing basic sovereignty of the state to all sectors – not just within the secular, Zionist sector – through "assuring total equality in the provision of social services and infrastructure" and the establishment of a system of national service to end the "destructive separation of Haredi youth fom the responsibilities of citizenship". Finally, you completely misread the passage on democracy. Oren is basically arguing the same thing that many who argue against the occupation do: That Israel must eventially choose between being a democracy and being a Jewish state.
So Israel worries about dual loyalty – from Arab Israelis. Seems the irony is lost.
No Doug. The new Israeli ambassador is only requesting from all of Israel's citizens what the US demands of its citizens.
Its a process of clarifying borders. When done, consented, normalized, different questions will be relevant. And, as the contradictions apply to ALL nationalistic orientations (Israeli and Palestinian and others – say Iranian), one would hope that Phil and Adam would apply similar questions to the character of those states. I don't think Phil is an anarchist, urging "imagine" in practise.
Michael Oren: "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…." I also love this from Oren: "In the specific case of Israeli Arabs (sic), Israel must adopt a two-pronged policy of assuring total equality [limited to] the provision of social services and infrastructure while simultaneously insisting that [non-Jewish indigenous] Israeli Arabs demonstrate basic loyalty to the [Jewish] state [of which they can never, by definition be truly equal citizens] ." "I don't think there's anything wrong with Oren's suggestion that Israeli school children should visit Jerusalem – the capital – biannually. (And note, he said "Israeli" not "Jewish".)" So, you think it is just dandy to "encourage" (non-Jewish) Palestinian school children who happen to be citizens of Israel to visit Jerusalem in order to do what? Understand as clearly as possible that Israel, the country of which they are so-called "equal" citizens, is a Jewish state, and that therefore they can never be truly equal?
Would you JES49 had some loyalty problems in Germany in the 30's? Surely the situation in Israel is not so bad as it was in Germany 60 – 70 years ago, but the situation is far from religious and economical equality and freedom. The difference between US (and other western democracies) and Israel is huge. We do not have laws and a system which favours one religious group with others expense. If Jews in USA would have to face the same rights and treatment as Israeli Arabs have to, you surely would have some lack of loyalty. The advice would be deliver first the real equality and demolish the religious based one group favouring system then begin to demand loyalty.
In other words, as long as we finally pretend to give the n****** "separate but equal" government services and facilities, we can demand loyalty of them (and of course "encourage" them to confirm their loyalty by sending their kids Jerusalem – the make-believe capital – every year to prove their loyalty). And yes, Oren admits that Israel must choose between being a democracy and being a Jewish state, and at the same time makes it clear what he thinks the choice should be (HINT: NOT a democracy).
Shirin, Do you think that Jews are a people? And, as a people, should have the right to self-govern? (Noting that the majority of Jews prefer civil communities to nationalist.)
You are asking the wrong, and an irrelevant, question. The question is whether or not "the Jews" or any other self-defined, or other-defined human group has a right to lay claim on any basis at all (historical, mythical, legendary, or some combination of all three) to land inhabited by others, and turn it into an ethnocratic state for themselves in which they have superior rights and claims, and in which they must establish and maintain by any means necessary an overwhelming majority. The answer to that question is obvious, particularly in the 20th and 21st centuries, which is why you and other Zionists always ask the other question instead of the truly relevant one.
Both questions are relevant. By regarding communities' needs and concerns as relevant, you can actually participate in the design of a functional alternative. If you avoid the first question, then you can adopt the prejudicial pendulum swing that regards Jews as acceptable and appropriate to suppress.
No Shirin. Nowhere does Oren say anything about "separate" as a qualifier of equal. That's your reading of Oren; not mine. And nowhere does he say that the "n******", as you so eloquently call them, must send their kids to Jerusalem to "prove their loyalty". The centrality of Jerusalem is not just for Jewish children but also for Muslim and Christian children (or so we would be led to believe by the number of times the talks have broken down on this issue). And Oren at no point makes it clear that he thinks that the choice should not be a democracy. Quite the opposite. BTW, Shirin, your first paragraph is an absolute mess. I suggest you do a thorough edit. Could be that you're on the defensive here?
The new Israeli Ambassador is also a US citizen so I have a problem with his loyalty because I believe Israel is a principle enemy of the USA. Right. I have not forgotten the USS Liberty.
Except that, by accepting to become Israel's ambassador, he has to renounce his US citizenship. (Which is also true for any Knesset member.) BTW, neither has Oren, and he has written an excellent piece on the USS Liberty.
The term 'a people' is pretty meaningless, anyway. What does he mean? A 'nation'? A religion, Even, god forbid, a 'tribe'? I think the fondness for the term comes from the spiritual, "Moses went down to Pharaoh, said, Let my people go." Even Phil does it from time to time, this "my people' bit. It's corny, frankly. P.S.: they don't like it at all when you use the German equivalent — "ein Volk."
Shirin, once again, you have taken extreme liberties with what Michael Oren has said. Please note that square brackets are meant to complete the meaning after editing the cited section, or to complement the meaning of the passage cited with what came immediately before or after. Nowhere did Oren say in his article that assuring total equality should be "limited to" social services and infrastructure. Nor did he ever imply that by definition they can never be truly equal citizens. Re. the issue of all Israeli school children visiting Jerusalem every other year (that BTW is what "biannual" means) I would say that apart from visiting their specific holy places, they could also visit those of the other religions. But more important, they could visit the Knesset and the President's Residence.
What and how does the US demand loyalty from its natural-born citizens?
It would seem that a faulty memory of Liberty could be aided by Oren's book. Every official investigation has proven the incident to be an accident.
Do you think the Palestinians are a people? And, as a people, should have the right to self-govern? Do they have a right to return akin to the Jewish right of return? If not, why not? If so, how so?
Any other foreign government Ambassadors who are also US citizens?
Richard Witty, you are amusing as you pose as some kind of intellectual while committing one of the most childishly obvious logical fallacies known to man.
The Israeli version of "equality" is to bring services and infrastructure for non-Jews up just enough that the inequality is not egregious, and then whine loudly when anyone suggests that living as a non-Jew in a Jewish ethnocracy is not everyone's dream come true.
It doesn't.
"I get the feeling my president is recoiling somewhat in this photo. Do you? "
JES, you are as predictably boring here as you are on Helena's blog.
It doesn't. Even after 9/11 they could not succeed in instituting what Oren wants to bring about.
The nice, liberal Israeli version of "equality" is to provide non-Jewish citizens of the Jewish State just enough improvements in services and infrastructure to give them a pretext to shut critics up.
The early Zionists, after some discussion, agreed that they had to define The Jews as a nation. They determined that the colonial powers were unlikely to see the creation of a Jewish state as justified unless the Jewish people were a nation. Of course, the utterly silly and completely impractical logical extension of Witty's standard-issue Zionist argument is that every single group that can manage to define itself as a "people" or a "nation" is entitled to self-rule. Witty and his fellow nice, liberal Zionists do not specify, of course, whether every "people" or "nation" is entitled to ethnically cleanse the location of their choice, and treat any leftover residents from he "wrong people" or "nation" as second-class citizens. Nor do they explain whether every "people or "nation" is entitled to take whatever means necessary to maintain "demographic balance, or whether every "people" or "nation" is entitled to expand their territory at will by whatever means they choose.
And as we all know official investigations are never politicized, and always reveal the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. This is especially the case when the Council of Foxes investigates last nights raid on the hen house.
Then what the heck is JES49 talking about? I guess he's not an American?
And of course, we should believe everything Michael Oren says about the USS Liberty and everything else to do with Israel. NOT
Mr. Witty, why don't you answer my questions? You admit they are relevant yet you don't give even a semi-direct answer. You tell us the Jews are a people. Again, are the Palestinians a people? Do either or both people have a right of return? I'm not avoiding any question, you are. Is the first question you refer to more important than the questions I pose? Who's on first?
Excellent? You must be joking. Michael Oren whitewashed the attack on the USS Liberty. http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/... Now compare a less slanted account: http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/... Commentary refers to Oren as a "former American," but as near as I can gather, he's still an American. But once appointed, he’ll be required to renounce his US citizenship, just as Misha Arens did. That’s apparently the Israeli procedure and custom. We will see, eh? Here's a few tidbits on Mr. Bornstein from Wiki: Michael B. Oren (born Michael Bornstein in 1955 ) was a Zionist activist while growing up in the USA; Oren made his first trip to Israel at age 15, working on a kibbutz. He immigrated to Israel in 1979 and joined the IDF as a paratrooper. He served in that capacity in the 1982 Lebanon War, and in higher IDF capacities in the Gulf War, and then the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Here's what Finklestein has to say about Oren's book on the Six Day War: : "…an "apologetic narrative" in which Oren "basically reiterates the official Israeli version of the June war" and "frequently descends to vulgar propaganda," "lending a scholarly veneer to, as it were, the Abba Evan version."
Those official investigations were all a joke. Anyone can get the facts showing this via Google. The first one, by the Navy, was unusually short, quick, and kangarooed to the nines–it lasted no longer than a standard Navy investigation of the most petty incident, e.g., some navy crew man stole some socks from another's foot locker.
At least one of the so-called "Iraqi" so-called "ambassadors" was a U.S. citizen, and not an Iraqi citizen. Her name escapes me at the moment. Of course, the very idea that an occupied country and the foreign power occupying it should exchange ambassadors is beyond risible, but that is another sujbec.
I see the loyalty oath to the jewish state serving two goals: making demands for democracy illegal for the Israeli Arabs, and putting in place devices for transfer. Tom Segev pointed out such a thing two years ago (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/811620.html). You can use contacts with people in Gaza or the Westbank(family) to cast doubt on citizenship, especially once you declare them a hostile state. You can build up a conflict situation to provide excuses, with actions as happened in Umm-Al-Fahm recently. Although there the desire to transfer the area of Umm-Al-Fahm outside of Israel also plays. Does the word cynicism apply? It's not obvious. Philip description of the AIPAC meeting gave a convincing impression of absence of cynicism with many people there. I still think it covers well many actions on the ground.
You call it taking liberties, many of us call it readying what is clearly between the lines.
You are correct. Biannual means every other year – my bad. And how nice that non-Jewish "equal" child citizens of the Jewish State would be required to view the Jewish symbols of the state (e.g. minorah, Star of David, etc.) every other year as they make their required biannual visit to the Knesset and the President's Residence in the make-believe Jewish capital of illegally occupied Jerusalem. Would they also be required to sing the national anthem so they can be reminded that the yearnings of a Jew's heart are more important than they are? It is good to remind them on a regular basis that they are members of a minority in a state whose very symbols are a denial of their full status as citizens.
Loyalty oaths are horrible intrusions, in Israel or in the US.
In 1948, the need for land was paramount. Sometimes real need trumps right or wrong. But, soon after, the obligation to heal remains, to correct the wrong. That hasn't occurred yet with Israel either relative to individual parties or to communities. There is NO turning back the clock though. (There are thousands of clocks to turn back, for example the Palestinian riots that ACTUALLY ethnically cleansed Hebron and Sfad of Jews in the 1920's). In the present though (where democracy functions), the question of whether the Jewish people are a people is a relevant one, as the question of whether the Palestinian people are a people is a relevant one. I hope Shirin, that you don't regard the Palestinian national identity as one of the definitions of nation that is questionable. That would put you in some odd company.
JES49, Oren's piece proves that American and Israeli interests are no longer unified. In the US, the ACLU would be going after any Christian writer who wrote such a piece with a vengeance. I'm not certain the US has any interest in giving $3 billion a year to a racist nation who sets ethnic targets of 70% Jewish population at a minimum. Dress it up any way you want, but any nation that starts setting quotas based on race or religion shouldn't receive a dime of my tax money. PS – I disagree that Shirin's first paragraph is a mess. The mess is what the IDF left behind when it incinerated innocent women and children in December — to put it mildly.
Not true. Hasbara alert.
You're effectively saying nothing to see here, loyalty oaths are bad, the differences are unimportant. I say the difference does matter, and the Israeli version of the loyalty oath is something else in disguise.
I wonder where Oren came up with his 70% figure as a demographic turning point? Is he paying attention to what is happening to the United States?
You don't find Phil's inference of "dual loyalty" to be potentially offensive? I find it offensive when applied to non-military or non-intelligence positions in the US government.
The basis of the 'Jewish nation' concept is religious, despite all the nineteenth-century accretions. 'The nation', in the Bible, revolves around 'the Temple,' and is justified by it, in that 'the nation' is composed of concentric layers of priests, servers, and lesser beings without. Probably, the 'first Temple' never existed, except in the fantasies of the post-exilic Bible writers who used their ideas, whether fictional or real, but probably based as much on Babylonian practice as on any genuine Israelitic traditions, as a basis for building the 'second Temple' — an unadulterated racist blight on the local demography from the word go. Take all this away, and there remain only the nineteenth-century accretions: specifically, the pathetic, defensive idea that 'the Jews' constitute a moral elite.
Doesn't go your way, then it was a farce? Typical sour grapes.
If the investigation does not reveal the information that you are guessing at, it didn't happen? That's your reality?
I didn't realize I gave that impression. I think it sounds already like McCarthyism as it is, but what is going on here is worse and different. This is not just about being obsessed with security. I agree with drawing the line at military and intelligence positions.
Witty, The kind of state formation you are advocating is typically called 'volkish nationalism' in English (or organic, total, ethnic, etc.), a short-lived ideology I thought died an unmourned death in 1945. Of course, nationalism (of all kinds) is a pretty recent invention, but the volkish kind even more so, being the invention of a number of Central Europeans who got rather carried away in the midst of the final, intense period of colonialism, racial science, the attempted revolts of the working classes, popular democracy, etc. Wilsonian national self-determination is less than a century old (and Zionism predates it). Classical, liberal nationalism was essentially geographic, coupled with a touch of Rousseau's social contract: for the French revolutionaries, the French people were the people living in France, and those related geographic areas who assented to the ideals of the new French state. Naturally, this kind of nationalism resulted in the emancipation of the Jews. In order to construct a Jewish 'nation' (rather than religious group) a narrower kind of nationalism was necessary – and was provided by Herder, who started getting ideas about there being some kind of deeper connection between the people of the same country. That idea first proposed, intellectuals could start fashioning 'national' histories, all of them, unsurprisingly, being quite similar: once upon a time we were big and mighty, then something bad happened, but onwards and forwards to the future, we'll be great again, etc. Thus, Zionism could be born: one had a national Jewish narrative, racial science could substitute for religion, European imperialism provided the real possibility for taking over Palestine and provided the framework that didn't 'see' the native, and Blut-und-Boden nationalism provided the ideology of an organic and authentic connection to the land, which the Jews had, but the uncivilised natives were incapable of establishing. It is often asserted that Herzl's Zionism was nationalism of the liberal kind ,but recent research has shown that his nationalism was mainly inspired by the extreme Prussian Aryan groupings, and that he was fully aware that what he was advocating was settler-colonialism of the most extreme kind. Thus, Zionism was never a national liberation movement in the positive sense, but a settler-colonial project legitimising itself by reference to volkish-national ideology. One can add that the manner in which the Yishuv and the state of israel treated Sephardi/Mizrachi Jews – and to a lesser degree German Jews and Holocaust survivors – illustrate the fact that the Yishuv's quest was not for a nation-state of the conventional kind, but rather a racially purified one of the kind now universally repudiated [yes, there is constant talk in Yishuv papers of 'two races' of Jews, 'bad human material', etc., etc.] The Palestinian claim, on the other hand, does not rest on any intrinsic Palestinian identity or peoplehood, but on the simple facts that they (or their recent ancestors) either live there or were illegally expelled, and that they have relatively representative organisations that demand that they be recognised as a sovereign state on the land they inhabit and which belong them under international law.
It seems to me that Oren is admitting that Israel is forced to commit endless ethnic cleansing in order to exist. And he does seem to be advocating taking the best for Israel and leaving the dregs for the Palestinians. Creepy is not the word I would use. The word I would use is 'racist'.
It's hard for the rest of to see that Zionism is not a form of zero-sum gaming. A version of might makes makes right in fact. Witty et al write everything to disguise this simple fact. This approach ignores the cost, not only to Palestinian arabs, but to USA citizens. Who benefits? Does not Man deserve more than Chicago Politics, writ large?
That is exactly what Oren is admitting, of course. Herzl and his contemporaries understood and acknowledged that the creation and maintenance of a Jewish state would necessitate ethnic cleansing, and so have all the other Zionist/Israeli leaders. Anyone who denies it is at the very least engaging in pathetic self-deception.
So, Richard Witty, you finally reveal yourself as an advocate of "need-based" ethnic cleansing – as long, of course, as the "need" was on the part of the Zionists. Thanks for that much honesty at least. And, of COURSE once the Zionist get what they want there is no turning back the clock. That is a given, isn't it? And no, the question of whether the Jews are a people is not relevant, nor is the question of whether the Palestinians are a people. Zionists love to try to frame the issue in this way because it makes such a dandy red herring to divert the discussion from the real issue. It might work with some people, Richard Witty, but it does not work with me.
"The Palestinian claim, on the other hand, does not rest on any intrinsic Palestinian identity or peoplehood, but on the simple facts that they (or their recent ancestors) either live there or were illegally expelled, and that they have relatively representative organisations that demand that they be recognised as a sovereign state on the land they inhabit and which belong them under international law. " Bingo!
ummmmmm – no. When the body conducting the official "investigation" has a stake in the outcome, and the result of the official "investigation" 1) serves a convenient political purpose, 2) is inconsistent with the evidence, then one is obligated to at least suspect that was conducted for some purpose other than discovering and revealing the truth. You know, kind of like the Council of Foxes ignoring the facts that fox fur was found in the hen house, and chicken bones turned up in the fox den.
RE: "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…." MY COMMENT: Indoctrination?
I also agree it is offensive except re miltary/security. Just as in business it's important to avoid conflicts of interest in these areas. And not just in the case of Israel. Israel shouldn't be a special case in either direction.
Philip, what was "weird" exactly bout Oren's refernces tomorality? His reference to public morality is immediately preceded by this paragraph: "Recent years have witnessed the indictment of major Israeli leaders on charges of embezzlement, taking bribes, money laundering, sexual harassment, and even rape. Young Israelis shun politics, which are widely perceived as cutthroat; the Knesset, according to annual surveys, commands the lowest level of respect of any state institution. Charges of corruption have spread to areas of Israeli society, such as the army, once considered inviolate." Would it be weird or "goose-steppish" for an American to say that the corruption of the Watergate era sapped Americans' faith in politics and America's governing institutions? You seem to begin with the premise that Israel is sui generis, and that the concerns of its defenders somehow fail beyond normal.
Michael Oren's book on 1967 is pathetic hasbara. All he did was rehash the original hasbara, most of which had been debunked over and over again.
You could call it that!
Only you know that. The rest of us know that there is always some bias. But every investigation has cleared Israel.
So, the Shoah was a farce? Didn't go your way, typical sour grapes. Any reader here can check out the details on the internet about how unusually short the Navy investigation was, the shortest, considering the charges, in all US Navy history. Don't forget to also check out how the poor USS Liberty crew were muzzled for decades.
Oren's writings concerning the assault on the USS Liberty are pure propaganda. Anyone who would argue that the attack was accidental is a liar or a fool or both. The evidence is clear and unequivocal. What we need is a major motion picture based on the Ennes book. That might get the attention of those "rapture-ready" Israel-first evangelicals.
You're nitpicking Shirin. Muslim and Jewish children living in Christian countries don't seem to be bothered (yet) about the obvious Christian symbols all around them – particularly the abundance of crosses on emblems of state. ( I wonder, do they still start lessons at British schools every day with a prayer?) Nor do they, for example, mind singing "God Save the Queen". And you can go on all you want about the "make-believe Jewish capital of illegally occupied Jerusalem", but that doesn't change the facts.
I don't believe that Michal Oren was talking about a loyalty oath. He doesn't mention that . I believe that he is talking about the willingness to pay taxes and do civilian national service. (Which, BTW, Arab citizens of Israel were quite willing to do a generation ago, but now they want to decide which "nation" they serve. Hardly the point of civilian national service, I think.) This applies, for those who take the trouble to read Oren's piece in its entirety, instead of the shameless, self-serving patchwork Phil has provided us with here, to the Hardim as well.
Where do you read that in what Oren wrote? Am I missing something? Are you, as Shirin tried to do, attempting to read Michael Oren's mind?
Oh come on Shirin. That is based on one phrase written in Herzl's private diary, and it didn't even refer to Palestine. You're simply blowing smoke here (as you usually do). Anyone who denies it is at the very least engaging in pathetic self-deception. Nice setup. Let's see if I can guess what your future argument will be….
Bullshit Shirin! Reading through the lines from Damascus, are we? I call it inserting what Oren clearly did not state to support an unsupportable argument by someone who clearly will adopt any anti-Israel position. Best of luck Shirin.
Oscar, I don't think that the ACLU is a government organization in the US (yet), or that this constitutes proof that "American and Israeli interests are no longer unified". After all, it's only the non-official musings of one man. Further, I'm certain that there will be a number of ACLU-like organizations in Israel who will take issue with Oren's positions. That's called democracy, Oscar, and that's why American and Israeli interests are coincide (not unified, as you say). We'll leave the quotas behind (the US had a pretty extensive quota system up until not long ago, but you probably weren't aware of that).
(Continued) Further, if you take the trouble to read the entire piece – not just the small snippet that Phil graciously cited here to make his case (but not Oren's) – then you will see that Oren does not "target" as you see 70% Jewish population as a minimum, he cites modern, Middle Eastern states where less than a 70% majority of one ethnic group has led to civil war. He's letting Israeli's make the choice, and it is obvious that his preferred solution is a peaceful settlement where Israel will give up territories – even unilaterally. Regarding your P.S. – hey, what can I say. Perhaps you need help in English composition.
You ask that on a site whose tag line might be "Fighting Jewish dual loyalty"? Get real.
Bingo! You hit Phil's problem on the head.
Rowan, most modern nationalist movements came into being in the 19th century! There was no concept of an "Italian nation" or of a "German nation", and there was very little concept of a unified "British nation" until the mid-19th century. The idea of an "Arab nation", sans Islam and the Caliphate only came into being during the post-WWI period with Michel Aflaq and George Antonious. Certainly, there wasn't anything that could popularly be referred to as a "Palestinian nation" until the middle of the last century, which simply took, to paraphrase your statement nineteenth-century accretions: specifically, the pathetic, defensive idea that 'the Palestinians' constitute a moral elite.
And your field of expertise "blaster" is precisely what? And then we know that Hollywood and the motion picture industry is controlled by the Jews, so I guess that's not going to happen.
I think he's copying the French, and subsequently British, attempt to indoctrinate Muslims into "the national way of life" in terms of its more trivial symbols: for Britain, this means that Muslims should be free to practice their own religion, but must pass the cricket test.
Citizen, have you read Oren's book? Have you read Finkelstein's Image and Reality? The single chapter in the latter, which spans a total of 26 pages, is basically a "take-down" of Abba Even worthy of a first-year graduate student. Oren's book is about 15 times that length (not counting about 100 pages of notes). In addition, in contrast to Finkelstein's arguments that Oren doesn't present anything new in his study, Oren actually did consult the newly released Soviet archives, newly opened Israeli archives and conducted a number of one-on-one interviews with the actual players in both Jordan and Egypt.
He says this: "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…." How will Israel maintain at least a 70 percent Jewish majority without using ethnic cleansing? He said this: "The new borders should include the maximum number of Jews, of natural and strategic assets" Maximum number of natural and strategic assets. What else could that mean besides taking as much as Israel can possibly get without regard for the needs of the Palestinians? By the way, there are numerous quotes from the early Zionists and the architects of the state of Israel that specifically say that the Arabs should be removed from all of what is now Israel and the occupied territories.
Is that so? Can you provide some examples? Have you even read Oren's book?
Well, perhaps Todd if you had gone to the trouble of reading the full six pages of the piece in Commentary instead of relying on Phil's rather disingenous reportage, you would know where he came up with the 70% figure: "In the absence of a realistic two-state paradigm, international pressure will grow to transform Israel into a binational state. This would spell the end of the Zionist project. Confronted with the lawlessness and violence endemic to other one-state situations in the Middle East such as Lebanon and Iraq, multitudes of Israeli Jews will emigrate."
No, from Aleppo, actually, but thanks for asking.
"Muslim and Jewish children living in Christian countries don't seem to be bothered (yet) about the obvious Christian symbols all around them – particularly the abundance of crosses on emblems of state. " And you know this exactly how, JES? When was the last time you were a Muslim or Jewish child in a Christian country, or for that matter any kind of a Muslim anywhere? What gives you, of all people, the right to speak for Muslim children, or even for Jewish children in other countries? Not that I approve at all of using religious symbols to represent a state, but come on! This is, in any case, not about religion, is it? Israel is not a theocracy, it is an ethnocracy. As for God Save the Queen, the last I heard God was still the same God as shared by Jews, Muslims, and Christians, so I cannot imagine why that ludicrously outdated song should bother any monotheist.
And if you cannot see he difference between the impact of God Save the Queen on Muslim and Jewish citizens of England, and this: "… So long as still towards the East, To Zion, looks the Jew, So long our hopes are not yet lost Two thousand years we cherished them To live in freedom in the land Of Zion and Jerusalem. " to Palestinian citizens of The Jewish State, then you are much more far gone than I previously imagined, and certainly beyond hope.
There you go again, JES, trying to reframe the argument to your liking. The point, JES, is not whether what Herzl wrote referred to Palestine or not. The point is, JES, that Herzl, from the very first, recognized that in order to create a Jewish state it would be necessary to cleanse whatever land was chosen of the "undesirable" population. This recognition is a thread that runs through Zionism's history, starting with Herzl and continuing until today. Deny it all you like, but the only one you are likely to fool is yourself (maybe), and others who are desperate to cling to the old myths. Oh, and it doesn't matter whether it was "just one phrase" (it was, as I recall, not "just one phrase", but a full paragraph, maybe two, consisting of at least a couple of sentences). Herzl's meaning is clear regardless of the length of the statement, Zionist thinking on this issue is very clear and documented throughout its history, and the ethnic cleansing project has been ongoing from the beginning, and continues to the present day.
No one is trying to read Michael Oren's mind more than you are JES, with your own overly kind and not well supported interpretations.
I can see that you didn't bother to read Oren's full piece, because then his meaning would have been perfectly clear to you. Phil has excised large portions of Oren's original, apparently to make it appear that he said something other than what he actually did. For example, your first quote is correct – as far as it goes. However, Oren continues: "If it remains officially Jewish, then the state will face an unprecedented level of international isolation, including sanctions, that might prove fatal." [emphasis added] In other words, I think it is quite clear here that Oren was not advocating that Israel give up on being a democracy (as Phil would like you to believe). Rather, he was stating that not being a democracy could mean the end of Israel through international isolation (which could ultimately force a binational state upon Israel's Jews and which, in this region, would likely not be democratic). In other words, maintaining a Jewish majority of at least 70 percent would not require and ethnic cleansing – it would just mean returning to the 1967 borders with some adjustments.
While you are correct, again based on Phil's rather self-serving presentation, in the quote that you cite, it is particularly interesting to see what Phil chose to leave out and replace with ellipses. Here's the original: "Similarly, to maintain Israel’s demographic integrity, measures must be taken to separate Israel from the densely populated areas of the West Bank. In the absence of effective Palestinian interlocutors, Israel may have to draw its eastern border unilaterally. The new borders should include the maximum number of Jews, of natural and strategic assets, and of Jewish holy places." Note to Phil: Please don't try to fool us with ellipses.
By the way, there are numerous quotes from the early Zionists and the architects of the state of Israel that specifically say that the Arabs should be removed from all of what is now Israel and the occupied territories. Sure Sarah. And there are numerous quotes from early Zionists about how Arabs should be removed from what is today Jordan as well. So what? There are also numerous quotes by Palestinian and Arab leaders about removing Jews from Palestine and "sweeping them into the sea".
Ah Shirin. All form and no substance.
The evidence not only does not clear Israel it points very definitively to an intentional attack by Israel.
No one muzzled American citizens. Liberty crew members have been free to tell whatever they want for decades.
Only in your imagination. All evidence clears Israel.
If 70% is a magic number in turning demographics, then whites in the U.S. are falling to that point, if they haven't reached it already. My guess is that the AIPAC types are horrified in once case, and rejoice in another. I understand what Oren's point is, and expanded on it. BTW, where are these disgruntled Israelis going to emigrate to?
I don't really follow where it is that you "understand" and "expanded" on Oren's point. I think you missed it altogether. The Middle East is not the United States. (But the United States may also be currently falling apart under the strains of "multiculturalism", "relativism" and "political correctness". We'll just have to wait and see. As to where these disgruntled Israelis going to emigrate to, well I don't really know. But I do guess that that takes us back to the idea that it was because Jews didn't have anywhere else to go that the defeated the Arabs in 1948.
But even returning to the 1967 borders (with adjustments) doesn't guarantee a permanent 70 percent majority. Differences in birth rates inevitably moves the demographic in the direction of there eventually being a non-Jewish majority in Israel within the 1967 borders at some time in the future, unless Israel practices ethnic cleansing. And considering the ways in which the government of Israel discriminates against Arab Israelis, I tend to suspect that the desire to get rid of the non-Jewish Arab population is a motivator.
That part that you have bolded is some of the most damning part of what he said. There is no absence of effective Palestinian interlocutors, for one thing. And secondly, why should the absence of effective Palestinian interlocutors (if there indeed was such an absence) prevent Israel from treating the Palestinians with fairness in the drawing of borders? The only reason would be that Israel has no desire to treat the Palestinians fairly and they have every intention of taking the best of the best and leaving the dregs for the Palestinians. I stand by what I said in my initial comment on this subject. The word I would use is 'racist'.
The 'so what' is that while there may be quotes from Palestinian and Arab leaders about that, only the Israelis have actually implemented a policy of removing members of the other group, having ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of non-Jewish Arabs even before Israel declared itself a state, and continuing the practice nonstop throughout the entire history of the state of Israel. The founders stated and initiated the policy, and all governments since then have continued to implement it.
With but one notable exception modern nationalist movements arise among the people inhabiting a geographical area, not among people living on another continent who covet a geographical area and wish to take it over to create a state for themselves.
More than just quotes, Sarah, there were actual plans proposed for removing the Palestinian population. I have a book in my library that spells out a dandy plan to transport the Palestinians to Iraq. The fact that they might not want to live there was not even considered.