Comments on: Joel Kovel on Naomi Klein and Durban

By: Gosh, how to justify stealing someone’s land? (blame, despise, & degrade them)

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:33:24 +0000

[...] There has been a lively response to my article of August 28 [...]

By: Citizen

Citizen — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:25:20 +0000

Witty: “In the present, what is needed is what is needed in the present.”
And that is punishing perps of crimes against humanity. No statute of limitations on that–no wonder Israel is worried, and makes sure its host, Uncle Sam, blocks such
a label at all costs (to average Americans). Why should the Palestinians not fixate
on 1948, when the Jews require genuflexion at the altar of the Shoah by all nations?

I think ShrubCo should be indicted for war crimes; so why should I ignore Israel?

By: Citizen

Citizen — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:16:12 +0000

Witty:
“In retrospect, you apply 2010 values to 1948 reality. It doesn’t play.”

Neither does pretending that 2010 is 1938.
Further, looking carefully at what you say, the Palestinians have a moral stance
at least as good as any collective Jewry ever had thoughout history. Actually, more so.

By: Citizen

Citizen — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:55:14 +0000

Michael W says:
“Citizen, you can’t call Jewish settlements “colonial” because there was no “mother land” to which they belonged to”

They didn’t need one; England served the landed authoritive purpose, the colonial backer. Additionally,
Jews take pride in that they have been a nation (“a people apart”) for 3,000 years, despite not having
a land base of their own.
You need to look at the attributes of colonialism. If the Palestinians have not been colonialized then we all live on the moon,

By: Margaret

Margaret — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:07:28 +0000

“The experience of the European and later of Sephardic Jewish community, was of necessity.”

It was perceived as being of necessity, even as the inequality accorded to the varying classes of Israeli citizenship is perceived as arising from necessity.

Perception of itself isn’t so concrete as to forcibly result in a fixation of conditions – perception is relative to the person making judgments about conditions.

By: Margaret

Margaret — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:52:09 +0000

Richard Witty, are you so accustomed to defining exactly who and who is not a Jew that you’ve fallen into the habit of defining the characteristics of other roles in a similar fashion?

How stern your tone, how self-assured your prescription of “correct” behavior – the perfect pattern of a patriarch. From which “persuasion,” all are to become amenable to your direction?

Only those well trained to comply for fear of exclusion will do so – you misjudge those whom you address. They are not of a community from which you can command exclusion.

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:43:30 +0000

Israel was a state, ratified by the UN in 1948.

Israel remains NOT an ethnocratic state, certainly much much less so than Palestine.

Israel would not be a state today if it did not fight during the mandate, nor during the post-ratification invasion. That is true.

I don’t know if Israel would not be a state today without the elements that were definable as “ethnic cleansing”. Probably not in fact.

So, you ascribe “nakba denial” to my comments. I don’t deny the nakba, in experience, or in the elements of your assertions of ethnic cleansing that are valid (some definitely are).

My position is of the present. That is that Israel is and will continue to be. That the only way that that would change would be by very great persecution, suppression and ruthless violence. As really no justification that I can see supports that result, I don’t see any humane reason for that sentiment as primary, or defining goal.

In the present, what is needed is what is needed in the present. And, as the settlement expansion prevents Palestinian viability, that is what I oppose and address.

The experience of the European and later of Sephardic Jewish community, was of necessity. And necessity, you do. You don’t quibble. The moral difficulties that you describe were present at the time, and there was significant disagreement at the time. Some from overt anti-semitism, some from passive anti-semitism, some from rational firm adherence to democratic principles, some from misinterpretation of democratic principles.

In retrospect, you apply 2010 values to 1948 reality. It doesn’t play.

The present forward is what is important. Even in support of the BDS movement, to the extent that you are attempting to refight 1948, you will assume the role of a reactionary, a neo-fascist, rather than a progressive. (Progressive by definition is present forward.)

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:30:40 +0000

You pose your arguments in binary terms. That doesn’t represent the historical reality. You needn’t. You could respectfully acknowledge that people are people, EACH deserving decency and viability.

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:23:50 +0000

You demean the very long and very hard work of Phillip Randolph, WEB DuBois, Martin Luther King.

Please restrain yourself from romanticism, if you consider yourself an activist.

By: VR

VR — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 05:47:21 +0000

To continue on the British Mandate it expressly speaks of the assistance which was given to the Zionist state in waiting (we dealt with external factors, now we are going to talk about internal factors). The British worked with all diligence in the setting up the state institutionally by both structure and support, as well as “defense,” deft recognition of these enterprises in the would be state. On the other hand, this was NOT accorded to the Palestinians. Who were ignored, not listened to, and trivialized. There were times that the Palestinians were so desperate that they even traveled to Britain to press upon their occupational colonials that they wished to advance toeard the creation of their state. A prime example was when a Palestinian delegation went to visit Lord Passfield in London in May 1930, here was the response –

“Of course, this Parliament as you call it that you ask for, would have to have its duty of carrying out the Mandate…the Mandatory power, that is, the British government, could not create any council except within the terms of the Mandate and for the purpose of carrying out the Mandate. That is the limit of our power…Would you consider our difficulty that we cannot create a Parliament which would not be responsible and feel itself responsible for carrying out the Mandate?”

In other words there was no equal legal or constitutional footing between the Palestinians and the budding Jewish state. They (the British) constantly resisted the idea of a responsible and representative government for the Palestinians. This type of bullshit went on from 1920 til 1948 (with a short hiatus of the White Paper that was full of traps).

Further, in order to protect the Jewish national home against a majority rule, they gave the yishuv total internal autonomy while tying down the Palestinians at all points. The allowed the yishuv to have full fledged representative institutions (see the contrast above in regard to the Palestinians), international diplomatic representation abroad (Jewish Agency), the control of all of their internal governmental apparatus, giving them a state within the Mandatory that was totally autonomous. All of the other surrounding countries got class A Mandates for autonomy – but not the Palestinians. The Palestinians were NOT ALLOWED to have any of the attributes of statehood – no access to the levers of state power.

Shall I continue?