This is from Henry Siegman in The Nation. Just a reminder, Siegman was Executive Director of the American Jewish Congress from 1978 to 1994, and has been connected to the Council on Foreign Relations. If there’s ever been a sign the times are changing.
Siegman:
Israel’s relentless drive to establish "facts on the ground" in the occupied West Bank, a drive that continues in violation of even the limited settlement freeze to which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu committed himself, seems finally to have succeeded in locking in the irreversibility of its colonial project. As a result of that "achievement," one that successive Israeli governments have long sought in order to preclude the possibility of a two-state solution, Israel has crossed the threshold from "the only democracy in the Middle East" to the only apartheid regime in the Western world. . .
Olmert was mistaken in one respect, for he said Israel would turn into an apartheid state when the Arab population in Greater Israel outnumbers the Jewish population. But the relative size of the populations is not the decisive factor in such a transition. Rather, the turning point comes when a state denies national self-determination to a part of its population–even one that is in the minority–to which it has also denied the rights of citizenship.
When a state’s denial of the individual and national rights of a large part of its population becomes permanent, it ceases to be a democracy. When the reason for that double disenfranchisement is that population’s ethnic and religious identity, the state is practicing a form of apartheid, or racism, not much different from the one that characterized South Africa from 1948 to 1994. The democratic dispensation that Israel provides for its mostly Jewish citizens cannot hide its changed character. By definition, democracy reserved for privileged citizens–while all others are kept behind checkpoints, barbed-wire fences and separation walls commanded by the Israeli army–is not democracy but its opposite.
The whole article is well worth reading. You can find it here.
Tell that to the Zionist gang at Daily Kos:
link to dailykos.com
This segregation as ‘security measure’ is a product of years of proven treachery, terrorism, and distrust. This is a sad fact and aftermath of violent bloody conflict. We cannot, by all other means simply blame each party involved. The parties involved may find solution to this war to end this segregation.
This is really tragic, but berating or blaming one cannot solve the presented problem either.
the ziogang presented slam-dunk proof of the validity of Avigail Abarbanal’s analysis of the dysfunction of Israel’s culture.
Abarbanal writes:
link to avigailabarbanel.me.uk
Abarbanel explains that “Israel could have solved the Palestinian problem long ago,” but to do so would require a concatenation of measures that would ultimately challenge deeply-held attitudes about Jewish identity, attitudes that, as Mooser has mentioned from time to time, are ‘ziocaine’ to a severely addicted Israeli population. It has been easier, and less psychologically distressing, for Israelis to continue to punish Palestinians to simultaneously reaffirm the Jewish victim-identity and relieve the stress of sustaining that dysfunctional identity.
But, Abarbanel continues,
Ziocaine is not working anymore.
_______
This series of comments, below, was posted to the article that Potsherd linked, above. Notice the elements of Israel’s ‘cycle of trauma’ as described by Abarbanel in the selection quoted above:
~Jewish Israelis incorporate as an essential element of their identity a profound sense of victimhood
~This hasbara-perpetuated sense of trauma is psychologically destabilizing for Israelis
~Relief of psychological instability is sought by blaming others and waging war on them to punish them, and by the way, to achieve release of tension and a sense of unity
~The ‘other’ — Palestinian Arab and/or Iranian (and Obama, and US leaders who oppose Israel, and eventually ordinary Americans who call Israel to account) is dehumanised by Israelis; their suffering is of no concern; they matter only as a means to relieve Israeli tension.
One final point: Ahmadinejad’s “threats” have been distorted by a massive overdose of hasbara-brand ziocaine.
The argument about the mistranslation of Ahmadi’s statements has been repeated and repeated. not gonna go there again.
The more telling fact is that Israel has had Iran in its crosshairs since at least 2002, when the US Israel lobby urged Bush to wage war on Iran, not Iraq (see Abe Foxman, link to c-spanvideo.org
about 22 min. into the video) Ahmadinejad was elected to the presidency of Iran in 2005.
Adam, Siegman has been spouting this nonsense for about 20 years. If quoting Siegman from the Nation, where I doubt a positive word about Israel is ever spoken, is your evidence of changing times, think again.
Still enjoying FOX news, Julian? How’s that search for WMD’s in Iraq coming?
Ah, but let him speak the truth about Israel, and, like Richard Goldstone, he mutates suddenly into an anti-Semite.
It makes one wonder if there is a Jew of such impeccable reputation, so armed in the purity of Judaism, that he will not instantly be transformed to an anti-Semite by the world’s Julians and oldskooldems, the moment he speaks the word “apartheid.”
I swear Julian, you are becoming the poster boy for brain dead Zionist discourse. How old are you? You keep quoting arcane bullshit – do you collect social security yet? When there is something positive to speak about Israel, in regard to its murderous colonial occupation, it will happen – don’t hold your breath, if you are capable of holding your breath! lol
Hey Julian,
In 1961, a prominent South Arican said this, and this was 6 years before the 1967 war:
“The Jews took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. Israel like South Africa, is an apartheid state”
(Rand Daily Mail, 23 Novemeber 1961).
Those were not the words of Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Tutu or Ruth First, but were uttered by none other than the architect of apartheid itself, racist Prime Minister, Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd.
Chew on that for a while
Julian, the Nation is actually *not* known for its critical articles on Israel.
Adam, I thought this part was particularly important:
“Sooner or later the White House, Congress and the American public–not to speak of a Jewish establishment that is largely out of touch with the younger Jewish generation’s changing perceptions of Israel’s behavior–will have to face the fact that America’s “special relationship” with Israel is sustaining a colonial enterprise.”
Julian, do tell where Henry Siegman has “spouted this nonsense” before. I’d love to read it!
Hi David. I’m certainly no Julian, but if you’d like to read more of Henry Seigman you can go to this link here. Just click on the individual entries and they will take you to an abstract, which you can then click on to see the full text.
You can see the progression of Siegman’s ideas. I believe this current piece of his is the first time he has gone from warning about the possibility of a future apartheid Israel to calling Israel today an apartheid regime. Despite what Julian says, this is a significant change in Siegman’s thinking on Israel.
I’ve seen a lot of people relate their accounts of taking that helicopter trip with Sharon, but this is the first time I’ve seen someone report how blatantly Sharon admitted the truth about his settlement enterprise while up there.
Thanks Tree, much appreciated! Looks like you’re right on as far as this being a progression in Siegman’s thinking. I’m wondering how much of that we’re going to see in the coming months–I was at the Churches for Middle East Peace conference this past summer, and a lot of the middle-of-the road, peace process industry types were saying things like “we have a 6-month window on the 2-state solution” or “we have a one year window,” etc.
I’m wondering how many of those people are going to start saying, “our window of opportunity is passed.”
It looks like the mainstream churches are changing. The big question is Are they going to get it right?
From Jews are uniquely evil to Jews are uniquely good are they going to finely get it right and understand that Jews are just like everyone else – 100% human?
The “middle” is moving with regards to the two state “solution”. In some ways I do not see one state as the litmus test. It is quite possible to have widely divergent views on how to proceed, while still recognizing the evil nature of Israel.
Benny Morris link to haaretz.com
From the perspective of those who are N. American European stock it needs to be – 1) this is how my country came into being and I need to repudiate it. 2) it is not just how I see I/P, but also how the victims see it – even if I disagree.
I am sorry to say Henry Siegman is wrong on both points.
1. Israel is NOT a part of the “Western world”. Though the European Jew occupiers do think and act like the rest of the wsterners – but they live in the Middle East.
2. Israel is NOT an Apathied state, like South Africa under European Afrikans. Israel is a colonial entity to its last bone.
Henry Siegman has jumped from hell (AJC) into fire (CFR). In other world, he is still in good book with Israel Lobby and don’t have to worry for being called “Self-Hating, Israel-Threatening (S.H.I.T.) Jew!!
Wrong Rehmat
Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Tutu or Ruth First and the architect of apartheid itself, SA Prime Minister, Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd, all disagree with you.
They know what apartheid is better than you ever will.
“The Jews took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. Israel like South Africa, is an apartheid state”
(Rand Daily Mail, 23 Novemeber 1961).
Rehmat, Apartheid is the product of the settler colonial enterprise. One implies the other.
Rehmat – and how was SA not a colonial entity?
Julian’s statement about Siegman reminds me of the old saw: Truly revolutionary ideas go through three phases, First i ignored, then ridiculed and third declared obvious and old news. The revolution here is not in the originality of the ideas but rather in who are accepting them.
Smells like change in the air.
No shit, Syvanen.
=====================
Pingback: Henry Siegman: Israel is ‘the only apartheid regime in the Western world’ « Rofto Radio
There’s a change happening in the American Jewish community too – Here are the web-letters in response to seigman’s article.
Nice to see another writer coming around. I think he explains the apartheid description quite well. I like how he does away with the arbitrary “Palestinian majority” requirement as a prerequisite to apartheid. Although his recently-crossed “threshold” is completely arbitrary, as it involved no qualitative change in the situation, just a continuation of the same policies. (It seems to me that threshold was crossed in 1948.)
I also found odd his use of “in the western world” as a qualifier to “the only apartheid state.” Is there another (non-western) one? Which is it?
Few realise the extent of racialism/discrimination amongst the ‘Arabs’ themselves. It’s all-prevalent and pushed under the table.
- Lebanese dislike Jordanians because they enjoy life so much less. Vice versa.
- Jordanians don’t curse; Lebanese do, in the most colourful ways
- Everyone despised Sadat because of that mosque mark on his forehead, and because he was a Nubian, or black.
- the better-educated Levantine Arabs despise the Kuwaitis. the Bahrainis, Qataris, etc – because of their cowardice in front of Israeli aggression. They’re right to do so.
- Palestinians are the best educated, and all through the Gulf and Saudi, the ones who get things done. You couldn’t have a better diaspora than that.
I’ve been much influenced, partly against his intention and to my distress, by Henry, who is plainly a good person, perhaps more conscious of being Jewish by religion than by race and who has suffered some alienation from his family. I’ve read him mainly in the London Review of Books. At one point there, protesting at some Zionist excess, he asked something like ‘Is this to be the outcome of Judaism?’. It was at that point that I found myself wanting this question to be asked and answered substantially, rather than just posed rhetorically, and from that point that I have had a guilty feeling that the usual indignant denials that anti-Zionism amounts to a form of anti-Semitism are not adequate. I imagine that Henry’s family would reply to his question by saying ‘Of course it’s the outcome of Judaism and therefore it must be acceptable ethically’. Jacqueline Rose (Qu.of Zion) and many well-informed people on this site say that the Jewish faith has in effect been betrayed.
Henry seems to me not to face this question clearly. He is ready to refer to Israel’s genuine security needs and to America’s dedication to them, which seems – I’d really welcome correction – to mean that the Israeli gains of 48 were legitimate by the highest ethical and religious standards: if only something could be done to end and reverse the excesses of 67 and the Dayan/Sharon compounding of these excesses by shocking insincerity, constantly taken at face value by craven persons in Washington. This seems to me to be missing the real point, which is that the gains of 48 cannot be secure if there is a viable Palestinian state nearby – only superficially because of the security risks that that state would pose, more deeply because its mere existence would remind everyone that Palestinians no less than Jewish people have a right to be in Palestine and therefore that the denial of the right of return, the essential condition of Israel’s existence, is unjust, an affront to every generally recognised law ‘of God and man’ as people used to say. If Henry thinks that the right of return is invalidated for religious reasons then he believes as strongly as any fundamentalist in the theory of divine donation and isn’t facing up to himself. I wonder if I can catch a lecture by him while he is in London.
MH,
Mark Braverman discusses some of these issues in his essays The Jewish People, Zionism, and the Question of Justice and Answer to Rosenfeld.
While you’re at it, check out the host site: link to
I hope to hear Prof. Qumsiyeh speak in Rome, tomorrow evening.
Siegman has been thinking clearly for some time. This January 2009 essay, from the London Review of Books called, very simply, Israel’s Lies, was extremely potent at the time:
link to lrb.co.uk
Thanks for posting that link again, Brewer. I have read it at the time but somehow lost the link. It’s a well written article, indeed.
Andre.
It is one of the most succinct and cogently argued pieces I have read. I have seen hardened trolls wither when faced with its irrefutable logic.
Pass it around. It deserves a wider readership.
Best wishes to you.
Henry Siegman is a great man, who had the courage to question his own lifelong views. He said sadly on television that some members of his own family don’t speak to him any more because of how he thinks today. The only response that people like Julian have to him, Amira Hass, and others is name-calling; “nonsense” is not an adequate rejoinder.
Richard Witty: where are you? Doesn’t this gentle, thoughtful man present his views in exactly the calm, reasonable way you say you want?
Pingback: » Chas Freeman: This time apartheid has western complicity : To Be or Not to Be @abdolian.com