Yesterday the Forward sent out an advertisers’ video, a new hasbara campaign aimed at the delegitimation of Israel on campus. Meantime, a neoconservative anti-Goldstone outfit announced a conference in New York aimed at stopping the delegitimizing of "democratic nations such as.. Israel." It is very important to understand what people mean by "delegitimization" of Israel. This is the new buzz word.
The common theme among the strong critics of Israel is that this society is in a deep crisis of expansionism and ethnic cleansing and Jim-Crow segregation. They do not seek the end of Israel, but do seek a kind of regime change, by exposing the inherent Jewish-exceptionalism inside Zionism. And some of them wish to bring an end to the idea of the Jewish state.
I have heard critics on the left who say that Israel does not have the right to exist, who wish to undo 1948. And they have gained ammunition from Israel itself: because Israel’s sovereignty over the West Bank and East Jerusalem has never been recognized by anyone, yet Israel continues to expand there like crazy, destroying Palestinian villages as it did in the Nakba. So if Israel has no right to exist there, why does it have a right to exist on the ’48 territories, many of which were taken by expansion/force, these critics say, or for that matter on any other lines than the ’47 Partition plan, which, granting a Jewish state, was approved by the General Assembly? The same body, by the way, that has repeatedly called for the right of return of Palestinian refugees.
For my part, I would say that Zionism has lost its legitimacy, and Israel and American Jews must get past it, for the sake of the planet. This is an ideology– and again I cite Nadia Hijab’s stirring piece on Mamilla, and the inability of Muslims even to bury their dead and visit their gravesites–that has established 137 official Jewish holy sites and no Muslim ones. That’s unfair. Americans should not support that.
The best piece on getting past Zionism was by former Zionist Tony Judt in the Financial Times:
States exist or they do not. Egypt or Slovakia are not justified in international law by virtue of some theory of deep “Egyptianness” or “Slovakness”. Such states are recognised as international actors, with rights and status, simply by virtue of their existence and their capacity to maintain and protect themselves.
So Israel’s survival does not rest on the credibility of the story it tells about its ethnic origins. If we accept this, we can begin to understand that the country’s insistence upon its exclusive claim upon Jewish identity is a significant handicap. In the first place, such an insistence reduces all non-Jewish Israeli citizens and residents to second-class status. This would be true even if the distinction were purely formal. But of course it is not: being a Muslim or a Christian – or even a Jew who does not meet the increasingly rigid specification for “Jewishness” in today’s Israel – carries a price.
Implicit in Prof [Shlomo] Sand’s book, [The Invention of the Jewish People] is the conclusion that Israel would do better to identify itself and learn to think of itself as Israel. The perverse insistence upon identifying a universal Jewishness with one small piece of territory is dysfunctional in many ways. It is the single most important factor accounting for the failure to solve the Israel-Palestine imbroglio. It is bad for Israel and, I would suggest, bad for Jews elsewhere who are identified with its actions.
So what is to be done? Prof Sand certainly does not tell us – and in his defence we should acknowledge that the problem may be intractable. I suspect that he favours a one-state solution: if only because it is the logical upshot of his arguments. I, too, would favour such an outcome – if I were not so sure that both sides would oppose it vigorously and with force. A two-state solution might still be the best compromise, even though it would leave Israel intact in its ethno-delusions.
Actually Sand has made something of the same argument. “Even a child that was born from a rape has a right to live. ’48 was a rape. But something happened in history. We have to correct and repair a lot of things.” Sand has also said that Israel/Palestine is not yet ready for a single state. Though that is what it is right now, a territory controlled by one government.
Myself I am agnostic on many of the outcomes. They are largely beyond my control; public figures with stature and strong convictions have had no effect on them in the last 60 years; and holding forth about them causes Stalin-like ideological divisions on the left that make me run for the hills. The thrust of Judt’s piece is that Israel, whatever it is, must become a normal state in its own neighborhood, with respect for Palestinians. For me this means working to get Jews beyond Zionism and, as an American, delegitimizing a powerful but bogus historical claim: the idea that a state halfway around the world can perpetrate Jim Crow segregation and massacres and rely for immunity on a privileged wing of my own ethnic group leveraging foreign policy in the United States.
Apologies to readers: I mistakenly hit the "publish" button on this post in the middle of the night, putting out a draft version. This one’s a little better.
Only one UN resolution has ever been retracted, the one saying zionism=racism.
The central comparison is with South Africa and in that context delegitimisation leads to demands for decolonisation. And by the way, South Africa was certainly born of rape, but none would dare to argue now that it deserved to live.
I think you’re confused about the analogy. South Africa has not ceased to exist, has it? It has changed, certainly, but it is still there; its legal borders have not even changed.
Well, in fact the borders issue is a big one in relation to South Africa because the apartheid state insisted that the bantustans were independent etc etc, so outside South Africa.
But it’s apartheid South Africa, of course, that was born of rape, like apartheid Israel, and neither deserve to live in that form. The essential part of any solution is de-privileging the colonials.
But Israelis claim that Israel would cease to exist at the instant that Jews cease to be a majority in the state.
You can’t erase Judaism from the Arab middle east. It’s an integral part of their history and bloodline. This is a fact denied by no Arab person.
Zionism is another thing altogether. Simply put: it’s a European political ideology with no peaceful foundation or history in the region.
Most Israelis are confused about this.
Dropping zionism out of the equation does not mean end of Judaism.
Didn’t the Germans have a similar rationale about “purity” among their populace, otherwise the proud “Aryan” nation would cease to exist?
Bingo!
Your comment was a bit too short. Please go back and try again
The Nazi Germans also constantly trumpeted how they were the world’s leader in science and culture. They said they invented everything. They had quite a laundry list hanging out on the line.
“for the sake of the planet.”
link to apnews.myway.com
Israel is a hypermilitarized state whose military has more influence over policy and governance than does its political leaders;
Israel is a society in deep psychological distress and dissonance;
Israel scares me.
RE: “Israel is a hypermilitarized state whose military has more influence over policy and governance than does its political leaders” – Psycho god
SEE: Generals in the Cabinet Room: How the Military Shapes Israeli Policy (Paperback) ~ Yoram Peri (Author) (Professor of Political Sociology And Communication at Tel Aviv University)
In what is certain to become a landmark study, Israel’s foremost analyst of civil-military relations identifies and investigates a dramatic shift of power within Israel’s political system. Where once the military was usually the servant of civilian politicians, today, argues Yoram Peri, generals lead the way when it comes to foreign and defense policymaking. The implications for Israeli-Palestinian relations, for Israeli democracy, and indeed for other democracies are profound….
CONTINUED – link to facebook.com
AMAZON – link to amazon.com
I haven’t read Peri’s book, but I have read Tom Segev’s 1967, and the generals were clearly calling the shots before, during and after the ’67 war – against PM Eshkol’s better judgement.
Phil,
You use an equation that is only barely different than the offensive “Zionism is racism”, and that is “Zionism is Jewish exceptionalism”, replacing a five+ syllable word with the same meaning and somehow imagining that it is less offensive than the 2+ syllable word.
Accepting Israel as Israel is Zionism. Stating that one regards Israel’s existence as existence, is saying that it has a right to exist.
Its good that you and others reflect that other states came from power struggle, with a victor, and even if they had a victor still have the right to self-define the basis of governance (with internal argument).
You don’t dare flirt with the concept that “Iran does not have the right to exist”, or that “Lebanon doesn’t have the right to exist”, though both originated in conquest of another at some past.
You are contemptuous on what you rely on (power and elitism).
I doubt highly that you would consider renouncing your prestige as a Harvard graduate, as a successful writer. I’m sure that regard that prestige, that elite status as earned in some way (true, and not true). We/they, we’ve all worked hard, individually and collectively.
I wish that you were Shakespearean and as a witness solely, pointing out an irony.
Instead, I see you promoting the far left and the far right, both of whom have no proposal for rational people to consider.
I wish for Zionism to be accepted, and I seek for it to reform.
To oppose Zionism is to oppose self-association. The only valid criticism that I can see of Zionism is to ask it which will come first, the reform or the acceptance.
Do you accept Iran as Iran? Does Israel? Anything inconsistent about this: “To oppose Nazism is to oppose self-association”? How about: “To oppose the Mafia is to oppose self-association”?
Didn’t Madoff do a nice job with his self-association? In the end were we to accept him or force his own reform?
Israel does not accept Palestine as Palestine, so why accept Israel as Zionism? Israel is deteined to become a multicultural state and as Barak admitted recently, it will thus become an apartheid state.
Zionism is racism, and not to oppose it is to support racism.
period
I don’t accept Iran’s right to exist as an Islamic theocracy, but recognize they’re not going to become a secular democracy to please me. If it happens it’ll happen internally. What I recognize is that Iran exists and has whatever rights international law grants to states. Israel and Zionism is the same –only a fanatic insists we have to accept Zionism–it’s enough that we grant Israel the same rights we grant any other state, without going along with their ideological delusions.
Now there’s the product of 2,ooo years of anti-Semitism and persecution! I mean, if those 2000 years have taught us Jews anything, it’s that we can dictate the contexts and thoughts of others. All we have to do is tell them they are wrong by our Jewish lights, and they will change course, pronto!
Of course, an altenate theory would be that the persecution had driven us nuts, and you end up with Witty’s delusions of grandeur trying to hide a sense of moral and political impotence. You know, the kind of Jew who would do the Gentiles the favor of running from the 18th and 19th Century of Zionism, to the 16th and 17th Century. He’ll show them!
Oh, I forgot! I was wondering how such diametrically opposed ideas can co-exist in Witty’s skull, but as usual, I forgot the most salient fact: Witty considers the US and Israel one country. So there’s no reason why anything Israel does will hurt Israel, they have the US to fall back on. And so that’s why Israel can tell everyone how to think about it.
Sorry, I’ll try to bear that in mind.
Hey, Witty is a self-proclaimed “universal humanist.” He’s also a self-proclaimed Zionist. And he doesn’t believe in the attribute of dual loyalty. He contains multitudes. He’s just like Emerson and Thoreau! He believes in self-governance. For some reason he finds consistent, Witty talks of the state of Israel in anthropomorhic language. And I bet he only has one wife. Go figure.
And you know what, Citizen? Why we shouldn’t even be butting in on Witty! After all his comment is addressed to “Phil”.
Gosh, has anybody told Phil that Witty is asking him a question? I’m sure Phil wants to give Witty the full benefit of his attention and studied consideration to all his questions. Like he always does.
But Witty, of course, has to go on pretending that he and Phil are big buddies. Pathetic, Witty is, and tomorrow he will call Phil a fascist.
“And I bet he only has one wife. Go figure”
Wasn’t that the girl he met over a cup of ghee at the ashram where she was employed counting cardoman seeds? Ah, the places you have to go these days to find a nice Jewish girl.
Witty perfectly fits the definition of an addict as an egomaniac with an inferiority complex.
It’s because Israel is a racist colonial settler state that it doesn’t have the right to exist. Current understandings of liberalism require the rejection of these states because they are based on hatred of the native majority population, which is while French Algeria and white South Africa are no more. The same issue doesn’t arise with Lebanon, of course.
Of course many white South Africans said, we’re just doing what the US did to the Indians, and searched through human history for a license for their chauvinisms. It was a good way to recognise them as bigots.
“or for that matter on any other lines than the ‘47 Partition plan, which was approved by the General Assembly? “
Actually no.
It is a generally accepted fallacy that the U.N. General Assembly partitioned Palestine. The real fact is, the only thing that passed the General assembly was a plan for partition which existed for a few months then was rescinded:
“The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine or United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) Future Government of Palestine was a resolution adopted by the General Assembly. It was approved by a vote of 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions on November 29, 1947…..
……the United Nations Security Council reached an impasse on March 5, 1948. The Partition Plan called on the Security Council to use its Chapter VII powers to prevent the parties from using force to alter the boundary settlement. There was no consensus among the members of the Council regarding the use of force to impose the partition.[3] The United States subsequently recommended a temporary UN trusteeship for Palestine “without prejudice to the character of the eventual political settlement”, and the Security Council voted to send the matter back to the General Assembly for further deliberation”
link to en.wikipedia.org
Hans Kelsen, probably the foremost International Jurist of his day, ventured an opinion on the legality of partition:
“The problematic legal nature of the General Assembly’s partition resolution was further expounded by the leading legal theorist of the time, Hans Kelsen. In his comprehensive analysis of the competence of the General Assembly,[16] Kelsen refers to the arguments brought forward in the General Assembly itself that this body, according to the Charter, can only make recommendations. He states, in regard to the partition resolution, that “[t]hese arguments are, from a strictly legal point, correct.”[17] The resolution creating two states in Palestine, for that reason, was not binding upon member states because recommendations, in Kelsen’s words, “by their very nature, do not constitute a legal obligation to behave in conformity with them.”[18] Kelsen clearly states, furthermore, that the General Assembly’s decision was ultra vires: “To decide that the United Nations shall administer a territory for the purpose to establish on it two new states is hardly within the competence of the General Assembly or any other organ of the United Nations.”[19] Similarly, Clyde Eagleton, U.S. expert of United Nations law, stated in no uncertain terms: “It is clear to any student of the Charter that a resolution of the General Assembly, such as that for the partition of Palestine, is no more than a recommendation, and that it can have no legally binding effect upon any state whatsoever.”[20]“
link to i-p-o.org
I think some of this stuff needs to be re-visited if there is to be settlement. I still believe that the legal route has never been properly exploited by the Palestinians.
Interesting, I always wondered where the UN derived the ability to carve up states from.
Arab armies crossed the border on May 15, 1948, after Israel declared its independence. But this declaration came three and a half months before the date specified in the partition resolution. The U.S. had proposed a three-month truce on the condition that Israel postpone its declaration of independence. The Arab states accepted and Israel rejected, in part because it had worked out a secret deal with Jordan’s King Abdullah, whereby his Arab Legion would invade the Palestinian territory assigned to the Palestinian state and not interfere with the Jewish state. (Since Jordan was closely allied to Britain, the scheme also provided a way for London to maintain its position in the region.) The other Arab states invaded as much to thwart Abdullah’s designs as to defeat Israel.
Most of the fighting took place on territory that was to be part of the Palestinian state or the internationalized Jerusalem. Thus, Israel was primarily fighting not for its survival, but to expand its borders at the expense of the Palestinians. For most of the war, the Israelis actually held both a quantitative and qualitative military edge, apart from the fact that the Arab armies were uncoordinated and operating at cross purposes.
Indeed, can anyone doubt that Israel would certainly invade Gaza and the West Bank (if there is such a thing when you are occupying the place), if the Palestinians declared independence?
Israel is already waging war on Gaza – what difference would there be?
Israel “declared its independence”? From who? Britain?
You know, I’ve always heard it that way, too, “declared its independence”. What does that mean in this context? From who were they declaring independence?
“Even a child that was born from a rape has a right to live. ’48 was a rape. But something happened in history. We have to correct and repair a lot of things.”if Israel was produced by rape, in 1948, the product of rape deserves to live, ”
Stuff and nonsense.
A child is an individual human being, and as such he/she has a right to live. To kill a child is to kill an individual. A sentient being is harmed.
A state is not a human being. (Or, indeed, any sort of sentient being.) It is an organization set up by humans for their own convenience. If the organization is disbanded, this is not in any way the same as killing or harming a sentient being. A state has no more “right to live/exist” than a photography club.
The process of disbanding the state may well harm individual sentient beings, but this is an infringment of the rights of the individual beings, not the rights of the state.
“and Israel/Palestine is not yet ready for a single state.”
So the goal should be to make it ready.
Very well said, RoHa.
Israel is going to expel immgrants children born in Israel because they are non Jews, according to the interior minister they threathen the Zionist project because they don’t have Jewish blood link to news.bbc.co.uk
I mean how can rational people judge this?
You want Israel to be full of wogs, boongs, niggers, chinks, and gooks? That would destroy its character as a Jewish State.
What sort of racist anti-Semite bigot are you?
Oh, wait. Sorry! You said *rational* people.
They will judge it as what it is.
Of course, some Palestinians will say that the policy of throwing out immigrants and their children should have started sevetny or eighty years ago.
(Just for the record, I would not agree. I say that if you are born in the place, you have the right to stay there and be a citizen. That is one thing I think the Americans get right.)
But it would be ironic if Israel ceased to be a “Jewish State” , not because the Israelis sought reconciliation with the Palestinians, but because they were overwhelmed with Thai, Philipino, and Chinese immigrants.
Seth Freedman has a good take on this:
link to guardian.co.uk
Reut’s list of delegit events to date:
(Note the use of the name Palin)
link to zionism-israel.com
As Jacqueline Rose said in a recent video interview along with Shlomo Sand and Avi Shlaim, there is something wrong with Sand’s rape metaphor. Yes, the ‘child’ of the rape is there, but Sand does not realize that the ‘rapist’ himself is still around, and the rape is still ongoing. That’s the real problem.
Sometimes self-governing units have to be reigned in–like, er Manson, Dahmer, Madoff… Nazi Germany, Apartheid S Africa, French Algeria? 1776 England? The Confederate States of America? The King forced to sign the Magna Carta? The Crusaders? Knights of Malta? Jesuits? The Mafia? In the end, nobody lasts too long on an island by themselves. OTH, isn’t the state suppose to be a servant of all the people
within its borders? Consider Maslow’s triangle of individual human rights/needs.
Consider Israel as one unit among many in the world. Consider Jews as one ethnic group among many in the world.
“Jews as one ethnic group among many”
Hoo-boy, we used to be a religion, but we got demoted. Oh well.
Its hard to call it a religious appellation when so many self-proclaimed Jews also claim to be atheists. I’m pretty sure that Judaism still requires a belief in G-d.
I’m reminded of the famous SNL skit. Its a dessert topping! No, its a floor wax! Its both!
No, the Jews “demoted” themselves. Israel for example, uses the Nazi blood-line definition of who is a jew for its law of return. Similar thinking, not without reason, is that you are black in the USA if you have 1% black blood. And only a black American is entitled to use the term N#####. True also, Tree: “(Some) Jews also claim to be atheists.” Or agostics, etc. That old shell game. But the state of Israel is pretty clear about who has the right of return, and who needs to be deported, even a child who grew up in Israel but has no grandparent who was/is a Jew by blood line.
Ah, well, I guess it had to happen. About Israel replacing God. God is an elusive guy, who never seems to be around when you need Him these days.
Israel, well, that’s not going anyplace, it’s real, and a real estate.
Ah yes, my feller Jewsies, the heck with God and full speed ahead with Israel!