Two weeks back we reported on a debate on Jewish Perspectives on Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions at a Brooklyn church (videos here). Adam Horowitz moderated, and Kathleen Peratis, a lawyer and member of the J Street board, argued against boycott. David Samel, who is also a lawyer, attended the event. He later sent Peratis a letter. She responded. Samel and Peratis have allowed us to publish their correspondence:
Dear Kathleen Peratis:
I attended the BDS debate in Park Slope Thursday night and found it quite fascinating. I hope you do not mind my burdening you with this rather lengthy response. I'm an appellate lawyer for whom "brief" is a one-word oxymoron.
You and Gil Kulick were very articulate in your presentation and conveyed the sincerity of your hope for a resolution that, if not perfectly fair, could be agreeable to all sides. However, I disagreed strongly with the content of your positions, and would like to respond on three particular issues: the viability of a truly Jewish and democratic state; the events of 1948; and the question of apartheid.
There was much discussion on whether there can be a democratic and Jewish State. You see no contradiction in the terms Jewish and democratic, and think that such state can provide equal rights to all. Israel is now in its 63rd year, and as you are well aware (and expressed vehement opposition to), discrimination against Palestinian citizens is only getting worse. We’re not talking about private discrimination of the type that continues to exist in the US, but government-sponsored discrimination that would never survive scrutiny under our constitutional equal protection guarantees. In education, Arab and Jewish children are mostly in separate schools, with Jewish schools receiving several times the funding per student as Arab schools. In social relations, Jews and Palestinians may not marry each other in Israel, and have to travel abroad to do so. In housing, Jews can live virtually anywhere, while Palestinians are severely restricted. The list goes on and on.
Surely these discriminatory policies can be ameliorated, but can there ever be true equality between Jews and non-Jews in a Jewish State? I think that is not even possible theoretically. The policy of giving you and me the right to “return” to the land from which our ancestors supposedly were expelled millennia ago, while denying that right to the ethnically-challenged Palestinians whose roots “only” go back hundreds of years, is inherently discriminatory. Even more importantly, the more egregious forms of discrimination against Palestinian citizens appear destined to continue, and perhaps worsen, into the far foreseeable future. How long should they have to wait for improvement, especially when full equality is beyond their reach?
You and Gil seemed to cherish the 1948 declaration of Ben-Gurion founding the state, with its rosy promise to guarantee equal rights to all. Whether you accept his sincerity or not, and I do not, his guarantee is absolutely meaningless, just like the Soviet Constitution guarantee of free and fair elections.
Of course, for the following 18 years, Ben-Gurion’s promise did not even include the right to vote for Palestinians. Since 1966, the words of 1948 have continued to be empty and meaningless, a promise that will never be fulfilled.
That leads me to 1948. You claimed that the UN partition resolution of 1948 created the state of Israel and signified international recognition of a Jewish State. First of all, the resolution dated from 1947, and the mistake is not as trivial as it may first appear. The resolution did not create the state. It was a non-binding General Assembly proposal for partition that passed. The state was created when Ben-Gurion made his declaration of independence, and a sufficient number of countries, principally both the US and USSR, recognized Israel’s independence. But even worse, your invocation of the UN is disingenuous. I cannot think of a single UN action since then that Israel has respected. One year after the partition resolution, the UNGA passed Resolution 194, calling for the return of Palestinian refugees, and Israel has adamantly rejected that ever since. Even the partition resolution did not have unequivocal Jewish support. Many Jews rejected partition itself, and those like Ben-Gurion who accepted it did not accept the borders drawn or the prohibition against driving people from their homes. The UN Mediator Bernadotte, a hero of the Holocaust, was assassinated by the Jewish side in 1948. It would be hypocritical in the extreme to demand respect for a single 1947 UN resolution - and only the one aspect of that one resolution that proposed the Jewish State - while ignoring Israel’s flagrant disregard and even contempt for the UN ever since.
While it was not discussed much at the debate, the origin of the refugee issue is highly relevant. To establish the type of Jewish State with a Jewish super-majority, dispossessing large numbers of Arab inhabitants was necessarily part of the plan. We all agree that if all of the Palestinian descendants were allowed to return today, Israel would be demographically overwhelmed and unable to continue as a Jewish State. Israel’s founders were well aware of demographics, and knew that if they did not expel hundreds of thousands, their state would have a rather short expiration date. Even Benny Morris, the leftist-turned-rightist historian, concedes that there were at least 24 massacres by armed Jewish forces of Palestinian civilians in an effort to incite flight. (He thinks Ben-Gurion should have completed the ethnic cleansing process.)
Finally, you were indignant in denouncing the comparison of Israel to apartheid. As your co-panelist Gil conceded, the situation in the occupied territories already resembles apartheid in South Africa. It is the OPT situation of complete separation and grossly unequal access to resources that has most often been compared to apartheid. Specifically, that is what Jimmy Carter had in mind when his famous book title drew such scorn. But what of Israel itself? You claim that it is not nearly as bad as SA apartheid, and that is arguably true, but as Hannah Mermelstein [arguing the pro-BDS side] pointed out, it still may fit the international law definition of apartheid that is not restricted to conditions as they existed in South Africa. And you expressed revulsion over the continuing intolerable discrimination within Israel, but say it falls well short of apartheid. What would you call it? Apartheid-lite? When the African National Congress demanded an end to apartheid, they insisted on equality, not simply diminished discrimination.
I think the main difference between you and me, Kathleen, is that you see 1948 as a glorious achievement that has been undermined by post-1967 misjudgments. I see 1967 as a continuation of the faulty principles that have plagued the Zionist movement since the beginning. It was always about building a national fantasy at the expense of the natives, who simply don’t count as much. It was always envisioned that Palestinians would be severely compromised to pave the way for the Jewish State, and they cannot be faulted for refusing to accept their expulsion, domination and subjugation. (I do not excuse in the slightest their attacks on Israeli civilians, but that does not “delegitimize” their grievance.)
Relatedly, all of this talk about Jewish self-determination and Jewish sovereignty is ill-conceived. As American Jews, a tiny minority of the population, do we lack self-determination and sovereignty? Perhaps you fear the risk of a worldwide tidal wave of anti-Semitism. Personally, I think that Jews are among the most protected human beings on Earth, despite (or maybe as a result of) our unfortunate history. But do you think that the hypothetical and speculative danger to Jews should take precedence over the genuine misery that Israel has inflicted, and continues to inflict, on Palestinians? I also think that much of the anti-Semitism that exists in the world is generated by the arrogance of Israel in callously, even gleefully at times, forcing that misery upon a defenseless population.
It is not easy to say one day that something you always believed in - a Jewish State that can truly be a model for humanity - actually was a bad idea from the start, and has no future in a world that rejects as immoral any inequality based upon birth characteristics. Today, it is not possible to reverse the decades of death and dispossession and discrimination. But there is a way forward. Enter the 21st century and decide that the principle forbidding ethno-religious discrimination trumps the necessity for a Jewish State. It might be difficult, but certainly not impossible, to transform Israel and the territories into one state that treats all citizens equally, with guarantees of security and religious freedom for all. On the other hand, there is no long-term future for a Jewish State that offers more privileges, rights, and status to some (even a majority) of its citizens. That is a recipe for perpetual seething discontent.
Despite our differences, I do want to thank you for your participation in the debate. I found all four of the panelists to be very eloquent, respectful and honest, and I’m very glad I attended.
Cordially, David Samel
Dear David,
I am afraid we have little common ground other than our mutual desire to have a respectful exchange with each other.
Our fundamental and unbridgeable gap is your assumption that the continued existence of Israel is actually on the table for discussion. It is not. Israel is a legitimate member of the community of nations--not the best of them but far from the worst--and you and others who actually think this is a productive subject for discussion are at best wasting your time and at worst serious obstacles to peace. You seem to suggest that if the original raison d'etre for Israel was a post-Shoah safe haven for Jews, then that reason no longer applies and so Israel should say, "Okay, if that is how you feel, we will fold up and go away." Even the Arab world accepts Israel (see Arab Peace Initiative link to www.al-bab.com) so to what end are you beating this dead delegitimizing horse? By the way, national liberation movements have led to bloody expulsions and even genocide over the last 100 years but I am not aware of any serious calls to undo the creation of the resulting states. Are you?
I see what may be a clue to the answer to this question in your saying, "It is not easy to say one day that something you always believed in -- a Jewish state that can truly be a model for humanity--actually was a bad idea from the start..." If by this you are assuming it is something I always believed in, you are wrong. I did not grow up with Zionism or even Judaism. I came to both only twenty years ago--recently enough so that I knew what I was getting into. But I suspect that what you actually mean is that you always believed in a Jewish state that could be a model of humanity, and instead you are facing the curdling of your dreams. If so, and if that accounts for the intensity of your bitterness, then I actually understand.
You use a very colorful and not wholly inapt phrase "building a national fantasy at the expense of the native who simply don't count as much." As I read that phrase, I though of America, and counting a slaves as "worth" 3/5 of a white person for apportionment purposes, enshrined in our very constitution, which took a civil war and 150 more years of racial struggle to undo. The discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel is beyond appalling. I could tell you stories that I have heard first hand from a number of Palestinian Israeli friends and also Palestinian American friends that shame me. But, unlike you, these outrages do not make me want to (as I said at the debate, a la Food Channel cooking contests)) "put it down and walk away" or make the useless demand that Israel cease its existence. Instead it motivates me to redouble my support for the thousands of Israelis (Jewish and Palestinian) who feel exactly the way I do and, I gather, the way you did before you gave up, who want to end the discrimination against Palestinians, against immigrant workers, against women, against the non Orthodox; who want to abolish state-sponsored religious courts, who want to enforce Supreme Court rulings against housing discrimination, who want to close the income gaps. Will they ever achieve perfect equality and justice for all of the citizens of Israel? I assume not (no surprise there). Is Israel's Jewish state self-definition the principle problem to doing so? Hardly. I favor making Israeli democracy really good before we worry about making it perfect.
And that brings me to the subject that brought us here-- the Global BDS Movement--which was the subject of the debate last week that you attended. As you know, I regard this movement as a distraction from doing the things that might actually help the American Jewish community drop its blinders and defensiveness and start looking seriously at those painful compromises that are necessary for peace. Neither B, D nor S has any chance to have any economic impact, as Hannah Mermelstein, one of its most prominent spokespeople, admits. It is meant to be an education and organizing tool. As such, it is my observation that it is giving both sides an opportunity they are enthusiastically grasping-- to go right back to their comfort zones, one side delegitimizing Israel and the other side decrying the delegitimization of Israel. Both side are experts at doing what they are doing but that does not advance the cause of peace one millimeter. The hard issues are how to move the Jewish community toward what we correctly call the "painful compromises" and the BDS boogeyman is a great big distraction.
Shavua tov,
Kathleen
I found David’s letter to be thoroughly comprehensive as it shows a clear and basic understanding of the hurdles ahead and the current obstacles that play a significant role in perpetuating discrimination and rights’ abuses.
Kathleen’s letter was fragmented. There is no linear train of thought that ties all the fragments together, other than an underlying wishful thinking that a Jewish and Democratic state will somehow work itself out. She basically ignores reality and further admits:
Only to be followed by:
I’m not sure what’s more gag-inducing, the fact that Kathleen ignores the basic discriminatory foundations of the state — which will never change — or the fact that she, a non-Israeli, American Jew, sits in an ivory tower in the United States as she seeks to seal the natives’ fate for them while taking advantage of the privileges bestowed upon her merely by virtue of her religion.
The fact that she used the word ‘delegitimization’ made me want to puke.
This word should never have been invented.
I agree Avi,
In fact, I found Kathleen’s response to be dishonest. David did not question Israel’s right to exist or legitimacy, but it’s viability.
She then goes on to apply the grossly dishonest argument that all states have a history of human rights abuses, ignoring that WWII was fought precisely to put an end to such practices.
Like so many “liberal Zionists”, she makes vague platitudes about “doing the things that might actually help the American Jewish community drop its blinders and defensiveness and start looking seriously at those painful compromises that are necessary for peace” but refuses to knowledge that this has been an utter failure. Indeed, she avoids altogether addressing David’s argument about the laws bring written into Israeli society that increase the racist divide.
The BDS is a distraction argument is also dishonest. The reason she opposes it is because BDS risks drawing more people into the debate and she would rather the debate be limited to the current parties.
A wonderful letter, David. It really is too bad that Ms. Peratis chose not to address any of the points you raised, resorting instead to the standard clichés of The Debate:
1. Israel already exists as a Jewish state; deal with it (if not, you are a “delegitimizer”)
2. Other states are worse.
3. The enemy of the good is the perfect.
Beyond recognising the fact that Israeli democracy is “flawed” (of late, the most popular hasbara tactic by far), and expressing some vague desire to make it better (while conceding that it will never be “perfect” – a lot of leeway there), I see no difference between this J-Street board member and the Israeli foreign ministry or AIPAC. I have yet to hear a serious critique of BDS from someone who truly shares its concern for Palestinian rights (as eloquently explained by David Samel). Ms. Peratis obviously opposes BDS because she rejects its premises of equality and justice.
shmuel Beyond recognising the fact that Israeli democracy is “flawed” (of late, the most popular hasbara tactic by far), and expressing some vague desire to make it better
note ‘making it better’ ie ending the discrimination (cough, like letting people marry who they want and living where they want and educating kids together) is likely to lead the the same demographic result eventually, (as one state) anyway, it is just pushing the problem down the road. how are you going to bring about equal rights and equal justice and guarantee a majority jewish state? the only way to ensure a jewish majority is thru discrimination and unequal rights including the fundamental right of being able marry someone 5 miles away and having them be able to live with you which jewish israelis can do and palestinian israelis cannot.
Annie,
That is why “apartheid-lite” is not an option. It will inevitably turn into the hyper-caloric real thing.
Semel writes: “The policy of giving you and me the right to “return” to the land from which our ancestors supposedly were expelled millennia ago, while denying that right to the ethnically-challenged Palestinians whose roots “only” go back hundreds of years, is inherently discriminatory.”
This is a little cockeyed, apples and oranges. Eighty-five % of the Palestinians were expelled 63 years ago (as compared with millenia for less-than-all of the Jews) and the expulsive activity is still on-going, not a done-deal.
If that matters.
pabelmont, funny i had the opposite reaction. most palestinians have roots that go back a lot longer than ‘hundreds’ of years.
1400 years, to be precise, to borrow a very cloying phrase: ‘From Time Immemorial’, i.e. circa 630 AD.
Kudos to Mr. Samel for his well-written letter. It’s a shame that the best Ms. Peratis could muster in response was several paragraphs of RW-style “humanist” blather.
whether she realizes it she launches in w/a strawman right off the bat.
Our fundamental and unbridgeable gap is your assumption that the continued existence of Israel is actually on the table for discussion.
david didn’t suggest ending israel’s existence, even once. he talked about transformation, she talked about transformation. he talked about refugees, she won’t. this habit, or crutch (because that is what it is) of israel’s advocacy and initially transforming there opponents position to ‘end israel’s existence’ is really getting old.
the fundamental and unbridgeable gap is the refugees. nobody but you said anything about folding up and going away kathleen, maybe you could address the proposition head on instead of using this ‘you seem to suggest crutch.’ when someone writes you a letter try addressing what it actually says and not what it ‘suggests’ to you.
that should read ‘their opponents’ and ‘you seem to suggest’ crutch. as in
You seem to suggest that if the original raison d’etre for Israel was a post-Shoah safe haven for Jews, then that reason no longer applies and so Israel should say, “Okay, if that is how you feel, we will fold up and go away.”
here’s more strawmanning on this ‘suggestion’ w/ same theme:
undo the creation of the state? and where did david suggest we go backward? here she goes again:
arguing her own strawman rather than david’s points.
argh, the second paragraph w/the “Okay, if that is how you feel, we will fold up and go away.” should have been blockquoted, it is kathleen’s text. which brings me to a pet peeve of mine, putting quotes around original text as if you are repeating someone when the phrase is of your own origin. tsk tsk kathleen.
Three cheers for David Samel!
Question: during the course of the debate in question, did any of the panelists address whether or not the US should continue its $3bn+ a year in military aid to Israel, and its unconditional diplomatic support?
In most instances of “the debate” this issue is usually (and weirdly) absent, tho’ it is the one thing that Americans are most directly responsible for. The other issues raised in this exchange– rights of return, the morality of Zionism, the “delegitimation” of Israel–are interesting and important but isn’t the big issue for Americans our own robust, very active and quite destructive role in all this? Why isn’t this at center stage?
Last time I checked, J Street wholeheartedly supports US military aid to Israel, diplomatic support as well, making their bottom line no different from AIPAC’s. Why any liberal (or for that matter conservative or moderate) would J Street even a nickel is beyond me.
‘You expressed revulsion over the continuing intolerable discrimination within Israel, but say it falls well short of apartheid. What would you call it? Apartheid-lite? When the African National Congress demanded an end to apartheid, they insisted on equality, not simply diminished discrimination.’ — David Samel
Semantics aside, look at the ‘facts on the ground’ — separate schools for Israeli Jews and Palestinians, separate housing, inequality under the law in many respects (marriage, immigration, etc.). The limited number of towns where Israeli Palestinians are actually permitted to live is practically a carbon copy of South Africa’s Group Areas Act, which restricted coloureds, Asians and blacks to their own designated townships.
In some respects, Israel’s legalized discrimination may be less harsh than South Africa’s was. But in other respects — such as the subsidized Jews-only settlements in the occupied territories — it’s arguably worse. South Africa never attempted to colonize its bantustans with gun-wielding Broederbond white supremacists. By adding insult to injury with its settlements, Israel comes off as even more flagrantly racist than apartheid South Africa was. The underlying mentality is the same:
link to en.wikipedia.org
Lebensraum for the Jewish volk! Has a nice ring to it, don’t it?
as has already been pointed out, ms. peratis fails to rebut any of the salient points raised by dsamel in his letter. i have not yet watched the debate, however contrary to dsamel’s closing remark in his letter (” I found all four of the panelists to be very eloquent, respectful and honest.”), the response of ms. peratis is fairly typical of j-street types, heavy on mythology and disingenuousness, and not very eloquent, respectful nor honest.
Kathleen Peratis has introduced an idea new to me, namely, that BDS is bad because it may induce American Jews to circle the wagons / become more resistant to a just and lasting peace than they would otherwise be (and not, as I had supposed the argument went, because it had that effect on Israeli Jews).
However, I suspect that she is wrong, and on two counts.
First, it is not American Jews who stand in America’s way toward a “just and lasting peace” a la UN-242, along the pre-1967 lines, with equitable sharing of water. It is the “big-money boys” (as I call them), THE LOBBY (of whomever composed) which ties the president’s and Congress’s hands, and those boys were not just on the point of relenting when BDS changed their minds. Far from it.
Second, BDS is part of the broad flow of current events (including the Gaza horror 2006- and the Mavi Marmara and current Israeli threats of war against the quite unthreatening Hezbollah and against the possibly someday to be threatening Iran) which — taken together — are educating American Jews as never before. The young Jews are “getting it”.
Kathleen applies a double standard as to new states based on genocide, etc. Most new states had boundaries. Israel has none (or few, and none with the displaced Palestinians). The armistice lines of 1948 require negotiation. Israel could get smaller without violating any legal presumption.
So if Israel really wants to remain Jewish and to exclude all or most Palestinians from the land of Israel (Palestinians-rein), it is not far fetched to ask: why not propose a smaller Israel, one small enough that a “right of return” for Palestinians would not threaten it or would not even be proposed for it? A state the size of NYC or 2 or 3 times as large? Would such a small state satisfy Israel/Zionist aspirations for a “Jewish State”? Yes! (And give the lie to Zionist claims or suggestions that Israel “needs” the greater space. Such an Israel should have a port and access to the Wailing Wall. The Palestinians should have the rest. Water should be shared 1/2 and 1/2.
Israel was not formed in some bloody Tutsi/Hutu fight between pre-existing larger population groups. It was formed upon humanitarian generosity following pogroms and holocaust. Jews had needs, but they far exceeded what those needs excused taking. That is the basis for territorial amends, not a desire to destroy Israel. (Israel’s well demonstrated determination to destroy the Palestinians is another matter, which provides the ebnergy for my suggestion).
excellent letter david!!! massive kudos to you. she dodged you. the ‘ol “wasting your time” routine. the ‘ol routine of ascribing emotion to your opponent w/ “intensity of your bitterness”, the blatant strawmaning i mentioned upthread. it’s too bad.
i don’t know if she can hear herself, i don’t know if this form of argument is so ingrained she cannot divorce herself from these crutches but they are glaring. huge red flags that create gaping holes which weaken her argument that lacks a strong foundation. very unfortunate because i would like to hear her tackle your points instead of merely deflecting them and arguing her own ‘suggestions’ of what you said.
thank you.
Rome…the eternal and undivided capital of the Etruscans!
Are you liberals denying our historical connection to Rome? Sure, the Italians have been there for a while…but we were there first. And we are coming back, like it or not.
link to wsu.edu
“Like the surrounding peoples, the Etruscans were largely an agrarian people, but they also had a strong military, and used that military to dominate all the surrounding peoples. These dominated populations were forced to do the agricultural labor on the Etruscan farms, so the Etruscans had time to devote to commerce and industry. In the seventh and sixth centuries, the Etruscan military had subjugated much of Italy, including Rome, and regions outside of Italy, such as the island of Corsica. ”
(Sorry, sometimes I can’t help myself…to quote the great Bugs Bunny)
that farm just north of Rome, in Barrea Aquila? The one with the iron gate that my mother used to swing on when she was 9 years old? THAT’s MINE!
And leave the drapes, we’ll make do ’til we redecorate.
Was that farm your mum’s family’s, PG? Damn fine farm. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but your proof of Etruscan ancestry is somewhat lacking. I’m sure you’ll be happy to know that a dozen young Etruscan families from Hoboken have “returned” to it, and should begin exporting their organic carrots any day now. Available at fine greengrocers in your area.
Ha ! Don, Don, you’re forgetting that God did not include the Etruscans in his real estate pact with planet Earth. No luck…
Virgil reports that Jupiter promised the Romans empire without boundaries or limits (His ego nec metas rerum nec tempora pono;/ Imperium sine fine dedi, Aeneid I 278-79).
Who knows what the Etruscans thought their gods had promised them?
…My God is bigger than your gods…
>> Rome…the eternal and undivided capital of the Etruscans!
Remember to apply “enough Etruscanism” when creating this Promised (Etruscan) Land, in which democracy will apply equally to everyone, only more so to “generation to generation” fear-scarred Etruscans, who remain a dot of spicy, olive-oil green self-determination in a sea of otherwise insipid humanity.
If anyone complains, call it “justice”. The “humanists” will understand. :-)
Eljay, I cannot tell you how encouraging it is to know there is at least one person who understands that all we fear-scarred Etruscans want is to be like everyone else. If the so-called “Italians” would learn to love their own children more than they hate us, we could indeed become “a dot of spicy, olive-oil green self-determination in a sea of otherwise insipid humanity.”
Say, you don’t mind if we adopt that expression as our Etruscanism motto, do you?
>> Say, you don’t mind if we adopt that expression as our Etruscanism motto, do you?
Certamente! :-)
Dan,
Do you realize that the Fakes-tilians and all their kin plan on driving the Etruscans into the vineyards?
Listen, this little “dot” is our insurance policy, in case the world goes crazy over olive oil again. It is a ‘Start-Up’ dot, and if you criticize our dot, you are an anti-Oleaceae, self-hating Etruscan.
Kathleen is clear and persuasive in my opinion. If you have an autistic child, the way to deal with him is not to kill him or tell it to stop being autistic. You help it adopt to its environment while understanding the child’s inherent limitations. Changing Israel requires love, not hate.
You again?
It’s been a few months since you spammed the website with your nonsense.
Yeah, Israel requires love, so much love in fact that it should be showered with $3 billion in aid every three months, and an F-35 package of advanced aircraft.
Last I checked, autistic children don’t go about killing and maiming others by the thousands.
You know you’re sick when you use autistic children in an analogy to guilt people into supporting your apartheid dream. Pathetic.
Have you ever asked yourself why you are having problems convincing most Israelis, let alone your own politicians? Are most Israelis immoral, are Obama and Clinton bad individuals? You see, the problem is that you dismiss what we are saying in the same way you would dismiss what an autistic person would say: “What, why are you afraid of people, stop being irrational.”
Yes the analogy is not perfect. The Israeli public has been abused and does not trust Arab society for sound historical reasons. As an Israeli I understand that. Rarely are societies in a state of war benevolent. What you are asking Israel to do is against human nature and against common sense. In fact, you have miserably failed in changing your own society.
fascinating, eee, so your diagnosis is that israel is a child suffering from a developmental disorder that prevents it from reaching emotional and intellectual maturity? please elaborate. and perhaps you could explain what your particular expertise is in such matters. we wouldn’t want to be operating with some quack diagnosis while trying to treat the patient.
Marc,
I am trying to explain to you why you are having problems understanding others and why the majority of Israelis disagree with you, as well as most US Jews. Just as you cannot tell an autistic person to stop being autistic and trust people, you cannot tell Israelis to stop wanting a Jewish state. For us, that is like asking to abolish Israel. That is what Kathleen is trying to say, but you are not listening. Could there be an irrational aspect in our wanting a Jewish state? Even Jerome Slater understands that this want in itself is not irrational.
You get a “B-” for effort, but an “F” for grasp on reality and logic. It’s not even worth it to respond in more detail to your post.
PLEASE do NOT insult AUTISTIC children!!!
>> If you have an autistic child, the way to deal with him is not to kill him or tell it to stop being autistic. You help it adopt to its environment while understanding the child’s inherent limitations.
Israel is not “an autistic child”, it is a sociopath that has stolen and killed and which continues to steal and kill, wilfully and maliciously. Israel’s criminal behaviour must be halted, and those responsible for its actions must be tried and, if found guilty, punished.
Anthing else is a reward for bad behaviour, something only “humanists” favour.
Very well, start with your own Congress. Or the Jews in the US. After all, you are the super power.
In my opinion, your standards are wrong. If Israel is a sociopath, then so are most countries in the world, and obviously most countries are not sociopaths. Is the US a sociopath country based on Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan or the fact that African Americans score 100 points less on average on SAT than whites? I don’t think so. But we can disagree on this. If you label most countries as sociopath, then yes Israel is in that company. But perhaps you should reconsider your standards.
>> Very well, start with your own Congress. Or the Jews in the US. After all, you are the super power.
I’m not American.
>> In my opinion, your standards are wrong. If Israel is a sociopath, then so are most countries in the world …
Not sure about “most”, but many undoubtedly are.
>> Is the US a sociopath country based on Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan …
Yup, absolutely.
Do you think many Americans believe that their country is a sociopath? And do those that do not believe that, are they irrational?
>> Do you think many Americans believe that their country is a sociopath? And do those that do not believe that, are they irrational?
It’s irrelevant whether or not “many Americans believe that their country is a sociopath”, just like its irrelevant whether or not a sociopath believes he is a sociopath. Not believing you’re wrong doesn’t make you right.
When laws are broken – whether by nations or by individuals – justice demands that the laws be upheld and that the lawbreakers be made accountable for their actions.
‘eee’
Are those the eeeeeeeeh that the Crimson King blared towards the end of King’s Dark Tower series? [I really wish I could take back the memory and time invested in actually reading that series]
Because I assure you, the joke’s on you in the end, not us. One common theme between you apologists: you keep going back to the same point over and over again. Consider:
* If Israel made mistakes, the US mistakes were bigerer-erer.
* Why should we change? We give these pests more than they could have dreamed of in Saudi friggin’ Arabia.
* We didn’t steal the place, we used a time-machine to jump from ‘Time Immemorial’ to 1948. We just landed here.
etc etc etc.
By the time every last Israeli is convinced of the horrible crimes that their country has, i.e they have, committed, it will be too late for any sort of peace, except the kind where the decimated ones are on reservations with costumes and rituals exotic and alien to the inhabitants of the country.
Oh, and one big mushroom cloud after another surrounding the place.
That is not my argument. My argument is that standards for state actions are set by common sense and examples. Your standards are just very different from most people’s.
Certainly the Israelis born here did not steal the place and should not be expected to solve the problems of 48 at their expense.
“Certainly the Israelis born here did not steal the place and should not be expected to solve the problems of 48 at their expense.”
I don’t know that it has to be a zero sum solution, but Israelis have benefited from the theft and also get billions in aid from the US, so they should expect to pay something in compensation to the Palestinians.
On the sociopath question–I’m American and yes, the US behaves in a sociopathic way and we’re never going to stop unless enough of us come to realize this. The same is true of Israel.
The Palestinians have gotten plenty of aid too. By the way, when have you paid African American compensation for centuries of slavery?
If you can’t convince your own compatriots, why are you so critical of Israelis??? Why aren’t you asking for BDS against the US also?
Thanks for the many kind comments. I hope to find the time later today to briefly reply to some of Kathleen Peratis’s points, but for now, I would offer a few points in defense of her.
1) After the debate, I remarked to her opponents, Rebecca Vilkomerson and Hannah Mermelstein, that Kathleen had done a good job with the cards she was dealt, but she had no hand. She did not resort to outright lies as many others do, and her personal aversion to racism seemed quite genuine. While Rebecca and Hannah were both terrific, Kathleen, more than Gil, held her own as a debater. (I was a bit rosy in my compliments to all four.)
2) My impression of the arguments she mustered at the debate and in her response to me is not that she did a poor job. It’s just that good arguments on her side do not exist. I heard Ali Abunimah speak about a year ago, and he said something to the effect that pro-Israel arguments cannot be made without either dishonesty or illogic (he was more eloquent, but I forget his words). As a lawyer, I have been constructing arguments for my clients for decades, regardless of my personal feelings, and I do not think I could have done a better job in her position. If she had responded to my arguments more directly, what could she have said?
3) Kathleen has been rather gracious in our correspondence. I wrote to her out of the blue, and she sent back a cordial response, then agreed to elaborate on that response for publication on this site, which is somewhat of a lion’s den for her. If this exchange were published on another site, no doubt she’d be getting the kudos. She may go a tad overboard on me (annie points out “intensity of your bitterness”) but generally was at least as respectful of me as I was of her.
4) Finally, I briefly researched Kathleen on-line, and she seems to have had an impressively progressive career, mostly in women’s rights. She may be PEP, but the first P is for real.
That being said, I found nothing in her response that was remotely convincing, and I hope to elaborate later.
Surprise, surprise, the echo chamber prefers their own and has no ability to see the other side of the argument.
David makes all of the old arguments that don’t matter.
1. “One year after the partition resolution, the UNGA passed Resolution 194, calling for the return of Palestinian refugees”
Assuming that they would come back and live in peace, which there was no evidence to support at the time, and today, that non-binding resolution has been superceded by UNSC 242, which calls for a negotiated solution, and is binding.
“Even the partition resolution did not have unequivocal Jewish support. Many Jews rejected partition itself, and those like Ben-Gurion who accepted it did not accept the borders drawn or the prohibition against driving people from their homes. ”
And the Arabs certainly didn’t accept it, or anything short of another Muslim state, and then tried to wipe the Jewish state off the map. Regardless of how Jews felt about partition back then (I recall hearing something about massive celebrations all over the world, but that’s me, not the people who are most comfortable with Jews in ghettos), today most Jews support a Jewish state and the two-state solution.
“Israel’s founders were well aware of demographics, and knew that if they did not expel hundreds of thousands, their state would have a rather short expiration date. ”
Next, I will call for the de-partitioning of India and Pakistan, acts which required the expulsion of tens of millions, has caused war after war, and is responsible for the occasional nuclear standoff.
Also, I worked hard to oppose the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from the Arab state of Kuwait in the early 1990s.
“As American Jews, a tiny minority of the population, do we lack self-determination and sovereignty? ”
Does this matter in the slightest? Is Israel about the two generations of relative tranquility we have had in the West or the hundred generations of tumult, massacre, and upheaval we had before that?
“When the African National Congress demanded an end to apartheid, they insisted on equality, not simply diminished discrimination.”
The ANC represented 80 percent of the population. They did not talk about taking over white people’s houses. And the Afrikaners had no reasonable basis to claim a history or a nativity in South Africa. Jews are not interlopers in Israel. They are the natives, and their history in long.
“Even Benny Morris, the leftist-turned-rightist historian, concedes that there were at least 24 massacres by armed Jewish forces of Palestinian civilians in an effort to incite flight. ”
He also found several by Palestinians of Jews that were meant to accomplish the same thing, and many besides him are familiar with the bloodthirsty statements of Arab leaders at the time, one of whom formed an alliance with Hitler in part for the purpose of mass-murdering the Jews.
“Personally, I think that Jews are among the most protected human beings on Earth, despite (or maybe as a result of) our unfortunate history. ”
What would that be based on? A few laws against antisemitism? And do any of you understand that history stretches back further than yesterday?
” I also think that much of the anti-Semitism that exists in the world is generated by the arrogance of Israel in callously, even gleefully at times, forcing that misery upon a defenseless population”
Which is why antisemitism is still much lower today than the 1960s.
{{Sung to the tune of Love Story}}
Where do I begin, to address the lies and all spin?
To tell it really like it is, before you blow another fuse.
Where do I start?
@Avi:
“Where do I begin, to address the lies and all spin?
To tell it really like it is, before you blow another fuse.
Where do I start? ”
I’m not blowing any fuses. I’m just telling it like it is.
Don’t bother starting. You’re predictable enough.
>> >> 1. “One year after the partition resolution, the UNGA passed Resolution 194, calling for the return of Palestinian refugees”
>> Assuming that they would come back and live in peace, which there was no evidence to support at the time,
There is no onus on anyone expelled from their house & home by acts of deliberate terror that they somehow prove “good intent” in order to return. They have an unconditional right to return. Period. Besides, leaving aside the very tenuous claim of “Jewish return” — must Jews also prove peaceful intent? For if so, proof is in pudding they’ve failed. Should a ban on Jewish emmigration thus follow, by your logic? Or do Jews have rights superior to those of non-Jews? If so, doesn’t that make you a rather despicable racist?
>> And the Arabs certainly didn’t accept [partition], or anything short of another Muslim state, and then tried to wipe the Jewish state off the map.
Just as Israel has now wiped Palestine off the map. What’s good for the goose?
>> And the Afrikaners had no reasonable basis to claim a history or a nativity in South Africa. Jews are not interlopers in Israel. They are the natives, and their history in long.
This is just plain bunk. The Dutch settlers arrived in the Cape before anyone but the Bushmen. The Xhosa and Zulus (where almost all of the ANC support comes from) came down from north at a later date. Everyone is an immigrant at some point. And the idea that present day Jews have ancestors that lived in what is now Israel is an unsubstantiated myth.
>> Jews are not interlopers in Israel. They are the natives, and their history in long.
Jews who immigrated or who now immigrate to Palestine/Israel from other countries are not “natives” to Palestine/Israel, they are immigrants to that region/country. To suggest otherwise is both dishonest and foolish.
“There is no onus on anyone expelled from their house & home by acts of deliberate terror that they somehow prove “good intent” in order to return. They have an unconditional right to return. ”
They don’t. Read the resolution. You’re quoting it. The resolution says: “Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours…” Why would a country let back people they just had a war with and whose leaders made no secret about the fact they wanted to destroy the country?
“Besides, leaving aside the very tenuous claim of “Jewish return” — must Jews also prove peaceful intent? ”
Resolution 194 was not intended to address the Jewish refugee problem, except insofar as it applied to the areas from which Jews were expelled during the 1948 War.
“Should a ban on Jewish emmigration thus follow, by your logic? Or do Jews have rights superior to those of non-Jews? If so, doesn’t that make you a rather despicable racist?”
No, because it has nothing to do with this resolution, and Jews emigrating to Israel are not refugees. Palestinians would have a right of return in the event a two-state solution was signed – to the Palestinian state.
“Just as Israel has now wiped Palestine off the map. What’s good for the goose?”
There was no Palestine to wipe off in 1948. Sorry. That’s the way it is. Once the Palestinians negotiate a state, they will have a state. If Israel wipes that out, you can say that Israel wiped out Palestine. It’s good that you acknowledge that there are two sides here, and that had Israel not won the Independence War, Israel would have been wiped off the map.
Or perhaps you believe it would have been just for that to happen, which would make you a . . . well, let’s not go there.
“The Dutch settlers arrived in the Cape before anyone but the Bushmen. The Xhosa and Zulus (where almost all of the ANC support comes from) came down from north at a later date.”
South Africa is way bigger than the Cape, though the Cape is the only province in South Africa governed by the DA, and the Dutch settlers had no historical reason to be there.
>> The resolution says: “Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours…” Why would a country let back people they just had a war with and whose leaders made no secret about the fact they wanted to destroy the country?
The resolution is universally interpreted to mean that, after hostilities has ceased, you are allowed to return back to your home. The qualifier you cite means that you are not allowed to return by force of arms and re-ignite hostilities. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Palestinians refugees have formed an army in Jordan or elsewhere an are now conspiring to “take back” the cleansed villages. None. Short of this sort of evidence, the law compels you to allow the refugees back home.
>> No, because it has nothing to do with this resolution, and Jews emigrating to Israel are not refugees.
Then what are they? [Contest for the most imaginative answer here -- all entries accepted.]
>> “There was no Palestine to wipe off in 1948.
Yep, dat sez it all, don’t it?
>> the Dutch settlers had no historical reason to be there.
Just as the Russians have no reason to be in Palestine.
And do any of you understand that history stretches back further than yesterday?
some of us understand how many and how long were the periods in which Jews lived peacefully and prosperously in many, many diverse lands.
In contrast, some people on this planet have not been able to live at peace on their own indigenous lands for a slong as Jews have lived at peace in other lands.
There is no aristocracy of suffering.
“Assuming that they would come back and live in peace, which there was no evidence to support at the time”
What evidence would have sufficed?
“that non-binding resolution has been superceded by UNSC 242, which calls for a negotiated solution, and is binding.”
False. UNSC 242 is a chapter 6 resolution, so it’s not binding, which is why Israel has flouted it for so long.
“Regardless of how Jews felt about partition back then , today most Jews support a Jewish state and the two-state solution.”
Correction: Most Jews say they do, but generally oppose any moves to achieving that aim.
“Next, I will call for the de-partitioning of India and Pakistan,”
India and Pakistan both have their own states.
“Also, I worked hard to oppose the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from the Arab state of Kuwait in the early 1990s.”
hats off to you.
“Does this matter in the slightest? Is Israel about the two generations of relative tranquility we have had in the West or the hundred generations of tumult, massacre, and upheaval we had before that?”
Yes it does because apparently Jewish self determination is what it’s all about, or so we’re told.
“The ANC represented 80 percent of the population. They did not talk about taking over white people’s houses. ”
As opposed to Zionists who have indeed taken over people’s houses.
“And the Afrikaners had no reasonable basis to claim a history or a nativity in South Africa. Jews are not interlopers in Israel. They are the natives, and their history in long.”
Neither do Zionists in Palestine.
“He also found several by Palestinians of Jews that were meant to accomplish the same thing, and many besides him are familiar with the bloodthirsty statements of Arab leaders at the time, one of whom formed an alliance with Hitler in part for the purpose of mass-murdering the Jews.”
Actually no Arab leaders formed an alliance with Hitler, certainly not for the purpose of mass-murdering the Jews. The Mufti was one guy and he was living in exile with no authority in 1939. What’s more, his agenda was to stem Jewish immigration, whcih he perceived as a threat to Palestinian nationalism and independence.
He turned out to be rigfht
Ironically, it was the stern Gang who tried to form alliances with Hitler at the time.
“What would that be based on? A few laws against antisemitism? And do any of you understand that history stretches back further than yesterday?”
Did your connection with reality get stuck in 1939?
Jews are without doubt the most protected due to the public’s intolerance to wards anti Semitism, which I would suggest is a good thing. But let’s not pretend that a swastika spray painted on someone’s wall is equivalent o an act of murder..
Does the fact that Holocaust denial is a crime in many countries not count for anything?
“Which is why antisemitism is still much lower today than the 1960s.”
Just imagine is Israel weren’t so callous and gleefully at forcing misery upon a defenseless population? There wouldn’t be any antisemitism at all.
“Jews are not interlopers in Israel. They are the natives, and their history in long.”
Hophmi, although I don’t have the motivation to answer a long string of Hasbarist talking points (Who does?), this is flat out absurd. My great-grandparents are from Poland and Russia. No member of my immediate family has ever lived in occupied Palestine.
There’s also the little matter of converting to Judaism ~ Does that make you native to Palestine?
On top of that, you are talking about Jews as if they are one people. That was not a factor in early Zionist thinking – They saw a hierarchy of superior and inferior Jewish peoples. Even now that hasn’t gone away.
The ethnocentric blinkers are blindingly apparent in the exchange. For some, Israel=Jewish and that’s where it stops. Some people just cannot get beyond that and any call for civil rights consequently becomes a subversive act.
I don’t how you change that mindset, that mental condition.
Calling for fair treatment of illegal Mexican immigrants makes sense.
Trying to solve the problem by making the US and Mexico one country does not.
>> Calling for fair treatment of illegal Mexican immigrants makes sense.
Trying to solve the problem by making the US and Mexico one country does not.
You’re comparing Palstinians to illegal Mexican immigrants? Wow.
Calling for basic civil rights for everyone seems a good first step towards solving the problem. Do you have an issue with that?
NorthOfFortyNine,
it’s very simple: You don’t.
There is no convincing an ideologue.
But you try to save as many as you can from catching their desease.
The ethnocentric blinkers are blindingly apparent in the exchange. For some, Israel=Jewish and that’s where it stops. Some people just cannot get beyond that and any call for civil rights consequently becomes a subversive act.”
If the call weren’t so selective, ignorant of the world around us, ignorant of the region, ignorant of history, dismissive of the rights of my people to self-determination as recognized by the United Nations, and generally hypocritical in the extreme, then maybe I’d care.
“my people” be better’n yer people.
so na na na na na
MY PEOPLE?
That’s nice. So now WE know that YOU are a tribalist to the highest degree.
“For some, Israel=Jewish and that’s where it stops.”
Yep, it’s the backbone of Natenyahu’s rhetoric.
“What would that be based on? A few laws against antisemitism? And do any of you understand that history stretches back further than yesterday?”
So history stretches back further than yesterday when it suits you hophmi but apparently according to your arguments not as far as 1948:
“Does this matter in the slightest? Is Israel about the two generations of relative tranquility we have had in the West or the hundred generations of tumult, massacre, and upheaval we had before that?”
How are the 1948 arguments relevant to almost all Israelis as they were all born after 1948? Do you expect people to try to redress problems originating before they were born for which they bear no responsibility or to act as to not make their situation worse? What is the common sense action?
Coming from someone who thinks that by virtue of being born Jewish he is entitled to land somewhere on the planet because 2000 years ago his ancestors lived there, that’s just delusional.
You do not argue, you distort. A Jew is entitled to become an Israeli citizen (not to land) because Israel is the Jewish state. If the Jewish state would have been established in Uganda, that is where a Jew would become a citizen if he wanted to. And the Jews are entitled to the land they hold in Israel because they have deeds. It is quite simple. If you have something against the deed to my house, come challenge it in court. It really does not matter where my ancestors lived. All that matters is that I have a deed. Use some common sense. The Israeli owns his house for the same reason an American does, because he has the legal document to prove it. You are welcome to challenge those deeds in court if you wish.
Straightline says:
“So history stretches back further than yesterday when it suits you hophmi but apparently according to your arguments not as far as 1948:”
He then quotes me:
“Does this matter in the slightest? Is Israel about the two generations of relative tranquility we have had in the West or the hundred generations of tumult, massacre, and upheaval we had before that?”
My history stretches back way before 1948. Does yours? You’d like to forget the atmosphere that led to laws against antisemitism and to the creation of the State of Israel, not to mention the history of the creation of nation-states and the history of the Middle East, but remember only since 1948 and only Israeli and Jewish history since then. You’re the selective one, not I.
Wait a minute. What do you mean YOUR history?
Laws against anti-Semitism? Where, in Palestine?
The “atmosphere” that you speak of was a direct result of European Zionist immigrants invading Palestine and carving up a land for a state, a land that didn’t belong to them.
You talk about facts and history, but your ass doesn’t know your head from your toes. Cut the bullshit already and go play in a sandbox.
What about it? Or did you merely want to include a new term you learned today in a sentence? Nation-State, eh?
Listen, kiddo, in 1850 Palestinain Muslims+Christians outnumbered Jews by 100 to 1.
So to pretend as though THE HISTORY that you keep touting is on your side is a lie only a propagandist like you could peddle. But, perhaps you meant to write 72AD and claim that back then billions of Jews lived in Palestine. Who knows. With weirdos like you anything’s possible. History? Archeology? Who cares. Just check the bible.
In 1850:
According to Alexander Scholch, the population of Palestine in 1850 had about 350,000 inhabitants, 30% of whom lived in 13 towns; roughly 85% were Muslims, 11% were Christians and 4% Jews
link to en.wikipedia.org
So the fact is that in 1850 Palestine was depopulated. There was plenty of room for immigration both of Jews and Arabs.
Thanks for providing further proof that the Jewish population in the early part of the 19th century was minuscule and therefore did not deserve by any stretch of the imagination to carve out entire Palestine as a state for its own.
I really enjoy it when Zionists do the work for me, further corroborating what I write.
I won’t write a comprehensive rebuttal of Kathleen Peratis’s response, but I would like to make a few additional points.
Kathleen claims that “the original raison d’etre for Israel was a post-Shoah safe haven for Jews.” Surely that is not the case. The origins of Zionism, or “the original raison d’etre for Israel,” preceded the Holocaust by decades. Anyone who insists on using the Holocaust to justify Israel implicitly concedes that before that event, the notion of creating a Jewish State was morally indefensible. If Kathleen can explain why Jewish Europeans acted reasonably 100+ years ago in claiming Palestinian land for their state, she should do so. Otherwise, she should explain the peculiar position that Zionism originally was immoral, but the Holocaust transformed it into a legitimate quest.
Second, Kathleen agrees that “the discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel is beyond appalling,” but vehemently opposes calling it apartheid. Exactly how much space is there between apartheid and appalling discrimination such that one is beyond redemption and requires complete dismantling, while the other can be nudged into acceptability?
Third, Kathleen misinterprets the call for a single state of equal rights for all as necessitating the expulsion of Jews. Unfortunately, she is not alone in this mistake, which is intentionally fostered because the real truth, that one-staters simply seek equality rather than domination, is much less threatening. No one has to “fold up and go away.”
Finally, I did not “give up” and throw my hands in despair when I evolved from a two-stater to a one-stater. (I’m not even sure when or how that happened, but I guess it did gradually.) I re-evaluated the situation, and came to new conclusions. Mearsheimer and Walt have a brilliant quote from Bertrand Russell at the beginning of their book: “In all affairs it’s a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.” I am not the best practitioner of this simple wisdom, but it worked for me on this issue. Kathleen and others like her should try it some time.
That’s a great response, David.
First Zionist Congress: 1897
Balfour Declaration: 1917
WWII: 1939 – 1945 (Holocaust)
UN Partition Plan: Ratified November 1947
Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestinain villages begins: December 1947
Israel declares establishment: May 1948
So-called Arab-Israeli War begins: May 1948
1) The raison etre of Zionism is the fact that Europe’s Jews came to the conclusion that they could not assimilate into European society. Not in Russia, not in Poland, not in France and not in Germany. There is nothing racist about purchasing land in Palestine and hoping one day to fulfill national aspirations.
2) There are many countries that discriminate against minorities much worse than Israel. Do you advocate dismantling those countries? The US was an openly racist society till the sixties. Would you have suggested dismantling the US? Israel should be given at least the same amount of time as the US to improve these aspects of its society. In fact, can we really say that the US is not an apartheid society when African Americans score 100 points less than whites on SAT tests? Isn’t it obvious that his is because they get much worse of an education than the whites?
3) The one state is the end of the Jewish national home. Yes, you can call another Arab country “Israel” but it will not be the Jewish state. As for calling for equality and not domination, I certainly believe you. But how do you know what the actual result will be? Why won’t your one state look like Iraq? Or Syria? Or any other Arab country? How can you tell the future?
1) Zionism was of course spurred on by the lack of assimilation for East European Jews. However, it’s total bunk to say Europe’s Jews gave up on assimilation in the late 19th C. Almost no German Jews even bothered going to Palestine before 1933. Even some German Zionist apparatchiks had no interest in making aliyah themselves as they saw it as a way to exert philanthropic power. E. European Jews who left preferred America to Palestine by a 100-1 margin.
Yes, there is something racist about evicting the current inhabitants of the land that was purchased. And while Palestinian farmers were getting screwed over by the privatization of land regardless of landlord, expelling them outright was a Zionist innovation. The Arab landlords would at least keep them on as tenant farmers.
2) Israel discriminates against the majority inhabitants of the country by not allowing most of them to enter the country or move freely through it.
3) Oh I forgot, Israel is an outpost against barbarism. Well then, carry on.
“The one state is the end of the Jewish national home.”
So what? The idea of a Jewish national home is anti-semitic.
Jews are not a nation in any meaningful sense, and calling them one is to deny that they belong to the countries in which they are born, in which they live, of which they are citizens, and in which have their real homes.
What part of institutionalized and government sanctioned discrimination do you not understand?
“Unfortunately, she is not alone in this mistake, which is intentionally fostered because the real truth, that one-staters simply seek equality rather than domination, is much less threatening”
This dishonest argument also serves to mask the inherent racism in Zionism, which rejects the notion that Israel can be a bi national state because they reject the idea of Jews living as equals among gentiles.
Shingo, how can Zionism = Racism, if Jews are simply an invention?
This is a very illuminating debate, reference is made to history, recent and going back into the sands of time. May I make a couple of points
1) Israel Finkelstein, the well known archeologist states in his book “Unearthing The Bible”, that he believes the Hebrews were originally Canaanites who went to Egypt looking for work, similar to migrant Mexicans today. Cannot Jews and Palestinian reach way back into history and state we were once one people.
2) A number of years ago when the War in Balkans was at its fiercest, my brother made a remark I have never forgot, he said, one of the reasons to study “The Classics” (Ancient Greek and Roman Literature), is that one can see from start to finish how a political situation played out. he added that had politicians read Thucydides “Peloponnesian War” they would have been able to predict what would happen in Yugoslavia (in the 1990s).
My thought is do any modern Israelis or Jews bother reading about the Crusades, one reason the First Crusade after its initial success collapsed was that the Crusaders never reproduced at the same rate as the natives, and when the population boom in Europe became a bust due to disease, there were not enough Crusaders to replace the ones who died. It should be noted the Crusaders made a point of trying to integrate with local populations, adopting their dress habits etc
Maybe the line to take with those that refuse to abandon the Zionist idea for a more inclusive Jewish/Palestinian democratic model is to say, the Crusaders couldn’t cut it why do you think you can, its been tried before and failed.
“To establish the type of Jewish State with a Jewish super-majority, dispossessing large numbers of Arab inhabitants was necessarily part of the plan.
…building a national fantasy at the expense of the natives, who simply don’t count as much.
…do you think that the hypothetical and speculative danger to Jews should take precedence over the genuine misery that Israel has inflicted, and continues to inflict, on Palestinians?
… a Jewish State … – actually was a bad idea from the start”
You’ve been reading my posts, haven’t you, David?
Kathleen’s points stand well.
Thank you Kathleen.
The task to emerge a single state is a revolutionary one, that does currently contradict international law.
There are cases where revolution is appropriate and relevant. I don’t see that David has accomplished that.
It is new that Jews are willing to fight rather than move on. It used to be the norm that once denied rights in a hundred nations, they just moved on.
But, “Never Again” means it to enough Israelis that the effort for a single state will result in polarization, moreso and instead of justice.
When, the legal approach of electoral persuasion remains to those with a better argument.
David,
Thank you for your helpful (to me) arguments.
Ms. Peratis asserts that BDS is a distraction and a bogeyman. I am hypothesizing that she can only argue that with confidence because for her, this work is not about changing I/P but about being connected Jewishly. I see this again and again. Secular or nominally religious Jews want to have a connection to Jews/Judaism/Jewishness. Their path to that is through some communal activity. (See the documentary “Defamation” for a fascinating expose of how secular, Jewish philanthropists connect Jewishly through participating in the ADL.)
So, when she makes these assertions about the helpfulness of BDS, her issue is not its efficacy but about its divisiveness in the Jewish community.
I welcome this debate for precisely the opposite reason. It grounds Jewishness in a real debate.
Her understanding of Jewishness is emblematic of Israeli and Jewish exceptionalism. She fails to grasp that Christian context for Jewish Zionism, the Western context for pro-Israel advocacy, or the global, human context for framing Jewish responses to the Holocaust.
Her entire frame of reference for discussing global BDS is this free-floating entity called “the American Jewish community”.
To the extent that there is a uniquely, Jewish way of thinking about Israel, it’s not about dropping blinders. The people she wants to reach pretty much know what’s going on. They just think that to be a good Jew, you must suppress those thoughts. The way to reach these people is not by shying away from the issues, but by being clear and forthright.
Elliot,
That’s a very interesting hypothesis, one that I think is strongly supported by the identify formation process of non-Israeli Jews, and tribalism.
Interesting indeed. I don’t know how the psychology actually works, but that at least plausible, and it sounds pretty convincing to me.
“Secular or nominally religious Jews want to have a connection to Jews/Judaism/Jewishness. ”
Why?
“to be a good Jew, you must suppress those thoughts.”
And the ghost of Sigmund still haunts.
Just a couple clarifications:
1. I would challenge the idea that I am one of BDS’s “most prominent spokespeople,” as Kathleen says below. I bring up this point not because I want to argue about how prominent I am or am not, but because I think this speaks to a larger issue that came up many times in the course of the discussion on Nov 11. As many times and as many ways as I said that the BDS movement is an indigenous, Palestinian-led movement, Kathleen and Gil continued to referred to “Hannah’s ideas” as though I invented the idea of boycotting Israel. The bottom line is that I see Palestinian people as my reference point and believe they have the right to define the terms of their struggle, whereas Kathleen and Gil see Jews – Israeli and non-Israeli – as the primary people they are accountable to in this work.
2. I did not, as Kathleen says above, say that “Neither B, D nor S has any chance to have any economic impact.” What I said was, and I quote (from the video of the event at jewssayno.wordpress.com):
“Kathleen mentioned that a lot of the BDS movement is not necessarily at this moment about economic impact, and I would agree with that. And it *is* about moral legitimacy. Israel thrives on moral legitimacy, and that’s what we need to challenge: the legitimacy of occupation and oppression.”
I said this in the context of describing Adalah-NY’s successes, which at this point are not about financially bankrupting the state of Israel, but are about Oxfam, Unicef, European governments, and others disassociating themselves from Israeli diamond manufacturer and settlement builder Lev Leviev. They’re about the mention of us and the cultural boycott in the New York Times arts review of Batsheva Dance Company [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/arts/dance/27batsheva.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1290517267-MTYuK8iKCCU+RUkU86Fmjw]. Hell, they’re about this clip from The Good Wife [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGKTIL7pT5s], casually referencing cultural boycott, Israel’s attack on the Gaza flotilla, and Jimmy Carter’s book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid as dinner table conversation. The first step is to remove Israel from its moral pedestal, to mainstream the idea of criticizing the Jewish state, and BDS has proven an incredibly successful way to do this. The next step, of course, is economic impact. And how do we do that? BDS.
-Hannah Mermelstein