I haven't done many rambling posts lately because I haven't had the time (and neither do you!). But here are a few thoughts on the impulses for Zionism: about Zionist leader Herzl's colonialism and messianism, about the Jewish claim to Palestine, and also the genuine motivation for Zionism which remains unhealed, the Jewish question.
Jon S is a liberal Zionist commenter at this site. Welcome! He said the following a day or so back:
As to the definition of Zionism as colonialism: It’s not only the lack of the metropole. The main point is that the Jews were returning to their ancestral homeland. The British who took over India, the French who settled in Algeria, the Dutch who conquered what is now Indonesia, were not reconnecting with their British/French/Dutch roots. They were conquering foreign lands. The Jews were coming to Eretz Yisrael, a land which is rich in Jewish history, to which they maintained ties and memories, and which was never empty of Jews. And they were escaping persecution and annihilation.. (All of which – I’m sure you’ll point out- made little difference to the Palestinians). If not for those historic ties – I would also say that we have no business being here.
I'm reading Herzl's Complete Diaries and though I recognize that he wasn't a scholar or rabbi, and he was in the business of sweet-talking world leaders, here's part of a draft speech he wrote for his 1898 visit to Jerusalem when Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany was going to be there too (the entry is online here). Emphases are mine:
Your Imperial and Royal Majesty!
Most Gracious Kaiser and Lord!
With deepest reverence a delegation of sons of Israel approaches the German Kaiser in the country which was our fathers’ and no longer belongs to us. We are bound to this sacred soil through no valid title of ownership. Many generations have come and gone since this earth was Jewish. If we talk about it, it is only as about a dream of very ancient days. But the dream is still alive, lives in many hundreds of thousands of hearts; it was and is a wonderful comfort in many an hour of pain for our poor people. Whenever foes oppressed us with accusations and persecutions, whenever we were begrudged the little bit of right to live, whenever we were excluded from the society of our fellow citizens-whose destinies we have always been ready to share loyally-the thought of Zion arose in our oppressed hearts.
There is something eternal about that thought, whose form, to be sure, has undergone multifarious changes with people, institutions, and times.
Thus the Zionist movement of today is a fully modem one. It grows out of the situations and conditions of present-day life, and aims at solving the Jewish Question on the basis of the possibilities of our time.
Then in the next volume of the Diaries, in December 1899, Herzl writes about Oscar Straus, then ambassador to Turkey for the U.S. and a leading American Jewish figure. Again, my emphasis.
Straus is for Mesopotamia! He said he knew that a long time ago a pamphlet on Mesopotamia had been sent me by Cyrus Adler [later president of the Jewish Theological Seminary and the American Jewish Committee], at the instigation of some friends (Judge Sulzberger and others in New York).
Mesopotamia, he said, was attainable. There are no church rivalries there, and it is the original home of Israel. Abraham came from Mesopotamia, and there we could make use of the mystic elements, too.
Damning phrase that: there we could make use of the mystic elements, too. Herzl was secular, remember.
No wonder that phrase was not printed in the abridged Diaries, the popular edition (my complete, 5-volume set was deaccessioned by Shevach High School in Flushing, no one ever checked it out).
Jon S says there was no "metropole," but Zionism depended at all times on the aegis of the major powers. Herzl was cultivating the most powerful men in the world, the Kaiser, the Czar, the Pope, the Sultan. He was playing the great game on behalf of the Jews, and failing. Let us be clear, he failed, he died young of an overworked heart, and his dream was no reality. And as he struggled he compared himself to Moses, the Shabbatai Zevi, and Columbus, too.
His was openly a colonial enterprise. He called his association the ICA, the Jewish Colonization Association. He spoke repeatedly of colonizing Palestine, and praised the actions of Cecil Rhodes. Zionism could never have succeeded without a strong imperial hand. The Balfour Declaration from England, the sponsorship of the United States and Russia, and today the blind support of the empowered Israel lobby that we are hard at work to reform among young Jews...
What distinguished Zionism from colonialism was the Jewish Question. I have great sympathy for Jon S. and other liberal Zionists in that regard. Herzl was trying to resolve a question that had perplexed Europe for centuries and that resulted in the Holocaust, how to resolve the political fate of a distinct and ghettoized-but-later-highly-successful group of people on whom had been imposed the duties of usury and subsequently finance, a people with different manners from the majority and possessing a great tradition of learning that suited us for the modern age but also exposed us to oppression and resentment. In fairness to Zionists, this European question was thought to have been at last resolved when the state of Israel was founded. Well, we're done with that problem!
But of course it was not resolved, it resulted in ethnic cleansing, an unending refugee issue, Jim Crow, etc. I believe that a lot of the blind support of Israel by American Jews, their acceptance of Jim Crow and worse for 5 million people, stems from this fear that if this Answer to the ancient Jewish question is somehow demystified and taken apart, if we read that Herzl saw no real connection of Jews to Palestine (ala the brilliant Shlomo Sand), well then we are back to this very perilous combination of a privileged but not sovereign minority in western society, subject to the winds of mass hatred. I get that; and we're working on that, too..
Phil,
You are fighting a battle that was decided 100 years ago. My children are third generation born in Israel and there are millions of Jewish children like them. Whatever the link between Jews and the land of Israel 100 years ago, the links are certainly very strong now. That is also why Sand’s work is completely irrelevant even if he is correct.
I think your basic mistake is to view the conflict only through the eyes of American Jews and think that their minds can be changed without changing the minds of Israeli Jews. The Jewish people are one collective and the majority views will only change in tandem on a critical issue such as the need for a Jewish state.
Actually, eee, it is the establishment of Israel that is dividing the Jewish people. There are Israelis and there are Jews, and the two groups are pulling apart like a split ice floe in the ocean. The more racist Israel becomes, the more Jews elsewhere will draw back in revulsion.
Eventually they will come to realize the nature of the catastrophe – that monsters have taken over the ancient holy center of Judaism, dividing them from it even more t han they were ever divided by Ottoman rule.
correction eee; one collective + 1 Mooser.
the first was the humorous reply.
the accurate reply is: The Jews have NEVER IN THEIR ENTIRE HISTORY been “one collective.” An unchanging characteristic observed in the history of the Jewish people is that they have been in an almost constant state of civil war, Isaac against Ishmael; brothers against Joseph; Israel against Judah; Babylon against Palestine; bar Kochbar against the rest of the Jewish community; Ashkenazi against Mizrahi; zionist against Judaism against pious/secular Jew.
“An unchanging characteristic observed in the history of the Jewish people is that they have been in an almost constant state of civil war,”
Finally, we are starting to get some good sense about that completely fraudulent, obfuscatory, and fantastical phrase “the Jews”. Thanks.
An unchanging characteristic observed in the history of the Jewish people is that they have been in an almost constant state of civil war,
which really makes their history indistinguishable from the european state of affairs. a thousand-year plus orgy of civil war from moscow to lisbon.
“a thousand-year plus orgy of civil war from moscow to lisbon.”
Aahh! Good Times!
Here’s the universal principle that you overlook eee:
To reward the children of criminals by allowing them to keep their parent’s ‘acquired’ loot is just simply not acceptable, especially if the victim is still alive and still demanding their justice.
The Jewish people are one collective and the majority views will only change in tandem on a critical issue such as the need for a Jewish state.
The Jewish people are (the plural verb is appropriate) a single collective only in the broadest possible sense. They have different interests, beliefs and concerns. You have no real way of gauging what the “majority views” are. You are also making the same mistake you made a few threads back. Not only is the future of I/P – including the existence of an ethnocratic Jewish state – not a matter for Jews to decide alone, it is not even a matter for Israeli Jews to decide alone. And if the decisions taken by a majority of Israeli Jews (or any other current or prospective majority) fail to respect the needs and rights of all inhabitants of the land, they can and should be contested.
You are right however, that Israelis have rights in the land of their birth, that cannot be ignored – although these do not include denying others their rights or enjoying greater privilege.
thank you Shmuel for your great clarity
Shmuel,
It is not true that I have no way of gauging what the majority views are. Elections in Israel are a very good approximation as to what half the Jews believe. The views of the Jewish organizations abroad and the different budgets they have are also a good proxy for Jewish views. Is it perfect? No. But it is a good estimate.
The next point I think is the core of our disagreement. I strongly believe that the future of I/P is in the hands of Israeli Jews. That is a fact on the ground that cannot be denied. Of course American Jews or anybody else may chime in, but ultimately, the decision will be made by elections in Israel, and the consequences will impact Israeli Jews dis proportionally to Jews living in other countries. If anything, the Obama years and the continuing integration of Israel with European Market institutions just show that even more strongly.
I understand that you would want to deny this because your camp has failed in the internal Israeli political arena. But that is the only arena that counts.
eee is right in a way. The future of Palestine is in the hands of Israeli Jews. The rest of us should recognize this, stand back and let the fanatics complete the process of their own self-destruction.
Our cause should be the protection of other peoples from their violence during the disintegration.
eee, you betray a contempt for democracy that is, in fact, not yours alone, but inextricably linked with the notion of a Jewish State. In response to Shmuel’s statement: “Not only is the future of I/P – including the existence of an ethnocratic Jewish state – not a matter for Jews to decide alone, it is not even a matter for Israeli Jews to decide alone”, you say that “I strongly believe that the future of I/P is in the hands of Israeli Jews. ”
But who lives in “I/P”? At present, it is approximately 11 million people, roughly half of whom are Jewish. Shmuel was expressing the democratic ideal, that the future of the area should be determined by all the residents of the area. You, on the other hand, insist that the future should be in the hands of only half of the residents, based upon their superior ancestry.
There is one level on which your prediction can be justified. You subscribe to the principle that might makes right, and Israeli Jews have a virtual monopoly of control on military capability. Israeli Jews are in control today, not out of any moral superiority, but solely due to that community’s ability to enforce its will over others. You predict that this situation will continue in the future, and more importantly, as a member of that privileged community, you hope it does. You enjoy being on top. Shmuel, on the other hand, who once enjoyed the same privileges as you, has renounced them in favor of true equality for all.
Can you not see why most of the commenters on this website agree with Shmuel and not with you? More importantly, can you not see why Palestinians will never, and should never, surrender to the anti-democratic principle you endorse, as embodied by the Jewish State?
Potsherd2,
I’m a bit confused by your comment. How is standing back going to make the fanatics self destruct? And how is that going to protect the Palestinians.
I’m very secular most of the time, but there is a biblical story that I hope will give you some insight on morality.
A long time ago, there was a man named Jonah. He was commanded by God to go to Nineveh to tell them a prophesy so they will change their sinful ways. Jonah didn’t like the Ninevites and didn’t want God to save them so he fled in the opposite direction. Skipping ahead -> Jonah eventually goes to Nineveh and tells them to repent or be overthrown. Nineveh repents and God spares them. Jonah is upset by this. Jonah is angry. God asks him why he is angry at doing good?
I’m assuming that by self-destruction, you mean death and violence. What about the Israeli non-fanatics? From the Book of Jonah, the tradition teaches us that we should not hope for the elimination of the people who have done great sin, but wish that they do such sins no more. We might hate them, wish them the worst, but we should at least try to change their ways.
I’m sure there was a time when many people just wished the end of all the people of Germany and Japan. But it is an obligation to first seek their repentance rather than their elimination.
If there were a people on a self-destructive path, should you try to change their ways. Think of it this way, would you rather have a drug addict die from his affliction, or would you try to change their ways through rehab?
3e,
Elections in Israel only gauge the views of Israelis (Jews and non-Jews) within the limits of democratic expression permitted by Israeli law and practice. The positions taken by the Jewish organisations and supposedly reflected in their respective budgets tell us something – although it’s hard to say exactly what – about what the people who vote and donate think, but by no means tells us what a majority of Jews believe and want. In any event this cannot – by any stretch of the imagination – be considered the kind of Jews-only democratic process you would have us believe it is.
Which brings us, as you say, to the core of our disagreement. You believe that Jews throughout the world have the right to decide how and whether Palestinians may realise their own rights. I believe that all concerned – Jews and non-Jews must have an equal say, and that even a majority cannot overrule the principles of international law and human rights. Within the framework of international law and human rights, Palestinians and Israelis will determine their own future/s, and will have to live with the consequences of their decisions. The Obama years and the integration of Israel with the EU have facilitated the ongoing violation of Palestinian rights, and made the achievement of a just and viable solution all the more difficult.
The internal Israeli political arena is by no means “the only arena that counts” (although I’m glad you’ve dropped the idea that Jews around the world will decide the future of I/P), because the issues do not concern Israelis alone and because Israel does not have the right to violate the human rights of its own citizens or others, as “democratic” as its decisions may be. It is incredibly arrogant to assert that the fate of all Israelis and Palestinians must be decided exclusively by a majority of Israelis (within the limits of Israeli “democracy”), free of all obligations and principles beyond the will of a gerrymandered majority.
If you were honest and simply said you believe that might makes right, that would be fine (clear and consistent at least). But you choose to hide behind self-serving pseudo-democratic concepts, with no real regard for democracy or its principles. You have said that you view international law merely as a tool in the service of national interests. You would appear to view democracy and human rights in a similar light.
” Think of it this way, would you rather have a drug addict die from his affliction, or would you try to change their ways through rehab?”
Micheal, no-one has yet discovered any sucessful re-hab for a ziocaine addiction. And worst of all, the stuff is legal, since it’s self-produced, requiring only a catalyst from outside the body to initiate secretion, and the resulting effects.
Michael W – I don’t believe we can save the Palestinians. It’s too late, it has already gone too far. I’m convinced that it’s futile to try to change Israeli ways. They are rapidly changing for the worse. By every indication, the evil there is growing daily, and they reject any attempts at intervention.
You can only save people who want to be saved. Israel doesn’t want to be saved. The sane and the moral among the population will not suffer destruction. They will leave it to the fanatics. The fanatics will recreate the state in their own hideous image, telling themselves they are following the word of god.
What the rest of us need to do is ensure that they don’t drag the rest of the world down with them.
Shmuel,
For all practical purposes, the only arena that counts is the Israeli political one. The Palestinians are divided and confused about which strategy to pursue. Outside pressure on Israel has not been effective at all, nor has it any chance of being effective in the foreseeable future.
Those are the facts. I am not making any value or moral statement here, just describing the situation as it is. When the Palestinians were united under Arafat and negotiated the Oslo Accords, they “counted” also and were a crucial part of a failed attempt to reach a solution.
Now to the moral issue. Who has more right to decide on the outcome of the conflict, an Israeli citizen who will be directly influenced by it, or someone who lives thousands of miles away and will not be influenced much by the outcome? What I am saying is not arrogant, it is pure common sense that most Americans understand when they fret about “Washington” meddling in their local affairs. It is a matter of where you put the line.
My argument is based on accepted democratic concepts and the common sense notion that the more a decision influences you, the more say you should have in it. By the way, all democracies are “gerrymandered” in the sense that the system used influences the results. So what? They are still democracies. An in Israel, gerrymandering is non-existent because of the proportional system.
As for might makes right, isn’t it obvious that this is an important component of middle east and world politics? If Israel would not have won the war of 1948 it would not exist. What can we deduce from that? That Israel is not democratic? The US would not exist if it had not won its war of independence. So?
Thatis partly true, only in sofar as that Israeli Jews are contriobuting to Israel’s demise.
Israel has not nly become a pariah state, but discussion about Israel’s pariah status is now openly had. This has not been the case for decades. Europeans leaders are calling for sanctions on Irael for the first time.
I’d say you hve it backwards eee. It is Israel that is failing in the internal political arena.
That’s an interesting paradox isn’t it Shmuel? On one hand, eee argues that the “Elections in Israel are a very good approximation as to what half the Jews believe.”, but then dismisses what half the people in Palestine believe.
Actually of the 11 million, Jews are alrady a minority.
eee :
Ethnic cleansing IS gerrymandering. Duh.
You’re not learning your lessons.
link to secure.wikimedia.org
Again, you’re defining “democracy” solely as majority rule and votes. This is not right. It’s much more rich than that. It includes a free press, and some kind of representation and reflection of peoples’ wishes in policy decisions.
Now, think a little : if the USG decides that Kansas is to be a white-only Christian state in the union, and all others must leave that state – subsequent elections there could be said to be “democratic” in a very narrow sense if policy reflects the outcome of these elections. A majority rule of white Christians is democratic – for white Christians. Having the power to define who will be a part of that majority is not democratic at all, because those who are to be forced out HAVE NO CHOICE as to them being forced out in the first place ; this decision itself was arrived at undemocratically.
“It’s a rough neighborhood, blah blah blah”
It definitely is the most important component of US/Israeli politics in the region, yes, you are correct. Who defines these politics?
So are we talking about the way things are or the way they should be? If the former, then whatever happens happens. If Jews choose not to toe your imaginary majority line, that is just the way things are. If internationals choose to pressure Israel, all’s fair. If, on the other hand, things like democracy and fairness and who has to pay the price count, then Palestinians (citizens, occupied and refugees) have at least as much at stake as Israeli Jews and far more at stake than non-Israeli Jews. You can’t have it both ways. You are arguing both “tough luck” and “hey that’s not fair”, depending on what happens to suit your position. If you exclude the will of Palestinians from your equation because shit happens, spare us the lecture on democracy and meddling.
By gerrymandering I meant a “democratic” system that has ensured a particular ethnic-religious majority by removing others or barring them from returning to the national territory, conducting discriminatory immigration and naturalisation policies (and even considering – as you do – the voices of certain non-resident non-citizens), and excluding millions of Palestinians in the Permanently Occupied Territories from the “democratic” process – while including Jews who reside in the very same territories. I think you would be hard-pressed to find any democracy with a similarly engineered “majority”.
Thank you for pointing this out so clearly, Shmuel. This method of obfuscation runs throughout not just eee’s posts, but so much Zionist commentary on I/P.
eee, your basic mistake is to view everything through the military metaphor, where strength of arms is the only important consideration. weiss is attempting to clarify an historical point, and is consequently undermining the conflicting propaganda points that support the colonial enterprise of zionism. the basic ideological underpinnings of a jewish state in palestine are mystical, religious, despite claims of herzl’s secularism, and the ‘historical’ jewish presence in palestine without the mysticism (nor likely the holocaust as it is bound up in that mysticism) would not have been sufficient justification for a jewish state. but, you are right, now that millions of jews have come to palestine, their presence has to be part of the solution.
Marc,
What military metaphor? I am viewing things through the practical metaphor. As for the points Phil makes, do you or him really think I and others like me do not remember why my grandparents, secular communists came to Israel? Is Phil really going to convince anybody that because Herzl was quirky, the people who came to Israel pre 1948 were mystics or religious radicals? They were people like Ben-Gurion and that is why they voted for him.
“…my grandparents, secular communists…”
Yeah, remind me to listen to Commies all the live-long day! After all, they have brought happiness and freedom to so many, and have been oh, so good to the Jews.
And their political efforts have been so democratic, and so nonviolent, and so concerned with the common good.
Oh well, Commie grandparents,and a facist grandson, who bases his claims on the Bible, a natural progression.
What military metephor?
You are fighting a battle that was decided 100 years ago.
do you read your own comments?
do you or him really think I and others like me do not remember why my grandparents, secular communists came to Israel? Is Phil really going to convince anybody that because Herzl was quirky, the people who came to Israel pre 1948 were mystics or religious radicals? They were people like Ben-Gurion and that is why they voted for him.
Ben-Gurion recognized the need to exploit the biblical, mythical elements of Jewish ‘history’ in support of Zionism. There isn’t any question about at all about this point as he said so himself, although he insisted that he was not religious. The Zionist military campaign freely incorporated biblical ideology as justification for the war against Palestinians and as part of the esprit de corps of its troops. A beautifully written fictional diary of the war experience makes reference to this as well.
link to amazon.com
ok eee i recognize im talking about ancient events, but leaving you and your family out of the picture for a second we have a ton of bad baggage in the u.s. and we need to unpack it and i will decide what People I am part of, as a Jew, thank you very much, and if you define jewishness as including me in a political collective that slaughters hundreds of palestinian children, i will decry that claim again and again, in the name of other jewish traditions. (i used to offer to turn in my Jewish card; I dont now, real progress). i think that our sorting out of political and community interest in the u.s. may well help you come to terms with your neighbors rather than depending at every turn on Uncle Sucker
Phil,
You have no problem seeing yourself as American despite Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan and the children killed by the US there.
As long as you work through democratic means to influence other Jews, I have no issues whatsoever with your views or actions. I find it even healthy to have dissenting views.
And of course, it is none of my business the internal struggle inside the Jewish community in the US. Will such a struggle help Israel? It won’t change people’s mind here and how they vote in elections. Perhaps in the margins. But you are welcome to try. If you want change, you need political power in Israel.
you will be stunned by the effect on israeli consciousness of a profound shift in american jewish political consciousness
a tail can wag a dog, but when the dog wags its tail, wow!
Phil,
The American Jews are predominantly conservative and reform, yet those movements have zero strength in Israel. Why? And how does that square with your theory that change in American Jews views will help?
that very concept was discussed at a J Street meeting last month: “What if Israeli Jews tell us Jews in diaspora that we have no say in how Israel conducts its affairs? What if Israel says to us, Jews, ‘you are not part of us.’ How will we feel about that?”
Once America decides it has had enough of Israel and stops using the UN SC veto then the processes of the international community will begin to function properly again. Indicting Olmert, Barak and Livni at the ICC for war crimes in Gaza would be a good start. I’d be very surprised if the electorate in Israel didn’t suddenly see the light if that occurred. There’s of course the possibility that the US refuses to budge on Israel, for whatever reason, in which case the US and Israel will be equally isolated in the international community. Perhaps this has to happen anyway, certainly Bush and Blair should also be tried at the ICC for war crimes.
Better watch out Phil, you are going to end up in “eee”s “epistemology thesis”, on the “uncharitable list”
So you better not cry, you better not pout….
Hmmm, Zionist fanatics as Jewish epistemological Santa Clauses! Perfect!
The point is the the Jews of the diaspora are part of Israel. All they have to do is make aliyah and have as much influence as any other Israeli. But why should the Jews of the upper west side have as much influence as the Jews of Sderot when it comes to how to deal with Gaza? Naturally they don’t because they have much less skin in the game so to speak.
eee, if you’d taken that logic course you’d be able to recognize your own self-contradictions.
If American Jews are predominately conservative and reform, while Israelis are not, how can they be one people, given that Jewishness is defined by religion.
makes me no nevermind whether jews in upper west side or lower west river influence “any other israeli.”
otoh it bothers the hell out of me that jews in upper west side and boca raton florida and palo alto california and and and …impose overweaning influence on Americans of Ohio and Wyoming and West Virginia and Kentucky, such that the blood and treasure and moral standing of those people is caught up in the civil war between Israeli Jews and American Jews.
by eee’s logic, that Israeli Jews vote therefore form the Jewish “collective,” all Americans are indicted by the war crimes of Bush and Blair. THAT is precisely what pisses me off: those crimes were committed by Bush and Blair with deep influence of Jewish American and Jewish Israeli opinion influencers (politically correct enough for you, or should I mention how Wolfowitz & Feith fixed the intelligence?).
Americans are implicated in the crimes set in motion by those opinion influencers.
All they have to do is make aliyah and have as much influence as any other Israeli.
All non-Jews have to do is convert and make aliyah – unless they are already related to Jews (or can buy documents that say they are), as per the Law of Return, in which case they can skip the conversion step.
But why should the Jews of the upper west side have as much influence as the Jews of Sderot when it comes to how to deal with Gaza?
Why should of the Upper West Side and the Jews of Sderot and the Jews of Kirgizstan have more influence “when it comes to how to deal with Gaza” than the Palestinians of Gaza?
That’s may be true becasue Israel is an apartheid state, but short of carrying out another massive wave of wthnic cleansing and mass murder, Israel has no way to control the demographic issue.
There has been no uutside pressure on Israel to speak of, rather than a few minor diplomatic issues. The outside pressure will come however, as we see Israel’s enabler, the US head towards economic decline.
Actually, your argument is based on teh antithesis of accepted democratic concepts, becasue you completely ignore the democratic rights of the majority of the population in Palestine.
Gerrymandered still recognizes everyone’s right to vote. Israel does not. One cold argue that apartheid was a democracy, but then again, Benjamin Franklin decribed democracy and 2 wolves and sheep arguing about what’s for lunch.
If Israel has not driven 750,000 Palestinians from their land in 1948, Israel would not exist either.
1. The war of independence took place centuries prior to the Geneva Conventions.
2. The war of independence was a cessarionist movement, and drove out the colonialists. Israel is a colonial project.
Zero effect? If it weren’t for American Jews, Israel would be probably run by the PLO by now.
Israel relies entirely on the good will of american Jews and Christian Evangelists (who want to see all Jews burned or accept Jesus as their savior).
But you just said that Jews of the diaspora have no say in Israel’s affairs?
They shouldn’t but they do. Without the influence of the Jews of the upper west side, Israel would be staring at Chapter 7 Resolutions at the UN, demanding it’s wihdral from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and probably sanctions too.
Shmuel,
You first assertion is correct, and I do not understand your second one. Of course the Palestinians in Gaza should have influence on their future and it is up to them to figure out how they go about it, just it is up to the Israelis to figure out how to manage their future. Isn’t that stating the obvious? The people in the conflict should figure out a way out of the conflict. It is their responsibility and if they don’t do a good job, they will suffer the consequences.
Except nobody wants to make aliyeh. Aliyeh is dead. Who in their right mind would want to move to Israel on a massive salary cut to become a second class Jew in some development town or else a settlement?
The Promised Land turned into a nightmare. There’s more job security elsewhere and you don’t have to send your kids to bomb Gaza’s kids with white phosphorous.
Oh, there are plenty of people making aliyah. But they are mostly religious.
“Jews of the diaspora are part of Israel”
How can born-and-bred Australians, with single citizenship, be part of a foreign country half-way round the world?
Do they have any choice in the matter? If not, we will have to throw out all the Jewish members of Federal Parliament, since Federal Law requires that MPs be of Australian nationality only.
That hasn’t stopped Michael Danby being one of the US’ “protected” informants. I’m still shocked that the gutless Australian press haven’t even asked what that actually means. It’s the kind of thing that should bring governments down.
wow, well stated.
The point is the the Jews of the diaspora are part of Israel. All they have to do is make aliyah and have as much influence as any other Israeli. But why should the Jews of the upper west side have as much influence as the Jews of Sderot
i think you’re not thinking straight. people w/lots of money influence politics more than others. an american (jewish or otherwise) who is massively rich and dumping money into settlements will impact the ‘facts on the ground’ much more than your one israeli vote. an israeli billionaire funneling money (thru corporate donations or whatever) into campaign coffers can impact decisions in congress more than my vote.
i beg to differ, i think they are a good proxy for members who fund those budgets. money talks. that’s why any change will require a mass movement. you might not think ordinary non jewish americans matter but i think we do. i happen to the think we matter quite a lot.
there is a reason all the politicians say how much they love israel but we never seem to have a robust conversation about israel during campaign season. i wonder what would happen if we did.
israelis take us for granted. we’re broke. what israel is doing is wrong and i want a loud conversation about it out in the open.
I’m not holding my breath over here for that to happen.
me neither, if was i would have suffocated by now.
Sumud,
I must admit that I don’t know what the Australian legal definition of “treason” is, but since nothing is being done about Arbib and Danby, it probably isn’t what I expect it to be.
Of course the Palestinians in Gaza should have influence on their future
But:
The Jewish people are one collective and the majority views will only change in tandem on a critical issue such as the need for a Jewish state.
And:
the internal Israeli political arena … is the only arena that counts.
The future of the people of Gaza regards I/P as a whole, and not just who collects the garbage in Khan Yunis.
RoHa ~ I don’t know either but I think the lack of outrage is a case of politicians closing ranks and a gutless press.
The sticking point is the “protected” status. As far as I can work out this means all communications Arbib & Danby had w/ the US Embassy were classified as “CONFIDENTIAL//NOFORN”, ie must be never seen by foreign eyes (foreign to the US that is). It’s normal for politicians to chat w/ diplomats, requiring that what you say be permanently hidden from the Australian people is a whole other matter – especially when he’s one of those who engineered the coup against Rudd.
To date none of the Canberra cables have been released so it’s just what Philip Dorling is reporting @ Fairfax (they have a dump of a few cables here but this material is unreleased by WL at this time..)
“i used to offer to turn in my Jewish card”
This says it all. And it is the reason why when you say “not in my name”, it has no credibility.
hoph i said it when people were defining jewishness as support for israel; and i said, if that’s what jewish means, then im turning in my card; and then i decided to hold on to the card
now is when i need mooser for the borscht belt rim shot mot juste
Which card would you choose, hophmi – your Jewish card or your human card?
Pots, a guy has to play the cards he is dealt, or fold. But the Jewish card is like a Joker to him, he thinks he can claim it’s anything he wants, and often does. And every time he lays it on the table, another one comes out of his sleeve.
Oh sorry, I’m not being clear, I didn’t specify whether I meant Hophmi or Phil in that comment.
so which did you mean?
I choose them both, because, obviously, I don’t think there is a conflict between them.
You don’t think so? When every day you have to choose between Jewish supremacy and the violations of human rights committed by the Israel state?
It can’t be that strong. You claimed you woudl rather die than live under a Muslim leadership, so clearly the link is secondary.
The further explication and application of the “mystic elements” –
RELIGION, ZIONISM, AND SECULARISM
That is right, this is my third time posting this here.
“From its very beginning, zionism was marked by an alliance between ‘secular’ and ‘religious’ elements. Claiming to be a ‘national movement’, zionism always regarded the preservation of Jewish ‘national unity’ as a supreme value; and it was always the religious members of the movement who drew the ‘red line’, beyond which they would prefer to cause a split. Thus the tradition whereby the secular zionists always make concessions to the religious zionists when the latter threaten to cause a split is as old as the movement itself. The religious zionists have always kept the initiative in the movement on matters involving religion…
But the main role of religious zionism was the ideological one referred to above. Religious tradition provided the only legitimation for the zionist colonisation of Palestine. Zionism could not afford to alienate its religious adherents, because in their absence it would lose the ideological justification for the zionist project in Palestine. ”
Whether there is some “connection” (which is steeped is myth) or not, every – and I repeat EVERY settler state has a religious element to it, whether there is some background or not –
APARTHEID ISRAEL : TWO WALLED CITIES
“The logic of both Israel and apartheid-era South Africa can be found in their common origins as settler states. In both cases, the settlers CREATED MYTHS, semi-religious or explicitly religious, including that GOD HAD PROVIDED THE LAND for them and that the land was unoccupied upon arrival, a very, very common theme in every settler state, whether it’s the United States, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc. In both cases, the settlers portrayed themselves to be VICTIMS against natives who were described as SEMI-BARBARIC OR INTOLERANT. Given the permanent state of siege, every settler state AGGRESSION came to be DESCRIBED as a DEFENSIVE ACT, an approach also common with the United States. By way of example, for South Africa, incursions into Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe or anywhere else always against alleged TERRORISTS were justified as alleged defensive actions.”
>> The Jewish people are one collective …
A collective. I like that. Sounds very Borg, very cult-like. “Resistance is futile! Remember the Holocaust!”
“The Jewish people are one collective …”
What do you expect from a Commie-turned Facist? He’s got the best of both worlds. See we’re all “one collective” (gosh, what a Witty phrase!) until I don’t agree with “eee”. Then it’s “prove your a Jew! Who was your mother?”
Not that “eee” could ever, in a million years, define the parameters of that “collective”.
Oh, BTW, “eee”, when do you find the time to work on your “epistemology thesis”? Will it include your comments, or only our “uncharitable” ones?
Just want to make sure everybody knows that “eee” is working on an “epistemology” thesis, with evidence gathered from this blog. The fact that he is an active commenter on the blog, of course, in no way taints his evidence. The methodological justification for that is either in the Talmud, or Das Kapital, I forget which.
To be fair Mooser, cult-buddy, (that I’ve read) eee hasn’t admitted he’s doing a thesis, I just assumed he was a student because of his amateur methodology. He said epistemology was his “research area”, so possibly he’s [over]paid by some organisation like the Reut Institute – they’ve mentioned Mondoweiss in at least one of their reports.
Ah, Sumud, thanks! I guess I misunderestimated him. So everyone can judge for themselves, here is the paragraph you so kindly linked:
From “eee”” My research area is epistemology. I find your blog community an interesting example of how cult like belief systems are formed and sustained. The reactions to my comments help me get insights into how such belief systems address external challenges”
It’s so nice of Mondoweiss to assist “eee” in his unbiased and honest research.
The evidence isn’t tainted by his participation.
He is experimenting on us. He pokes us, and notes how we react.
That’s possible. I have trouble believing even a psych. undergrad would use such appalling bad methodology. Perhaps it’s just a cover story and eee is running hasbara trial balloons. If you can get it past MW then it’ll work elsewhere…
How ironic that eee is looking elsewhere to study cult like behavior, when he need only look in the mirror.
“this very perilous combination of a privileged but not sovereign minority in western society”
One does not have to doubt a historical connection between Palestine and the Jewish people. The bottom line of the problem is that no people has ever successfully reclaimed their homeland as a sovereign state after a 2000 year absence/presence as a minority. Not even after 200 years, or 20 years. Find one other example among the countless examples of expulsion, democide and genocide during or prior to the 20th century, and I donate another $ 100 to MW. Such a return to their land of origin happened only for the Jewish people, and was not a voluntary return for many of them. In addition, the alleged solution to the ‘Jewish problem’ in the Diaspora has created the ‘Palestinian problem’: a problem without a just solution. But let’s not forget that this problem was created not only, and not even predominantly, by Zionists and Jews. Friends and enemies of the very diverse ‘Jewish people’ had and still have their hands in it, from imperial powers to the various versions of ‘Germany’: Whether we are talking about Hitler’s Transfer Agreement of the 1930s, the Jewish refugee crisis created during and after the brief and brutal Nazi era, or the crucial financial and material support granted to the post-natal Jewish state by Adenauer (who was well aware that the future of Germany depended to a considerable extent on the future of Israel), or the Western powers turning a blind eye to Israel’s continued violation of international law and human rights – the central casualty has always been the principle of self-determination, spanning from the ethnic cleansing of Jews in Europe (and the ME) to the ethnic cleansing of Arabs in Palestine. It’s like the ‘Murder on the Orient Express’: they all did it.
“Welcome liberal Zionist Jon S.”
My God, the depth of courage and committment required to give “liberal Zionists” an outlet for their opinions. And the almost unbelievable level of intellectual integrity needed to accept that description of himself. I salute you Phil.
Meanwhile, I gonna have a couple slices of the chocolate cake I ate last week. We finished it, so there ought to be a lot left over, huh Phil?
talk among yourselves
“talk among yourselves”
As long as you insist that “yourselves” includes those who have a commitment to being dishonest, wasting time, and cannot be indicted for or suffer consequences for even the most childish and obviously false mendacity (and, I ask you, what can be worse than false mendacity? It’s the worst kind!) and cannot be asked to acknowledge even the most basic facts which contradict their Ziocaine fantasies, this place will be a mess.
If you can’t even call a halt to the intellectual depredations of the zio-trolls, what on earth should make me think you will ever take a real stand on Zionism? Every time I see that “battle of ideas in the Mideast” tag, I grit my teeth. Yup, that’s just what’s going on, a battle of ideas. The Israelis and the Zionists do it all by force of argument.
I’m breaking my silence long enough to indicate that Mooser, as usually, has his finger on the proverbial pulse. I really have to stop making a habit of this lately, though.
Unfortunately, I don’t see that Phil really cares, not enough to actually make a difference like you’re talking, Mooser. Still, credit where credit is due — future generations will have Mondoweiss as a source of documentation for Israeli crimes against humanity. While Phil and Adam fail, apparently, as activists even in their own backyard, I will say they are efficient journalists.
“As long as you insist that “yourselves” includes those who have a commitment to being dishonest, wasting time”. . . . .
We’ll make sure to leave you out, Mooser, since you seem not to have anything to say but smug jokes that are not that funny.
with respect, Phil, there might be some holes in the historic characterizations:
~distinct and ghettoized-but-later-highly-successful group of people
Jews enjoyed their first “burst” of success in Babylon by the fourth century BC, where, according to Prof. David Ruderman, “wealthy bankers and merchants” were the leaders of the community and decided matters of Jewish life for Jews throughout the ‘world.’
Ruppin complains bitterly that Jewish “purity” was polluted by mercantilism, and sought to expunge that nasty pursuit of wealth from the Jewish/zionist soul. Etan Bloom’s discussion of Ruppin’s complex disgust with “Jewish materialism” which evolved from relationship with his father, a compulsive gambler whose bankruptcy thoroughly humiliated Ruppin, is worthwhile reading (~pp. 50-58).
Jews participated in trade on the Silk Road, and very successfully.
As early as the seventh century AD Jews voluntarily migrated to various European sites, for example, the banks of the Rhine River, where trade was beneficial.
you wrote: ” . . . on whom had been imposed the duties of usury and subsequently finance,
I think you over-rely on Muller’s “Jews & Capitalism.” (I must admit I did not finish reading the book; I found so many inaccuracies that trust in the author was eroded.)
Yes, the Church proscribed lending at interest, but it was honored mostly in the breach. The University of Padua, est. 1222, taught business and mercantile topics as core competencies from its inception. Genoa, Venice, Pisa, Milan, Naples engaged in Silk Road trade and complex business arrangements for centuries, picking up almost immediately the threads of commerce sundered with the fall of the Roman empire. The Bank of St. George functioned for several hundred years, establishing the florin as the ‘world’ currency. All these institutions, all around the world — from Silk Road China trade to trade with the Levant via Crusades and competition with Ottoman Turks, through trade via the “New World” of Ferdinand and Isabella, Christians participated in all of these ventures, frequently in partnership with Jews, as business allies or as employees. It is a childish compartmentalization that seeks to assign “finance” to Jews, as if the Christian commercial world were as devoid of practitioners as — as Palestine was devoid of people.
Phil wrote: possessing a great tradition of learning that suited us for the modern age but also exposed us to oppression and resentment.
iirc you wrote at the bery beginning that “Herzl was not a scholar . . .” Indeed he was not; he was a flailing journalist. Jabotinsky was a very poor student and mercurial thinker, given to what would now be classified as manic-depressive episodes. What I’m getting at is that, zionism’s founders, at least, were NOT scholars, they were journalists — what Joshua Muravchik termed “scribblers.” Herzl says in “Der Judenstaat” that the Jews of his day were too-highly populated with “mediocre intellects.” And Israel Shahak gives the lie to the notion the “Jews possessed a great tradition of learning.” SOME Jews DID attain great scholarly distinction; most did not.
I’m afraid, dear Phil, you’ve fallen prey to the Lake Woebegone syndrome: like the children of Lake Woebegone, you maintain that all Jews are above average.
Walt and Mearsheimer’s prescription for a rational US-Israel foreign policy is for the US to treat Israel like any other nation in the globe, with US interests uppermost. When Walt made that suggestion to a group from a local synagogue, the gasp in the audience was unmistakable:
“Who will protect us?” -1. You’re quite safe here in the US; 2. Israel has the biggest military in the region.
“We are surrounded by enemies.” 1. No, you are not; you have treaties with Jordan and Egypt. 2. Settle your conflict with Palestinians and you will not be making enemies faster than US can buy friends for you.
In other words, W&M administered some reality therapy to the Jewish audience that registered alarm that the US might treat Israel as anything less than “above average.”
Similarly, “the Jewish question” will NOT be solved until Jews start confronting facts and reality about themselves and their averageness, rather than fantasies about their exceptionalism. The Jewish question will NOT be solved until Jews stop asking it.
gosh you wont persuade me of much by contending that there was not a great tradition of jewish scholarship and then offering journalist herzl as your evidence. of course he’s not a scholar. he anticipates holbrooke.
point for Phil.
perhaps I was making a different argument — one that neither you nor I raised: when I wrote that “Herzl was not a scholar; neither was Jabotinsky,” the thoughts swirling in my head were, ” . . .in contrast to the Founding Fathers of US, who WERE scholars in every sense.”
Perhaps that point can be sharpened even more: in my view, many Jewish thinkers, particularly those who represent themselves as “public intellectuals” and attempt to influence US policy on the basis of that self-identification, are not Enlightenment-oriented thinkers; they are JEWISH thinkers, in the frame of Ruppin, whose Weltenshuung was focused on the powerful intent to influence reality. If I understand the fundamentals of Enlightenment thinking, such a thinkers observes reality then applies logic to attempt to understand it fully. Ruppin, in contrast, wished to shape reality. This notion reminds me too much of the person Ron Suskind interviewed in Bush’s White House, who told Suskind: “We create the new reality; you just watch, and try to react.”
ps. I don’t quite get the “anticipates Holbrooke” reference. Herzl was a problem-solver???
no, more of a power guy. herzl loved to don the gray gloves and tails and go into a prime minister’s office
thanks for generous point system!
” a great tradition of jewish scholarship”
Ah, those fungible Jews. We’re “one collective”, you know!
“gosh you wont persuade me of much by contending that there was not a great tradition of jewish scholarship and then offering journalist herzl as your evidence.”
And who, if I may be so bold, had more of an influence on “the Jews”?
All those thinkers, or Herzl et al?
I tell you one thing, all those kosher eggheads didn’t get one Jew out of Europe and into a stolen Palestinian house!
” for the US to treat Israel like any other nation in the globe”
That is, piss on it the way the US pisses on the rest of us.
Psycho God
This question of usury this is from Catholicculture.org an information site
link to catholicculture.org
Noonan is correct that the Church consistently condemned usury in the most official way. For example, Canon 13 of the Second Lateran Council (1139) says: “Furthermore we condemn that practice accounted despicable and blame worthy by divine and human laws, denounced by Scripture in the Old and New Testaments, namely, the ferocious greed of usurers; and we sever them from every comfort of the Church, forbidding any archbishop or bishop, or an abbot of any order whatever or anyone in clerical orders, to dare to receive usurers, unless they do so with extreme caution; but let them be held infamous throughout their whole lives and, unless they repent, be deprived of a Christian burial.”
Similarly, Canon 25 of the Third Lateran Council (1179) says, “Nearly everywhere the crime of usury has become so firmly rooted that many, omitting other business, practice usury as if it were permitted and in no way observe how it is forbidden in both the Old and New Testament. We therefore declare that notorious usurers should not be admitted to communion of the altar or receive Christian burial if they die in this sin.”
And Canon 29 of the Council of Vienne (1311) says, “If indeed someone has fallen into the error of presuming to affirm pertinaciously that the practice of usury is not sinful, we decree that he is to be punished as a heretic.”
These injunctions were approved by many popes, including Alexander III, Gregory IX, Urban III, Innocent III, and Clement V The teaching of the Church condemning usury is unambiguous, binding, and irrevocable.
The Jewish skill in finance was honed over centuries because both Christians and Muslims forbade usury (defined as making ANY interest on money loaned). Yes there were Christians who ignored it, but as official policy usury was banned. It was only allowed because the Church had to function in the capitalist system and they would never be able to get a loan to do anything. A argument for the greater good.
Phil,
I think Jon S’ assessment that there were colonial elements to the “colonization” of Israel but that it was essentially NOT a colonial activity in the common usage of the term, is accurate.
The establishment of Israel was a migration. It is analagous to the Pilgrims or Hugonots escaping persecution by settling in the New World. Are they colonists? I say no.
The colonists are the British trade settlements, not immigrant refugees.
In that sense, the vast vast majority of Zionists were not colonists of Great Britain for example.
“The establishment of Israel was a migration.”
Yeah, yeah, like the swallows returning to Capitsrano! All those Zionists sniffed the air, and just sort of winged their way, davaning as they went.
Once again, Witty, you have this incredible idea that what you call something makes an essential difference in what it is, or it’s consequences.
As a matter of fact, “colonial” would not be an accurate description. How about “invasion”?
“Are they colonists? I say no.” Well gosh-a-rooni, what a surprise!
>> The establishment of Israel was a migration. …
One that happened to involve ethnic cleansing (“currently not necessary”), theft of land, colonization, expansion, destruction and murder. But, sure, it was just “a migration”.
>> … the vast vast majority of Zionists were not colonists of Great Britain for example.
The vast vast majority of Zionists did not have a religious and righteous sense of entitlement to Great Britain. The vast vast majority of Zionists did not ethnically cleanse (“currently not necessary”) Great Britain to make room for “a good in the world”. The vast vast majority of Zionists did not engage – and do not CONTINUE TO ENGAGE – in aggression, oppression, theft, destruction and murder in Great Britain.
But, then, these are all minor quibbles when one “Remember(s) the Holocaust!”
Colonialism is not about why people or a population move to a new area, it’s about what they do when they get there. Zionism in Israel is no different than any other colonial enterprise:
1. The indigenous are thought of as inferior to the settlers
2. They have no property or human rights
3. Co-existence with equal rights is not on the table
4. Violence used by settlers to expel/kill/control the indigenous is characterised as self-defence
5. Violent resistance by the indigenous is characterised as aggressive victimisation of the “peaceful” settlers
You might argue that Israel is not formally a satellite of an imperial power but this is essentially a moot point. If everybody in England moved to Australia in the 19th century, for whatever reason, that wouldn’t mean what was done here wasn’t colonialism. The imperial power role is fulfilled by a mix of Israeli and diaspora jews, and increasingly christian zionists, some of whom like John Hagee have their own evil agenda.
There would never have been an Israel without enthnic cleansing, so false again Witty.
Did they drive out the indigenous population to achieve their objectives? No.
And you can cut the BS bout escaping persecution. The Zionists were arriving with these insidious plans long before 1939.
And the Zionist colosists were the Zionist founders, were openingly declaring that they were there to take comeone else’s land at the turn of the century.
That sense is invalid. Colonization is what they all did. Every one of them.
I know Witty isn’t going to click on this link and actually read what’s there. But some others might. All arguments by prominent Jewish writers and scholars that refute this rather simplistic response are here:
link to dissidentvoice.org
Interesting article. I like the irony inherent in it.
The quote of Kafka “I admire Zionism and I am nauseated by it.”
The dilemma of actually seeking to survive, when to survive requires doing what is otherwise unethical.
The dilemma of actually seeking to survive, when to survive requires doing what is otherwise unethical.
your problem witty is that you believe that jews and ONLY jews, ever any anywhere, faced that moral dilemma.
Mythologist Joseph Campbell names that dilemma as central to all life: “life lives on killing.”
Campbell was attracted to mythology as a very young boy when he read about American Indians in the New Rochelle, NY, public library’s extensive collection of monographs.
He learned how Indians dealt with that profound dilemma: they respected the beast that they killed for life-sustaining food; they thanked the animal, and other natural resources whose life they consumed to sustain their own.
I’m not aware that Torah has ‘tales of the hunt,’ nor of any rituals of thanksgiving to an Other for the efforts the Other has rendered to provide for the Hebrew people. Plenty of “us vs them” and thanksgiving for god killing the Thems, but not so much for the Thems (ie. Americans) that died to make Hebrew life comfy and cozy.
As Israel Shahak explains, that’s one of downsides of a closed society.
Well, I’m glad that you acknowledge that the urge to survive for the Jewish people, individuals and collective, is rational.
Please, don’t pretend to imagine what I think. You guess wrong far more often than accurately.
There are all kinds of Jews, some that religiously apply the native theme of “all my relations” in thanks to all, and some that religiously apply the application of privilege only, vainly and trivially.
What does Torah teach? “Love thy neighbor as thyself”, to which one of the rabbi’s letter quoted as the basis for protecting Jewish girls from Arab boys, and to which Lynne Gottlieb quoted as the basis of her activism relative to Palestinians.
“The dilemma of actually seeking to survive, when to survive requires doing what is otherwise unethical.”
1) You have never been even close to that situation, and it is a travesty for you to pretend you know anything about it.
2) It’s pretty obvious that being spared that situation has done nothing for you either, you aren’t in the least grateful for it.
If you were, or had even the slightest appreciation of what that situation is like (except in terms of of a movie scenario) you would not want other Jews to be thrust into it.
God, I despise Zionists! How morally degraded do you have to be to be able to say it is permissable to enter a situation like that, because of what happened in the past, or may happen in the future, always making sure, of course, that the power is on your side!
How ill making. God has spared you, and it means nothing to you.
I’m sorry, I can’t possibly coherently express the contempt I feel for you, even pretending you are in a kill-or-be-killed situation, while usiong it to… never mind, I’m gonna be sick.
The plain wisdom of this post (Mooser at 10:40 pm) is why Mooser is the Mondoweiss Mascot. Y’all.
“The dilemma of actually seeking to survive, when to survive requires doing what is otherwise unethical.”
But who or what is to survive, and what is the unethical act required? Is it justified by the necessity of survival?
Is it individual Jews, or is it “the Jewish people”?
Mr. and Mrs. Goldstern want to survive. They tell a lie to a border guard. They steal a car. Do they kill an innocent person? Probably not. Mr. Goldstern’s life is not worth more than that of the innocent person.
They get to Palestine. There they try to live in harmony with the native population, and to contribute to the overall well-being of the country.
I do not think we will condemn Mr. and Mrs. Goldstern too harshly.
We will condemn them if they proceed to support a project for taking over the land from the native population.
But when the issue is the survival, not of Jews, but of “the Jewish people”, what unethical act can be justified on that basis? Why is the survival of “the Jewish people” as a distinct group so important that it justifies any unethical act at all?
Zionism didn’t contain the necessary toolkit for the survival of the Jewish people. You’ll notice how it was ineffectual in the face of the shoah. The WZO leadership were obsessed with colonization and imperialist alliances without considering whether these powers had anyone’s best interest at heart. During the 30′s, Palestine absorbed Jewish refugees from Germany way out of proportion to her numbers while Britain and the USA took in a piddly amount.
We can certainly blame the great powers for not doing enough for the persecuted Jews, however, what Zionism offered was an alliance with those self-same powers. If you were a member of the Hagana in the mid-30′s, you were effectively a British footsoldier.
If Zionism was to be a movement for survival, it had to anticipate the shoah. Like most of the world, it failed to do so. That doesn’t stop its apologists from pretending they always did.
I’m sure the dead civilians of Deir Yassin in that moment before death understood that the Zionists were not colonists since they didn’t have a sponsor. WTF?
” the Pilgrims … escaping persecution by settling in the New World.”
OT, but I thought that the Pilgrims went to the New World because the British would not allow them to carry on their religious persecution, and the Pilgrims thought that was unfair.
Or was that the Puritans?
What an interesting thread, when I should be accomplishing tasks A through T today, which I have not yet begun. Arrgh.
Let me add an additional entry by the (Jewish) historian Gabriel Kolko, who wrote one of the best books about war in the 20th C, ever. I’ve cited him here before, but the newbies probably have seen it.
Kolko describes the conditions under which Herzl formulated his ideas (emphasis mine)
As Kolko points out in this passage, Herzl had his head wrapped around one issue: the Russian and Eastern European Jews. (Kolko was actually in Israel at its founding. He worked there on boats.)
Kolko also remarks
Here’s the link:
link to antiwar.com
“but also vast cultural differences among Jews, all of which were to appear later. Europe’s Jews have precious little in common, and their mores and languages are very distinct. But the gap between Jews from Europe and those from the Arab world was far, far greater.”
This is why all the talk of Jews as “a nation” or “a people” is nonsense.
Is there a Jewish problem or a racism problem? Europeans do discriminate against other groups. It seems to me it is better to talk about a racism problem.
I think what has happened to the Jewish community is that they have become a priveleged group. I believe privilieged people tend to be discriminatory and worship power.
The difference being that in Europe, there are laws to protect peopel from racism, whereas in Israel, there are racist laws that enable racism and promote it.
True, but with limitations. There’s a sort of cultural narcissism in first world countries or to use Edward’s term, privileged nations. Racism is largely a non-issue at home but it rules supreme in foreign policy: what other reason could there be for the fact that hardly anybody knows or cares about the million Iraqis who died from post-Gulf War sanctions?
9/11 casualties were just 0.3% of this figure, but think which has greater “mind-share” and ask yourself why.
Yes, I agree.
I wasn’t very clear in my comment. I was responding to this sentence:
What distinguished Zionism from colonialism was the Jewish Question.
I am simply suggesting that the Jewish Question be considered one example of the more general problem of racism. The writer may not have been implying anything beyond this.
one thing that distinguished zionism from colonialism is colonialism is for the most so last century, zionism keeps marching on in it’s expansion and ethnic cleansing.
zionism contains a kind of religious/mythical component as well as a cultural component that colonialism doesn’t. because of the timing of it’s manifestation in the states founding there’s a built in justification for it’s continuance against all ethical odds considering the way ‘practical zionism’ operates. that is what i think of wrt ‘the jewish question’. those components (baggage) colonialism doesn’t/never had that have made zionism easier to extrapolate public sentiment as opposed to colonialism, which is now accepted as morally repulsive.
“The establishment of Israel was a migration. It is analagous to the Pilgrims or Hugonots escaping persecution by settling in the New World. Are they colonists? I say no.”
I think the Pilgrim analogy is an exact one, or as close to exact as one generally gets with historical analogies, but it’s what people often call
“settler colonialism”. The original inhabitants aren’t exploited by a small minority of new people–they’re largely expelled or killed. You are completely ignoring the people already present and what was to happen to them if the new people claimed the land was theirs by right.
So it becomes a matter of semantics–whether or not to call this “colonialism”. I don’t much care–we can call it “land theft and ethnic cleansing” or the historians can construct a taxonomy of different forms of “colonialism” and maybe call the Pilgrim/Israeli case something different.
The moral picture is pretty clear. Newcomers fleeing persecution come in with the idea that they have a moral right to take land where others are already living. The persecuted become the persecutors. The story of humanity.
Perhaps you don’t know American history so well.
The Pilgrims (and the Puritans) were subordinated “cults” in their host countries, chased around Europe looking for a safe haven. The Pilgrims that landed on Plymouth rock were a couple hundred. They did not dispossess anyone.
The Puritans on the other hand sought to take over Massachusetts Bay. They did fit your settler colonists.
Your description of “colonialism” is interesting, but functionally it compels EVERY community that is oppressed in its host country to continue to be permanently, if they are not accepted in their host countries, or cannot possibly migrate elsewhere.
That is NOT a progressive approach, but functionally a uniquely reactionary one.
I agree with you that if the immigrant community displaces to the point of suppression, that that is wrong, if there is a viable option.
The Pilgrims and the Hugonots did not settle and oppress, they just settled, resembling the majority of Israeli immigrants post ww2.
Oh? And how many davidkas did the Hugonots have?
You still haven’t read any of the New Historians I gather.
The bold part is inaccurate, Richard: “The Pilgrims and the Hugonots did not settle and oppress, they just settled, resembling the majority of Israeli immigrants post ww2.”
I know you mean ALL who emigrated to Israel post WWII, but the conditions under which their emigration occurred, the foundational truth, cannot be wiped clean of events that made their emigration possible.
I consider the efforts by Haganah and other vanguard illegal immigration agencies to be heroic and wonderful, saving a traumatized and desparate people (the Jewish refugees following WW2).
I don’t hold that Ben Gurion, Herzl, Weitzman, others held racist views so much as pragmatic nationalist assertive views.
I consider the bulk of their perspective and strategy to be an affirmative response to the condition of Jews in the world.
NONE represents all of Zionism, or even the epitome or representation of Zionism. Ben Gurion (in the setting of vanguard colleagues) is the only individual that can possibly be described as defining of actual Zionist political praxis.
The labor emmigres, the kibbutzniks, and the desparate traumatized refugees, are the PEOPLE there, representative of the actual ideology in practice.
They are more of a model than a curse, a model for assertion, for focus (especially the self-development aspects, the Jewish Labor revival).
Murdering British soldiers (and civilians) is heroic and wonderful? Funny, you don’t seem to have the same sort of appreciation for Nazis for doing the same sort of activities.
“I don’t hold that Ben Gurion, Herzl, Weitzman, others held racist views so much as pragmatic nationalist assertive views.”
Well, no, you don’t because admitting they were racist would tar yourself.
“The labor emmigres, the kibbutzniks, and the desparate traumatized refugees, are the PEOPLE there, representative of the actual ideology in practice.”
Uh, newsflash, there were other people in Palestine who weren’t Jewish and they were expelled by the people you lionize here. Still looking for a pro-nakba argument that isn’t callously self-absorbed.
“They are more of a model than a curse, a model for assertion, for focus (especially the self-development aspects, the Jewish Labor revival).”
Are you talking about the kibbutzim that excluded Arabs and Mizrachi Jews, or the Histadrut that excluded Israeli Palestinians until the early 60′s and still forces the occupied Palestinians, who can’t join, to pay dues through garnishing their wages.
And I hate to tell you this, but there’s a disturbing reality behind what the Haganah did for the Jewish refugees after the war:
link to zcommunications.org
Richard, I read “Saints and Strangers” some time back and the Nathaniel Philbrick book more recently and the notion of saintly Pilgrims vs. evil Puritans didn’t really seem to hold up too well. Perhaps you should look again.
And obviously Israeli history matches up pretty closely with what you see as the Puritan model anyway. But I should have known that when you made this comparison you weren’t being honest about Israel’s history–you were relying on a mythological history of harmony between Pilgrims and Indians and claiming something similar for your beloved Zionist pioneers.
And Richard Witty, if you don’t want to read Philbrick’s book the wikipedia entry on the history of Plymouth will do nicely–
link
You start out with a few English settlers who need the help of the Indians to survive (and even then they kill some of them) and 50 years later the Indians are fighting for their political and physical survival. Settler colonialism, much like Israel.
“genuine motivation for Zionism which remains unhealed, the Jewish question.”
Oh, the Jewish Question? You’re asking why the ancient Jews were unable or unwilling (forgive me) to uphold their covenants with God, and He turned His face from us, and it’s been really crappy for us ever since? That’s the only relevant Jewish Question I know of. If you can’t answer it, I suggest looking into Christianity. They’ve overcome that problem, through faith in Jesus Christ, or so they say.
As to the other Jewish Question, why are people so crappy to the Jews, that one is easy! Just go have your skin treated, a little plastic surgery, hair implants, and you could pass for Black! There you go, you’ll never be persecuted again!
I really cannot understand you, Phil (not that I should, or this blog is supposed to do that, of course) Don’t you think your relationship with God, as a Jew, and the truths it reflects makes everything else pretty much irrelevant? That alone gives me more than enough to worry about.
“possessing a great tradition of learning that suited us for the modern age but also exposed us to oppression and resentment.”
Yup, I know how that is! I’ll never forget the Catholic kids chasing me down and yelling “We hate you because some other Jews are so smart!” I carried a notarised copy of my transcript at all times, showing me to be a bona fide cretin, but they were not interested in facts. How I remember the beatings! Whack! “This one is for Moses Maimonides” Thump! “That’s for Einstein!”
I’d better stop, I’m getting hysterical. And oh, what really stung was that when there was no Jew around, all those people treated each other with Christ-like forbearance, gentleness, honesty and restraint. You should have seen the way they embraced the civil-rights movement!
Mooser, you are a prize.
My guess is that Mooser is funny because he takes Judaism seriously. I suspect he really believes in God and that he really believes that he has moral responsibilities that derive from being a Jew.
And that he will find some way of making a joke about this post, too.
I know!
Wish I could clone him!
See, Mooser, Israel has now totally solved this problem, proving that in the right environment, Jews can be ignorant thugs as well as any other peoples.
Look, I have very limited ideas of what, as I Jew, am supposed to do. But I’m pretty sure I know, as a Jew, what I’m definitely not supposed to do. That’s about it. And as far as I’ve been able to see, Zionism includes most of them.
(And if my wife should write in and ask, please, do me a favor and tell her that includes getting a job.)
Mooser’s post is very relevant, and hits a theme that Phil articulated much earlier.
That is, how does one person or one power navigate the transition from powerlessness and subordination to power, and ethically?
It IS very very much a question of what one is supposed to do, what one should do. And, it is a question that few in power navigate well.
And, it is a confusion of dissent.
Phil, for example has shifted from powerlessness to some power, from being ignored to being listened to. The various Palestinian factions have shifted from primarily powerlessness to some power.
Those that have made that shift, are often ideologically hated for making the shift, NOT for how they made the shift, when how is the important question.
Mooser hits a comic note, as ever, but speaks a great deal of good sense, maybe the best around. There is no basic distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish people in respect of intellect or morality. If we are all human beings – and we are, you know, we are – there cannot be.
The traditional religious schools of early modern Europe were all a bit narrow, because of their religious basis, but all had a certain potential, none essentially greater or better than any other. I could go on about the ‘great flowering of Protestant genius’ in certain centuries but that, as you all know, would be a bit odd and misleading – I’ll just mention the impetus given to scientific/literary study of the Hebrew scriptures by the apostate Spinoza and the Protestant Hobbes. There is no doubt that many aspects of modernity were much developed by Jewish people to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude – in a backhanded way, the role that the anti-Semite Wagner attributed to the Nibelung/Jew Mime in protecting (for ulterior motives) the young Siegfried acknowledges this. But we’re all in this together.
It is inherent in humanity, in all its branches, to face all manner of difficulties, but not impossibilities, in living together.
There is no basic distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish people in respect of intellect or morality. If we are all human beings – and we are, you know, we are – there cannot be.
From a link I gave above:
3-Hannah Arendt, “Zionism Reconsidered,” The Menorah Journal, Autumn 1945, reprinted in Michael Selzer, Zionism Reconsidered: The Rejection of Jewish Normalcy, (London: The Macmillan Company, 1970), p. 217.
4-See “Memorandum of Edwin Montagu on the Anti-Semitism of the Present (British) Government: Submitted to the British Cabinet August 1917,” reproduced in From Haven to Conquest, Walid Khalidi ed. (Beirut: The Institute for Palestine Studies, 1971), p. 143-151.
5-For an example of his views see “A Nation or Religious Community,” by C. G. Montefiore reprinted in Zionism Reconsidered, edited by Michael Selzer, (London: The Macmillian Company, 1970), p. 49-64.
6-Walter Laqueur, A History of Zionism, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972), p. 400; See also Chaim Weizmann, Trial and Error, (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949), p. 163. Also see Alfred Lilienthal, What Price Israel?, (first printed by Henry Regnery Company, 1953 reprinted by Beirut: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1969), p. 23. For an example of Wolf’s views see “The Zionist Peril,” Jewish Quarterly Review, October 1904, p. 1-25.
“Montagu argued that Zionism and anti-Semitism were based on the same premise, namely that Jews and non-Jews could not co-exist.”
What? If Jews were a bit less annoying, and non-Jews were a bit less picky, everyone could rub along reasonably well?
That’s how things usually are in Australia, and Britain, and all the other places where Jews live in comfort and security.
Montagu hit the nail right on the head there.
“how to resolve the political fate of a distinct and ghettoized”
They could start by coming out of the ghettos and learning to be good neighbours instead of keeping themselves separate and distinct.
“-but-later-highly-successful group of people on whom had been imposed the duties of usury and subsequently finance”
Oh, what a painful duty! But the finance system changed, and non-Jews became bankers, financiers, and overall swindlers. Jews were able to (and did) take up honourable professions.
“a people with different manners from the majority”
Change the manners. Stop being “a people”.
“and possessing a great tradition of learning that suited us for the modern age”
The content of much of that was religious tripe that suited no-one for anything useful. The habit of learning enabled the honourable professions.
“but also exposed us to oppression and resentment.” Probably not the tradtion of learning that caused the oppression and resentment. More likely the contempt for the neighbours, the rent-farming, etc.
There.
Political fate resolved.
Your joking Roha, yes?
Stop being a people? Of course stated as opposition to racism.
Would it kill you to BE AN AMERICAN? You know, most Jewish Americans down see their religion or ethnicity or whatever it is you want to characterize Judaism as right this second for whatever expediency, to interfere with their nationality and their allegiance. Why do you have that problem?
“Would it kill you to BE AN AMERICAN? You know, most Jewish Americans down see their religion or ethnicity or whatever it is you want to characterize Judaism as right this second for whatever expediency, to interfere with their nationality and their allegiance. Why do you have that problem?”
We are Americans, Chaos. I’m not sure why you would think any differently. And I’m offended you would question my loyalty.
Why should I be joking? Lots of “peoples” have stopped being “peoples” Where are the Sumerians? The Etruscans? (Hi, Dave!) The Picts?
So why shouldn’t Jews stop thinking of themselves as distinct and separate and special, and just be part of the country they are in? Where’s the harm in it?
“So why shouldn’t Jews stop thinking of themselves as distinct and separate and special, and just be part of the country they are in? Where’s the harm in it?”
A typically obtuse question that manages to offensively assume and ignore history at the same time.
We are part of the countries we are in. But there has been tremendous harm in the past when we were a minority everywhere.
“We are part of the countries we are in.”
Where Jews were “distinct and ghettoized”, “a people with different manners from the majority”, they were refusing to be part of the society.
“But there has been tremendous harm in the past when we were a minority everywhere”
Why keep it up, if it brings such harm? Do the sensible thing and become part of the majority.
why roha? wheres the law that says i should be part of anyones facking majority. no: no law, no declaration of human rights, just majoritarian prejudice, thats all.
Become part of the majority? Tried that too. Same result.
“why roha? wheres the law that says i should be part of anyones facking majority.”
No law says it. But if being a member of a minority leads to trouble, why not change?
I agree with the general principle that societies should tolerate minorities, but I don’t see any point in maintaining minorities, either.
“Become part of the majority? Tried that too. Same result.”
When?