Why it will be said one day that anti-Zionists had a better grasp on 20th C history than Uri Avnery or Tom Friedman

by on January 10, 2011 24
30sharesFacebook
3tweetsTwitter
0stumbledStumbleUpon
0sharesReddit
0recommendGoogle

"Left Zionism is the belief that destroying a people and taking their homeland is something that can be done humanely and fairly through mutual agreement and dialogue." --Gabriel Ash of Jews Sans Fronteres

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine

{ 24 comments... read them below or add one }

  2. Shmuel says:
    January 10, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    Like the Israeli serial rapist in the ’70s, known as “the polite rapist” (ha-anas ha-menumas), because he would always use a condom and give his victims cabfare home. He got 30 years.

  3. clenchner says:
    January 10, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    It’s silly. An a-historical effort to link the crimes committed during the colonization phase of Israel with the modern Zionist left that – in part – is in a de facto alliance with human right supporters and efforts to establish a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

    • annie says:
      January 10, 2011 at 3:14 pm

      phase? name a time israel wasn’t colonizing. thus far there has never been a ‘phase’ of zionism not colonizing.

      • eee says:
        January 10, 2011 at 3:48 pm

        Clencher,

        You should have figured out by now that for Annie there is no difference between Jaffa and Hebron.

      • clenchner says:
        January 10, 2011 at 4:05 pm

        annie, my words were open to misinterpretation. I mean that starting at a certain point, the Zionist left has been openly opposed to colonization, despite an early history of supporting it. The resistance to settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank are examples of this turn. I welcome the Zionist Left in the struggle against the Zionist Right.
        The ‘small tent’ folks of course seek to unite the Zionist Left with the Zionist Right, thus weakening the movement for greater Palestinian rights.

        • Shmuel says:
          January 10, 2011 at 5:40 pm

          Clenchner,

          It’s not about the size of the tent. There’s plenty of room in the AZ tent, and people should be free to wander in and out as they please. I too welcome the struggle of leftish Zionists against the occupation and all that goes with it, and am more than happy to co-operate with them whenever and wherever possible. The problem is that there is far more to the issue than the post-67 occupation (including Jerusalem, which seems to be a problem for a lot of LZs) – and it is ongoing. The closer you get to the core issues of inequality and violence (resource-allocation, refugees, “security”, immigration, civil status, etc.), the more leftish Zionists seem to disappear from the tent of human rights and justice, while jealously guarding their distorted self-image as the good guys. There is no reason in the world to ignore this hypocrisy, and every reason – including a desire for a truly viable solution (see e.g. Y. Shenhav on the subject of LZs and the green line) – to demand that all of the core issues be addressed by those who claim to seek peace.

        • annie says:
          January 10, 2011 at 8:12 pm

          the Zionist left has been openly opposed to colonization

          have they issued an apology for the nakba? do they openly challenge their synagogues for supporting settlement growth? are they collecting signatures out here in california to have our state pension funds divest from investment in settlement expansion? what are they willing to do, what action to oppose the ever expanding state of israel?

          the votes in congress funding israel, it’s the same vote whether one is left or right, it is a zionist vote. i don’t care if they oppose colonization if they do not have the balls to end it. i bet there are even self identified leftist zionist living in the settlements. heck marty peretz probably considers himself a leftist.

    • tree says:
      January 10, 2011 at 3:38 pm

      …efforts to establish a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

      =”something that can be done humanely and fairly through mutual agreement and dialogue.”

      We’ll (eventually and begrudgingly) agree to letting you keep a sliver of what we stole, in return for a “peace agreement” under our terms. You should be grateful for our generous sacrifice. That seems to be the Zionist left position that I’ve seen.

  4. wondering jew says:
    January 10, 2011 at 5:04 pm

    Regarding the headline: The 20th century happened to include certain facts that proved the necessity of Zionism. You must be referring to the 20th century in America or the 20th century after 1945.

    • RoHa says:
      January 10, 2011 at 7:09 pm

      “The 20th century happened to include certain facts that proved the necessity of Zionism.”

      If you are referring to the Holocaust, please show how that proved the necessity of driving out the Palestinians and taking over Palestine.

      In the process you will have to answer the question “What end was it necessary for?”, and then show that end was one which a Palestinian would accept.

    • Chaos4700 says:
      January 10, 2011 at 7:28 pm

      What, that Jews have to kill Palestinians in the Holy Land or else Nazis will kill Jews in Europe? Did you miss the part where the Holocaust ended in 1945 and the Nakba started in 1947? And which one is still happening today?

  5. Richard Witty says:
    January 10, 2011 at 5:46 pm

    Its another very questionable headline.

    When the idiocy of expansion ends, the green line (with consented modifications) will be a very rational and accepted boundary.

    The nakba will have ended, and liberation that Zionism represents will have survived and settled with enough.

    This is the end times, the end of unnecessary oppression and violence, UNLESS propagated.

    • pjdude says:
      January 10, 2011 at 7:10 pm

      No witty the nakba won’t have ended when Israel says it will give up some of what it has stolen it will end when the palestinians finally get justice and all of their rights

    • Chaos4700 says:
      January 10, 2011 at 7:25 pm

      The Nakba is still ongoing, Witty. You’ve admitted as much yourself. It’s an indelible part of Israeli history. At this point the Nakba is the breadth and width of Israeli history, all sixty-odd years of it.

    • talknic says:
      January 10, 2011 at 10:23 pm

      Er Witty

      The green line is not, nor was it ever, a border. To demand it as the border is neither rational or just, it would be a continuation of the Nakba. Were the Palestinians to accept it, would show incredible generosity on their part in order to have peace.

      Should this come about, I have no doubt Israel would merely gloat like a fat glutton rather than recognize itself, what it has done or the generous spirit of the Palestinians.

    • straightline says:
      January 11, 2011 at 1:34 am

      I would like to know what liberation is it that Zionism represents and for whom?

      For the Palestinians – certainly not. For Israeli Arabs?
      Do I need to make a case?

      For ultra-orthodox women? link to haaretz.com
      – though at least the High Court insisted that the passenger had to consent.

      For non-orthodox Jews?
      link to maozisraelblog.blogspot.com

      For non-Jews?
      link to washington-report.org

      For Sephardic Jews or Ethiopian Jews? Or Russian Jews? Or Conservative Jews? Or Reform Jews?
      link to ipdiscourse.com

      A two state solution will result in a very strange and divided society in Israel. When Israelis are not united against a common enemy just imagine how they will behave. When Palestinians are not Israel’s enemies who will be? Because the Zionist mentality will undoubtedly require one.

      One could equally talk about the liberation that Wahhabism represents.

      • Richard Witty says:
        January 11, 2011 at 6:44 am

        Zionism represented and represents a liberation for the world’s Jews compared to the accepted conditions of Jewish persecution for centuries. Jewish welfare is certainly not ALL of the measure of welfare on the planet, but it is part of it.

        The liberation that having a home place afforded, and thankfully the global sentiment of utter rejection of Nazi behavior and arguments, is a big deal for the whole planet. (Sadly, some of the same arguments, thankfully not yet behavior, professed by nazis re-appear.)

        An agreed border (present-future) IS a border. That there is not one yet is an important point, that needs to be made to both Zionists and to anti-Zionists.

        There will be at some point, hopefully very soon. The acceptance of a border represents a compromise from some Palestinian arguments and sentiments, and an affirmation of Palestinian aspiration from others.

        There literally has never yet been a self-governing Palestine on any land mass. Even the green line (with consented adjustments) would be a great improvement from that.

        There is NO political proposal in the region that does not contain severe contradictions (impossibilities?). The question is not of which proposal is perfect, but of which proposal is best, MOST just.

        The two-state proposal continues to be that.

        There is literally no chance that the human rights of Israel’s 5.6 million Jews comprising a compelling majority in Israel will abandon their sovereignty based on intellectual assertions of “fairness” or even “justice”. The argument, “we were forced to move” is NOT a compelling argument in the world relative to Jews’ experience of continually being forced to move (with no Palestinian or Arab or Islamic nationalists objecting historically in any way).

        If it occurred by election, by consent, then it would be a different question.

        But, NONE (maybe there is a very very very slim minority) of the prominent single state advocates or advocates for Palestinian “justice” are actively undertaking an effort to persuade by election.

  6. William Burns says:
    January 10, 2011 at 8:04 pm

    Avnery has his flaws, but he deserves better than to be yoked to Thomas Friedman.

  7. piotr says:
    January 11, 2011 at 12:14 am

    I must confess that I am a proponent of two state solution and I have a deep regard for Uri Avnery. As of now, neither “two state”, nor “one state” solution seems possible barring a catastrophe. And a catastrophe is eminently possible, in spite of American delaying tactics (pro-active strategies like removing Hamas and Hezbollah from the picture or “the pages of history” failed). But it is not something you can bank on, and it will not be pretty. In general, wars promote wolves at the expense of sheep.

    For example, Afghan freedom were perhaps deserving our sympathy and support when they were fighting Soviets (for blasphemies like educating girls) but their victory did not mark any improvement.

    In any case, Uri Avnery seems to have quite to grasp of recent history, even if his perspective is Zionist — Zionism of decisively heterodox variety. As opposed to Tom Friedman who is neither overly intelligent, nor overly sane, nor particularly progressive (but overly sure of himself).

  8. yourstruly says:
    January 11, 2011 at 10:34 am

    zionists of all persuasions

    left, right, center

    haven’t you noticed

    by popular demand

    your settler-state is about to be undone

Leave a Reply