For years my main reservation about the one-state/binational solution for Israel/Palestine was that realists said that even if democracy is the right thing, it would take years of bloodshed to get there. And I have given that argument weight.
Did anyone think that Egypt could get as far as it has toward democracy so swiftly, and with so little bloodshed? Did any of these people on TV ever ever admit the possibility that politically-sophisticated Arabs could lead a revolution without slicing people's throats?
NO.
Let Egypt be a light unto the nations. Let us climb down from suspicion of other races. Let us imagine a peaceful transition to democracy in Egypt's neighbors too.
be that which you seek
as in
cairo’s liberation square
and if there
why not everywhere else
u. s. of a. included?
Let us also imagine that we don’t impose our idea of cultural democracy on them either, and allow their — the people’s — idea of what that is to be honored.
Israel is already a democracy. The new Palestinian state, should it ever come into being, will probably be a democracy too.
“Did any of these people on TV ever ever admit the possibility that politically-sophisticated Arabs could lead a revolution without slicing people’s throats?”
That’s really rather racist, Phil, and more importantly, it’s just incorrect. Egypt is basically a homogeneous population, and the surprise of this uprising is not the lack of bloodshed, but that it happened at all. Nobody was thinking about bloodshed because nobody thought the people had the will to rise up in the first place. The question was always whether the Arabs wanted democratic reform badly enough, not whether they could achieve it without bloodshed. And the other question, about whether this kind of revolution is sustainable over the long-term is still yet to be answered. Mubarak stepping down is a small step. Omar Suleiman is still there, and so is the rest of the NDP. The protests need to continue at least until elections are announced and it is clear that they will be free and fair.
As far as the one-state stuff, Egypt is not a good comparison. It’s basically a homogeneous population without a great deal of ethnic strife. Think Yugoslavia (or Nigeria or Rwanda or Sudan or Lebanon or India/Pakistan) if you want an idea of what may happen with a one-state solution.
And you know what? Let’s not saddle Egypt with being a light unto nations. Let’s let them be a democracy first and let them be a light unto themselves.
“Israel is already a democracy.”
LOL. Except for that half of the population which has been under the Isreali government’s control for generations but which has no say in the way their lives are governed.
Occupation does not negate democracy. As you’ve all said, the occupied territories are not part of Israel. The place you acknowledge as being Israel is a democracy.
Jews in the occupied territories are Israelis. Non Jews aren’t. That is a sham democracy.
Israel is a racist society. A democracy where Arabs are second-class citizens.
Occupation does not negate democracy.
apartheid governments do.
What on earth have you been smoking Hophmi? Occupation is a complete negation of democracy.
Ask the settlers if they believe the occupied territories are not part of Israel.
43 years of occupation wherein only Jews are Israeli citizens with fully exercisable Israeli rights in the occupied land fits no definition of democracy worthy of the name; as well, 20% of Israeli citizens in Israel proper live under the Israeli legal matrix as second-class citizens. Murabak’s much more homogeneous country held elections over the last 30 years too, but, hophmi, would you call his Egypt a democracy too? If so, what the heck is going on now in Alexandria and Cairo, for example?
Israel’s strategy is to deny, deny, deny its parallels with the former white-ruled South Africa — the colonialist analogy, the demographic analogy, the apartheid analogy; the ‘villa in the jungle’ analogy.
But these analogies apply with great precision, and so does the end game — one person / one vote, in one geopolitical entity.
The notion that the privileged Jewish population is going to grab the entire Mediterranean coast for itself, and all the offshore petroleum that’s been discovered, is delusional. This self-serving plan all looks so reasonable until the day it crumbles.
“Israel’s strategy is to deny, deny, deny its parallels with the former white-ruled South Africa — the colonialist analogy, the demographic analogy, the apartheid analogy; the ‘villa in the jungle’ analogy.”
That’s because there are no parallels. Israelis did not come to the Middle East seeking wealth. They did not annex the occupied territories. They allow Arabs to vote. They allow Arabs to serve in the Knesset. These are all crucial differences.
“But these analogies apply with great precision, and so does the end game — one person / one vote, in one geopolitical entity.”
They do not, and the one-state solution, relevant in South Africa because would cause a profound injustice in Israel that even Edward Said acknowledged.
Dude, you’re so overwrought your last sentence degenerated into gibberish.
Take two Ativan and call me in the morning. ;-)
that even Edward Said acknowledged.
lol
Hophmi, did the Jews come to the subject land seeking real estate? Since when is such a goal not described as seeking wealth? On what planet is land ownership not wealth per se? And can’t the same be said for control of land and its resources?
“Israelis did not come to the Middle East seeking wealth. ”
Just territory.
“They did not annex the occupied territories.”
Really? What is the eastern boundary of “Israel”?
>> Israelis did not come to the Middle East seeking wealth.
Israelis did not come to the Middle East, period. Citizens of Germany, Poland, Russia, the U.S. and other nations, under the delusion that they were somehow entitled by gawd to a “Promised Land” in the Levant, came to Mandate Palestine, undertook the “necessary” ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the destruction of Palestinian villages and lives, stole land and colonized it, and set up an oppressive, religion-supremacist colonialist regime.
Sixty-plus years later, this “beacon unto the nations” continues to oppress, steal, colonize, destroy and kill. I can see how that makes a Zio-supremacist feel proud.
Yawn. It’s not a democracy for the 4 million Palestinians in the occupied territories who are denied a vote, nor for the millions more in the diaspora who, by right, should be Israeli citizens. Israel proper isn’t even a democracy, with 35+ laws privileging Israeli jews over non-jewish Israelis. The word is ethnocracy – and that’s being generous.
Umm, irony?
“Yawn. It’s not a democracy for the 4 million Palestinians in the occupied territories who are denied a vote”
No, it’s not. But the occupied territories are not part of Israel.
“Israel proper isn’t even a democracy, with 35+ laws privileging Israeli jews over non-jewish Israelis.”
Laws privileging one group over another does not negate the entire democracy. Germany has laws privileging Jews and Christians over Muslims; it is still a democracy.
East Jerusalem is occupied and has 250000 Israelis. Efrat is in the OT and full of Jews with Israeli passports who vote in Israeli elections and are backed up by Israeli soldiers. Erez Israel is no democracy.
For millions living 43 years under military occupation that is a mere technicality. Israel controls their lives, and they are denied any say over that.
Interesting. Such as? I’m quite sure Germany doesn’t do things like herd muslims into muslim-only towns, or spend only 25% on social services for their muslim vs. non-muslim citizens. Ethnocracy.
But the occupied territories are not part of Israel.
could you rephrase that by saying they are not part of the land of israel?
Name a SINGLE law in Germany giving more privilege to any religious group over another.
You cannot because your statement is made out of gross and projected ignorance or simply a lie.
I’m waiting too Ellen. C’mon hophmi.
Which German laws, hophmi? Germany’s Constitution declares equal rights; if you are talking about imported foreign workers that’s another story. Or, if you are implying the problem in Germany of Turks who insist on retaining their distinct culture, that too is a problem. Like the USA, in Germany today, Muslims in Germany often feel alienated politically; they have to cope with a religio-racist witch-hunt, which has increased continually ever since the September 11 terror attacks in New York and Washington. Again, as in the USA, Muslims as a whole are routinely associated with the enforced wearing of headscarves, honour killings, arranged marriages and violent criminality. link to wsws.org
These flaws in Germany’s and the USA’s democracy hardly equate to the self-declared Jewish State’s institutionalized discriminatory legal matrix. Israel’s nature is more like the former German Volk nation, where full citizenship rights depended on blood line, religion, language, and aspects of shared culture, the antithesis of a proposition nation where any citizen’s civil rights depend much more on individual equality before the law.
Irony at such a high concentration you could kill an ant colony with it. Or am I confusing that with hophmi’s vitriol?
Said the guy who doesn’t read, speak or write Hebrew; has never lived in Israel, has traveled to the state as a tourist, and who has no interest in learning anything about the state, other than the fact that it is the land of milk and honey — the stuff that dreams are made of…. somewhere over the rainbow.
Thanks for the input, Martin Kramer.
By the way, you should try walking into a Bank in a Jewish town/city with a Palestinian citizen of Israel and see if they will allow him to open a checking account at that bank.
The discrimination is not just de facto, it’s de jure, as well.
Avi, too bad you and Shmuel and Danaa aren’t the kind that populate Israel. The character of you three would make it milk and honey.
I second that MRW.
Mind you, Avi, Shmuel and Danaa would be an asset to any society.
I agree with this assessment.
Egypt is basically a homogeneous population…”
You have obviously never been to Egypt. It has a very mixed population — the melting of Africa, the ME and the West.
As for it’s terribly flawed “Democracy:”
The political classes and most of the population in Israel are beholden to an odious nationalist mind-set on a par with Serbia.
A toxic brew of a nationalistic identity built on the myths of ancient kings and heroes, primitive tribal ideas (shall we keep searching for the Cohen and Levi genes?) and religion.
Blood, soil, religion and nation. That is everything other than foundations of democracy.
You can find the same thing here in the USA, but you have to travel to certain remote, really remote and rural areas, where they live in little clusters and dream of a reemergent Aryan nation. In contrast, Israel is a nuclear-armed state with the 4th strongest military in the world and a history of pretextual and/or preemptive warfare, financially and diplomatically enabled by the only superpower in the world.
Ellen- Indeed, Egypt is not a homogeneous population, varied racially, but ethnically 90% Egyptian and religiously 90% Islamic. The one state envisioned by Phil would be 50% Jewish and 50% Palestinian. The problems of establishing such a state and maintaining its peace are very different than the problems of establishing a democracy in Egypt and the lessons of a peaceful establishment of a democracy in Egypt, inshalah, do not necessarily prove anything about peacefully establishing a binational state in I/P.
lets start being creative wonderer, what about binational? some goddamn thing to end the rightslessness of half the population under your govts control. admire the incredible restraint of the crowd in egypt and be creative
“The problems of establishing such a state…”
What problems exactly? Please explain, without going into a rant about different ethnic groups, culture, religion “they all hate us” blah blah.
If the Israeli Government wanted and needed to find a solution to these so-called problems, solutions would be found. That such “problems” exists — real or imagined — point to the failure of a democracy in Israel.
Solve those problems and then proudly shout to the world about the only Democracy in the Middle East.
Until then Israel runs the risk of turning into a failed state. Let’s hope that does not happen.
>> If the Israeli Government wanted and needed to find a solution to these so-called problems, solutions would be found.
Israeli Government: “We’ve done everything we possibly can to resolve the Palestinian issue. We’ve stolen their land; destroyed their villages; ethnically cleansed most of them (but only because it was “necessary”); colonized their land; stolen their natural resources; imposed collective punishment; imprisoned, tortured and/or assassinated them; bombarded them with illegal munitions; and stepped up illegal settlement activity. Heck, we even pretended that we wanted to negotiate a just peace with them! What more can we possibly do with savages like these who simply refuse to behave?”
Mea culpa, Phil. but…
In the land under my government’s control there are in fact 3 governments: Hamas, PLO and the Israeli government. (I was tempted to say 4 governments because the settlers act as if there is no one who rules over them, but that is the result of the Israeli government’s lack of will.)
We do not know whether Hamas or PLO represent their people’s will because they have not held timely elections. Certainly US and Israel policy has not worked to smooth their reconciliation that might enable new elections, but meanwhile they can’t get along and call new elections.
Unfortunately the Israeli government does represent its people’s will, (including the 20% of the population, the Arab Israeli Palestinians that lacks full rights because of various laws). When people are not allowed to vote for 30 years (what were elections like in the pre Mubarak era? not quite clear from a superficial perusal of a superficial source.) they have a reason to gather in the streets and demand the end of one man rule. When people are allowed to vote and they express their vote by giving the right wing the power of the country, the comparison to the country that has no vote falls apart.
My only suggestion has been regarding the Arab (Palestinians) of East Jerusalem that they should apply for Israeli citizenship, because their land was illegally annexed more than 40 years ago and if they would apply for citizenship they could use democratic means to demand better treatment in regards to resources and democratic means to get rid of our scummy mayor. But I have been informed that to apply for citizenship would mean recognizing the annexation and the occupation as legal and they cannot do this. They cannot even participate in municipal elections, which would be possible without applying for citizenship, because to do so would be to recognize the annexation and the occupation. Further even if Jerusalem’s Palestinians would favor such a move they would be stopped by the two forces: Hamas and PLO who would oppose such a move, so it is impossible to know what they wish to do.
But my suggestion is piecemeal and your suggestion is sweeping: a binational state. None of the three ruling bodies: the Israeli government, Hamas or PLO favor such a move, but that does not stop me from being creative.
First we need a flag. The most obvious flag is the combined flag of both the Palestinians and the Jewish Israelis, which suggests in itself that the first step would be a two state solution that would/might eventually morph into a one state solution through free passage and federation. Europe has many states, but they are allowed free passage from state to state and thus this would be the model.
Then we’d need a national anthem. (Whereas a flag can combine both flags, 2 national anthems sung at once would produce cacophony and sung one right after the other would produce confusion.) I’ve proposed “Holy Land”. It is in English, perfect because it is neither in Hebrew or in Arabic, so everyone would object. (It could be translated into both languages.) It is sung to the tune of “Baby Face”:
“Holy land
we live together in this
holy land
Ain’t it grand
it was planned
for us to live together in this
holy land.”
Meanwhile the occupation continues and the obvious first step is some kind of two state solution. I will try to listen to the Egyptian revolution, which I hope results in true democracy and peace with its neighbors, and try to inspire myself to more and better creativity.
Good national anthem.
Why not do the same with the flag? Instead of combining the flags (the colours clash horribly, my dear!) develop a completely new flag.
Or if you can’t afford that, get an old one that no-one uses or recognises any more.
link to martleshamheath-rollofhonour.co.uk
“Until then Israel runs the risk of turning into a failed state. Let’s hope that does not happen.”
Well..I don’t follow you there!! I damn well hope it does!!
That’s really rather racist, hophmi, and more importantly, it’s just incorrect. Egyptians have demonstrated countless times for democracy, but the Israeli aligned police state was very effective at suppressing these uprising by maintaining fear of retribution.
It was when the Egyptians overcame their fear and realized it was all or nothing. that they succeeded.
Israel is the “new Palestinian state”! One state, one man(women), one vote.
What else would an American support?
Hej!
True words, Phil! All this talk of “but can these Arabs really do democracy?” makes me sick.
I mean, when was the last time millions in the west poured into the streets, dogding and too often receiving bullets, to demand justice and true rule of the people?
yup.
Americans will not be able to hold their heads up even as bowed-down as it takes to say “I’m sorry,” until the US has staged a revolution and demanded the ouster of zionism from its midst.
Zionism in the oyster of America came at a great price, but the pearl turned out to be just a turd.
“Americans will not be able to hold their heads up even as bowed-down as it takes to say “I’m sorry,” until the US has staged a revolution and demanded the ouster of zionism from its midst.”
LOL. Go march on Washington with the message: “Throw the Zionists out” and see how well you do. I’m sure David Duke will be glad to join you.
“Zionism in the oyster of America came at a great price, but the pearl turned out to be just a turd.”
You win the raspberry award for most tortured, ridiculous analogy.
Right, hophmi, such a march on Washington is laughable today, just as anyone would’ve laughed at the notion of Egyptians marching against Murbarak before January 25th last.
Egypt, be it noted, may have a class-warfare on its hands (Army and upper crust versus “the people”) but not a race/national/religious-warfare (as 1SS would have). I am happy, at least, to learn that doctors and lawyers and labor unions and students and workers and some business people were ALL in this revolution, together. Much better sign in favor of a successful democracy (if they get the chance to find out).
I fear that I/P 1SS would put enemies at each other’s throats and much would depend on who ended up “in charge”, perhaps especially before the very first election. Not to mention all the, “It was my house”, “Well, it’s my house now.” conversations.
‘a class-warfare on its hands (Army and upper crust versus “the people”)’
How much of the Army would be versus the people?
link to presstv.ir
There has already been an official Army announcement that they will not fire on the protesters.
When it comes down to actual shooting, it is done by the squaddies on the ground, not by the generals. And they are not going to be happy at being ordered to shoot their friends, relations, and next-door neighbours. (Unless the neighbours are really annoying.) Nor will the NCO’s, junior officers, and middle ranking officers be overly enthusiastic about passing on the orders. Even some of the generals will think that killing Egyptian civilians is not one of their duties.
I suspect that if the order were given, there would be a fair amount of calculated incompetence, lost and garbled orders, and some flat out mutiny. Sensible generals do not risk that. Are the top Egyptian generals sensible?
We will likely find out in the next 48 hours.
Not just a revolutionary thought, a messianic thought, in messianic language.
I say go with it: Call your messianism the all-ways right, appropriate, and necessary alternative to Zionism.
How much bloodshed? That’s not for us to know – or to put ahead of doing what’s right – but we can hope and pray that there’s already been enough, far more than enough.
macleod, was it messianic of me to pronounce on the day of obama’s election: tonight the idea of american exceptionalism will trump the jewish one? i think in retrospect, despite my disappointments, that that vision of nonracist democracy was devastating for israel
Yes, Mr. Weiss (you can call me CK, btw), it was messianic, and I hope we are both using the term approvingly.
The American idea – of universal rights inalienably endowed by the Creator – was pre-figured in and embodies and advances the original Judaic insight, as was understood among the Founders. The recovery of this idea – not the xenophobic and retrograde version worshiped by many of our contemporaries – has been advanced by Obamaism, and is today being advanced by a people better prepared to embrace it than we Americans often/mostly seem to be.
Obama was ridiculed as the “Obamessiah,” but, as so often, there was a truth in the jibe – one that should have nothing to do with idolatrous worship of Obama the man, but everything to do with what the American electorate sought to affirm in electing him.
“The American idea – of universal rights inalienably endowed by the Creator – was pre-figured in and embodies and advances the original Judaic insight, as was understood among the Founders. ”
How many Indian treaties did the US break? American exceptionalism is a crock of shit.
What – we did bad things to the Native Americans? Who knew?
I didn’t say anything about “exceptionalism.” Putting the Declaration of Independence and the work of the Founding generation in the context of a long, imperfect, and incomplete historical process (of the singular process of world history) is the opposite of an exceptionalism. Under what theory of history or politics was the American Revolution a step backward?
Anyway, the distance between ideals and reality didn’t begin with the Founding of the U.S.A.
“universal rights inalienably endowed by the Creator – was pre-figured in and embodies and advances the original Judaic insight”
What Judaic insight?
The idea of universal rights comes from Stoicism, and passed through to the Enlightenment. (Partly through Chritian interpretations. The Christians took over a great deal of Stoic ethical thought, since their own resources were inadequate.) The founders of the United States were Enlightenment thinkers who were attempting to create a modernised Roman Republic.
RoHa: The Founders’ intellectual world, and the intellectual world of the Enlightenment, was much broader than some Classical revival. Their ideas were heavily influenced by religion and by biblical sources.
As for Stoicism vs Judaism as a relevant influence, key characteristics of Judaism arose as revealed religion or prophecy, rather than as philosophy, but, either directly or as mediated through Christianity, formed a basis for universal social and economic rights and justice, and for a guiding concept of historical progress (history as an orientation toward a better future of all mankind, rather than as a mere description of a national past). These ideas are generally absent from and alien to classical philosophy, including Stoicism.
The “modernized” part of your “modernized Roman Republic” is at least as important as the second part. The Founders and Framers were, generally speaking, steeped in the classics, and some originally hoped that they could build a republic of virtue, but experience and necessity soon forced them to move well beyond Greek or Roman models. They self-consciously sought an escape from the limitations of classical political science, with which they were quite familiar, eventually moving through Lockean natural law and Whiggism to the innovative doctrine of popular sovereignty – and to a messianic idea of the “American Israel,” as the preachers especially liked to say, as a “light unto the nations.”
A protestant pastor points to the biblical passages he says are the source of America’s founding documents:
link to newswithviews.com
Locke first wrote “a long train of abuses.” Locke’s influence may have been even more profound in the realm of epistemology. Locke redefined subjectivity, or self, and intellectual historians such as Charles Taylor and Jerrold Seigel argue that Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690) marks the beginning of the modern Western conception of the self. Locke was raised as a Puritan. We should remind ourselves that through most of human history people didn’t have an identity of self as we know and live it today; the collective, of whatever sort, was their very primary identity; there was never any real contest.
The text of the Declaration was initially ignored after the American Revolution. Its stature grew over the years, particularly the second sentence, a sweeping statement of individual human rights:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This sentence has been called “one of the best-known sentences in the English language” and “the most potent and consequential words in American history”.
It appears that America’s founding documents owe a lot to the philosophers of the Enlightenment: link to three-peaks.net
The Egyptians in the street should remind all Americans of their own best values; rather than scare them as our PTB are trying to do for their own selfish agenda.
The key elements of that famous sentence were common in the political literature of the time (cf. Gordon Wood).
I agree with you that the Lockean influence is indelible, but, as for the “beginning of the modern Western conception of the self,” I tend to be wary of such statements. A beginning of the modern conception would be the furthest limit of the prior conception, and the beginning of the prior conception would be whatever preceded that, and so on – which isn’t meant to discount Locke. He’s often associated with a defense of personal property rights, and has even be condemned on that basis, but the twin argument for the absolute moral necessity of freedom of conscience, though seemingly more obscure because, for us, unfashionably theological, is at least as important, and is directly expressed both in the Declaration of 1776 and the Bill of Rights of 1789 (1st Amendment especially), and is kin to the contemporaneous Declaration of the Rights of Man (the bases for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
It’s not trivial in this context that Locke’s thought was grounded in theology – in a logic of salvation: For Locke, without freedom of conscience there is no authentic salvation. A state or religion that denies individual freedom robs people of the most important thing of all – moral redemption that is authentic because freely chosen. This logic is also present, and arguably originates, in prophecy – and can be seen as the proper realm of religion. It fully complies with the Deism – idealized monotheism – popular among the Founders.
It also joins the expressed aspirations of the Egyptians, whose joy we’re today witnessing and sympathetically participating in, to the ideals of the American Revolution – among other revolutions. That it goes back to the sources of monotheism is important not because the sources automatically validate it, or even less because the recognition might boost Jewish pride (almost a contradiction in terms given the status of humility in Judaism), or American patriotism (whose proper object is an idea, not a land or a dead history), but because the prophetic sources of Judaism and Americanism are also the prophetic sources of Christianity and Islam, and make the same logic available, as it is grasped, to all Jews, all Christians, all Muslims, and to all those who, like the first recipients of the prophecy, come into contact with it from non-monotheistic orientations. That also means that all of the religions of the East can also be re-articulated in relationship to this dialectic of the free individual and the society of freedom. Even the origins of dialectical materialism and the atheist impulse, and the correction of their application, can be found here. It has nothing to do with, is the necessary contradiction of, any forced acceptance of particular mythology, religious or national, or with any particular image of the divine.
So that’s my revolutionary messianic thought for the day.
“key characteristics of Judaism … formed a basis for universal social and economic rights and justice”
I know some people torture the Judaic tradtion to squeeze those ideas out of it, but I have never been convinced. It is easier to find them in the Christian tradition, but the Christian tradition was influenced by Classical Greek thought from the start of the Pauline tradition. If the American founders saw their ideas in the Bible, it is because they read the Bible through Enlightenment glasses.
“and for a guiding concept of historical progress (history as an orientation toward a better future of all mankind”
This certainly stems from Judaic messianism, but I think the ” all mankind” part is Christian (classically influenced)cosmopolitanism.
“These ideas are generally absent from and alien to classical philosophy, including Stoicism.”
Not so. Universal justice, on a basis of natural law, is a fundamental part of Stoic cosmopolitanism. Of course, Enlightenment human rights theory (as seen in Locke, Hutcheson, Paine, and Jefferson) is not the same as the Stoic versions, but there is a clear descent.
“A protestant pastor points to the biblical passages he says are the source of America’s founding documents:”
And what teeny scraps they are.
This is just an example of the religious types trying to find modern values in Scripture.
I wish I had a few months to write on this subject, RoHa, but I’ll have make do for now with some words that are long for a comment, but brief as an encapsulation of the history of history.
You write:
“Torture” seems like rather a strong word for reading the Bible and other religious texts, though I know that’s how many people treat such reading. It doesn’t take deep study – I don’t claim to have done especially deep study – to find support for the Judaic teaching as a doctrine of “liberty and justice for all, under God” – it’s all there right on the surface. Where in Classical Greek thought are there equivalents to “You will love your fellow human being,” to the institution like the Sabbath and its emphasis on equality, to the extensive social legislation in Deuteronomy and elsewhere to tend to the poor and the dispossessed and engage in real acts of loving kindness as an absolute condition of faith?
The very word “Stoic” represents a refusal of to react to suffering, including the suffering of others. It meant that the Stoics had little difficulty, as a rule, harmonizing with the selfish interests of the elite, and taking no interest in the mass of humanity, defined as generally incapable of attaining wisdom and therefore virtue as stoicism understood it.
When I used the word “universal” above in regard to economic and social rights, I didn’t just mean universally applicable in the sense that an emperor and a slave could both attain wisdom and negate their physical circumstances and emotional affect, I meant: applying inherently to all human beings, each in the “likeness” of the eternal creator etc.
When you use a term like “Stoic cosmopolitanism,” it would be helpful if you referred to specific thinkers or schools and specific time periods. Anyway, the concern for all mankind, all the nations, all the families of man, the commandment to treat strangers equally, also pervade the sources of Judaism in explicit terms – from the beginnings to the end because the only adequate correlate to one God is one humanity. As for Christianity, Jesus Christ was a messianic Jew – his preaching articulated within and joined to the Jewish prophetic tradition. It’s why the Christian Bible gots two testaments. This is, to say the least, a complex discussion, and at some point has to include interpenetration between Greek and Jewish sources, but Christianity didn’t come from nowhere, and its primary sources and setting were Judaic.
There may be, as you say, a clear descent from Stoicism in regard to natural law, and none of this discussion is meant to imply that Stoicism wasn’t one of the great moral and intellectual attainments of antiquity and therefore of all human history, but the critical difference between them and modernity is the addition of Jerusalem to Athens (or Rome), including up to 2000 years of developing Christian, and a Protestant reaction that was typically expressed as an overthrow and detailed negation of Catholicism and a return to the sources, including the Old Testament sources and pure monotheism. This is especially clear in Locke (a Christian theologian writing against High Church Anglicanism), Hutcheson (a Presbyterian preacher), and Jefferson (an ideal monotheist/Deist) who, to bring us back to the American Founding, can be taken as responsible for inserting that very monotheistic reference to the “Creator.”
thanks for that CK
Quite welcome, PW. And thanks to RoHa, too, for thoughtfully and seriously taking the other side.
That is a very narrow view of Stoicism. The Stoics not only developed social philosophy, but also put it into practice. (Slavery and the status of women were two of the issues they concerned themselves with. Mainstream Judaism, Christianity, and Islam historically have been unconcerned with these issues. )
The argument from the existence of a single universal god to a recognition of human equality and universal moral law is an explicitly Stoic argument, and it fits more neatly into Stoic pantheism than into transcendent monotheism. The Jewish tradition, by contrast, seems to exclusive rather than universalist.
Universalism is certainly part of the mainstream Christian tradition, but it comes from the Hellenistic religion Paul invented around the Jesus movement, rather than the Jewish background of that movement.
The original Jerusalem group of disciples apparently wanted to maintain the Jewish exclusivism. One of the reasons for the breach between them and Paul was his rejection of this idea. (An interesting work on this subject is Paul, Jerusalem and the Judaisers by my erstwhile colleague Ian Elmer.)
(Paul was clearly heavily influenced by Hellenic thought, though his education seems to have concentrated on rhetoric rather than logic. Hyam Maccoby points out that Paul was equally inept at Greek-style arguments and Rabbinic legal arguments.)
Hellenistic thought played a major role in the development of mainstream Christian theology, so even if we assume that the political and social philosophy of Locke and Hutcheson was derived from their theological ideas, that still does not show it is based on a “Judaic insight.” (Of course, we can equally well say that their theology was based on their philosophy.)
As Deists, Jefferson and Paine, of course, repudiated the Christian and Jewish religions entirely. Paine in particular thought the Old Testament was disgusting, and the New Testament silly.
So I am still unconvinced that there is any “Judaic insight” behind the idea of universal human rights.
RoHa, an attempt to rebut your arguments point by point and persuasively would be an all-day affair at least. I’ll just declare that in my view any notion that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have not been “concerned with these issues” is wrong, and that it was not for nothing that Nietzsche declared Christianity a “slave morality,” and located its origins in Babylonian Judaism. What worldly powers, organizations, and sects have done with revealed religions is another story altogether – possibly THE story – but any simple criticism of Jews, Christian, and Muslims for having co-existed with, reached accommodations with, or prospered in and from patriarchal slave societies also applies to the Stoics and just about everyone else, too.
The “Judaic insight” to which I originally referred would be the viewpoint borne out in the religious literature, the law, and history, and which can be summed up, if not of course done justice to, as a monotheistic system each of whose main elements – oneness and uniqueness of God, individual responsibility, universal humanity, social justice, freedom of conscience, progress to redemption – absolutely require each other.
The best elaboration and exploration of this system of which I am aware is Hermann Cohen’s RELIGION OF REASON, a book I’ve mentioned in other discussion at MW, and which made a very strong impression on me that I’m still working out. If you acquire or run across a copy, you will quickly find extensive support both in referenced “sources of Judaism” and in a rigorous philosophical exposition for many of the arguments I’ve made here. Cohen also directly addresses what I think you mean by exclusivism in Judaism, assigning it a dialectical and also historically contingent role within his monotheistic/messianic system.
The critique of Stoicism, or of its limitations, also isn’t something I came up with myself. Cohen discusses it, essentially adopting the Hegelian view, but articulating it through an idealization of Judaism rather than of Christianity, though with I believe the same destination. While refreshing my recollection of those discussions, I ran across this interesting summary discussion of the difference between Stoicism and modern human rights theory: link to people.wku.edu
To go much further at this time, I think I’d probably end up just throwing the books at you, to little immediate purpose or effect. Maybe PW will see fit at some time to open up space at this blog for speculative discussion of comparative religion and philosophy, perhaps in relation to Jewish identity vs. Zionism, a discussion that also ought to be relevant to discussions of Islam, Islamism, Orientalism, and Islamophobia, and to much else of current interest. Or maybe we can find some other setting to advance the discussion.
“i think in retrospect, despite my disappointments, that that vision of nonracist democracy was devastating for israel”
Explain.
Palestinian right of return. Now, start foaming at the mouth, right on queue, thank you.
Chaos4700
right of return?
Every Palestinian forced out during or shortly after the war that the Palestinians fought in opposition to the creation of Israel should be allowed to become an Israeli citizen and return to land that they can prove that they owned at the time that they left.
And I’m sure that you’ll be happy to support the return of the rights and property that other people in the area had stripped from them.
Won’t you?
“And I’m sure that you’ll be happy to support the return of the rights and property that other people in the area had stripped from them.
Won’t you?”
I would. Any Jewish property stolen by Arab governments or groups should be returned or paid for, and Jews and their descendants who wish to move back to Arab or Muslim countries from which they might have been expelled should be allowed to return if they wish. This should all be part of the process of real democratization in the Middle East.
So far I’d say there are no real democracies in the Middle East yet–just racist democracies, sectarian democracies, and authoritarian states of one sort or the other or mixtures of the above.
I was assuming you had Jews expelled from Arab lands in mind when you wrote that, Fuster. I don’t know how many there were (there seems to be some debate), but don’t doubt there were some. And there have been other expulsions too, most notably from Iraq in the past few years. The “surge” in Iraq was a “success” in part because of a vast ethnic cleansing of Sunnis from Baghdad or so I have read. If Iraq ever becomes a real democracy there is going to have to be an accounting for what was done (and the US will owe far more than we will ever pay.)
Israel and Israelis should compensate for all land takings, and in a form that allows all Palestinians to land on their feet (so not just former property owners as some beneficiary of restitution).
And, all that were born in Israel should be allowed to live in Israel.
And of course, those same Israelis who spilled Palestinian blood get to decide just how much the stolen land is worth, right, Witty?
Did it occur to you that money matters less than other things, to other people? Or was that never part of your higher education?
so you wish to deny them their legal rights their right to return. you don’t get to make the call of them returning to their property or being compensated they do.
…my god! what an exciting time.! Admiration and thanks are due to the wonderful young Egyptians who began this revolt….they are brave, committed, inspiring….so much so that thousands and thousands of middle aged and older Egyptians, frozen for years by fear of Mubarak, finally openly join them. Their common bond, love of their country and the desire for freedom.
The Egyptians have taught all of us a lesson. Determination, commitment and total belief in what you are doing can accomplish what was deemed impossible! They began with love for their country and were able to bring down a mountain.
Congratulations Egypt! May you enjoy freedom and democracy.
isn’t it indisputable now
the power of nonviolence
what about here in the u. s. of a.
with its corporate government rather than a mubarak-like tyranny
a way too powerful and influential military
an equally bought off middle class
its angry mostly white racist tea partiers instead of pro-mubarak thugs
not to mention millions of have-nots and left-outs counting for nothing, either day to day or in the total scheme of things
its youth seemingly not interested in getting involved with politics
and with a left that’s weak and fractured
what’ll get it going?
impossible?
where’d we hear that before?
oh, that’s right, in egypt just a few weeks ago
left out a working class that sometimes would rather not be &/or too easily gets caught up in diversionary hypernationalistic schemes such as war-making and empire
“mostly white rascist tea partiers instead of pro-mubarak thugs”
I view this statement as misleading bigotry
It does fit right in with Obama’s “those with their guns and bibles”
pot calls kettle black
Who is the “us” here? I don’t feel like I need to “climb down from suspicion.”
See thats the thing with BELIEVING in liberal democracy, you accept things that are “self evident,” as it were. I don’t need to be told that any man anywhere wants pretty much the same things ( a decent life, a chance to provide for their family etc).
Also, I dont think Egyptians need our congratulations and If I were an Egyptian in Egypt – Id probably laugh at some of the glowing language in these comments. This isnt about love of “country” its about people wanting to make THEIR lives better – and after decades, the situation got to the point where enough people, across enough of the populace said “enough.”
Country, facebook and twitter don’t have sh*t to do with it.
And not for nothin, “politcally sophisticated Arabs” sounds an awful lot like “well spoked black man.” Men anywhere, regardless of race, religion or ethnicity are perfectly capable of non-violent protest and organizing- if anything those “politically sophisticated Arabs” should be looking at YOUR GENERATION PHIL and saying “we have been more successful at changing the staus quo in our country than those Ivy league Hippies of the 60″s ever were!!!!!”
Dan, these are the constructs with which Phil himself continues to struggle. In fact, it’s good insight into the thinking of an entire generation of privileged Jewish Americans who always thought of themselves as the Betters.
That said, I entirely agree with your assessment.
The issue here is that both Phil and the community to which he belongs know very little about Arabs, whether it’s history, science, philosophy or literature. Thus, Arabs are viewed as unrefined, uncivilized people.
Look at the language that Phil uses to describe Jewish traditions. There is pride in that language, recognition of the accomplishments attributed to ‘Jewish heritage’, ‘Jewish Spirit’, ‘Jewish Thinkers’ etc.. The same cannot be said about Phil’s treatment of Arabs/Muslims for they remain a foreign concept to him, distant, different and sharing nothing in common.
But, my pet peeve remains that Phil refuses to accept the opinions of others and reflect on his own prejudices. Indeed in one article, Phil describes how Adam Horowitz had told him something about the Middle East and Phil was surprised by it. Nonetheless, he didn’t buy into the idea until he experienced it himself. That is to say that Phil is pretty set in his ways. I could cite him several books on a subject and he’d still cling on to his preconceived notions.
It’s all there in the archives of Mondoweiss.net.
Disagree!
Disagree!!
Compared to his boyhood chum, Dick Witty, Phil is a high-jumper; of course, consider the standard–we all have to whether we like to or not because of its influence on our nation today, same way as that insular community had to deal with the WASP establishment before WW2, and some would say, right up to, say 1960.
Avi, Phil – and this blog – are not a point in space (we already know it’s not frozen in time). He is a journey-man, who being Jewish and all, goes on as many tangents as time, space and prejudice born of the human condition allow. I’ve seen him examine his own prejudices, including ignorance of Arab culture and/or islam many times over. Did not always come to the end point you or I may desire. Some places – like a one state entity – are still a bridge too far, perhaps because imagination itself rebels.
I know it took me a long long time to get over my own pre-conceived notions of the inherent superiority of the jewish culture/religion (not Jewish people per se – never had THAT prejudice). Even longer to be able to revisit – and hopefully defeat – deeply held prejudices instilled ever so effectively back in that little old country – about the inherent inferiority of Arabs and whatever culture and/or religion is attached to them. These particular prejudices is what stamps just about every israeli ex-pat I know, no matter how liberally oriented otherwise. So I kind of understand that some notions and beliefs are so deeply embedded in the DNA that extracting them in a hurry is not possible. Time must be allowed to let the poison seep out, hopefully before the host expires from sheer exhaustion.
What matters in the end is that Phil was able to provide the best forum on the web for people from all over the planet to explore, debate and ruminate about the I/P question and all that surrounds it, including the trickiest of all issues, namely Jewish influence and power peddling. And it’s possible he was able to that partly because, not despite, his own prejudices.
awesome comment danaa, your comments are always illuminating from my perspective. thanks
Danaa,
For what it’s worth, my comment wasn’t meant as criticism or denouncement, but merely as a point of emphasis, to draw another’s (In this case Phil) attention to the importance of certain terminology and the deep meaning that said terminology carries with it.
That is to say, from my point of view when I hear certain phrases, they’re not merely words, but have symbolic meaning or loaded historical implications.
So, what’s wrong about challenging a person’s views or frame of mind on certain issues?
And in reference to someone else’s post below, Slater’s article and views fall into an entirely different category.
Clarification taken, Avi. I think I know what you mean about terminology. Just that carelessness got the better of me at times, so I tend to extend the benefit of doubt (at least till proven dreadfully wrong). I do remember how Phil got into all sorts of trouble talking about women in general and Arab women in particular, and he walked that back assiduously, so he has a silver star from me which can be used as credit against future infractions.
The Egyptian revolution is 17 days old. When it is 17 months old I hope it will still give us hope and if it still gives us hope when it is 17 years old, then there may indeed be hope.
The Zionist takeover of Palestine is sixty years old and you guys are still shedding blood and stealing family homes. When can we give up hope on you?
I’m optimistic, but very cautiously so. Rulers have many powers at their disposal, and Mubarak and his supporters probably haven’t used theirs fully so far. I don’t think we have a clear idea yet of all the key factors in the Egyptian situation. Through the Lobby and Congress’s fear of it, the Israelis definitely have a hand in this game. At some point, things could become very violent. In short, the notion of a successful and relatively bloodless revolution doesn’t seem like a done deal yet–at least to me. I also think it’s possible that if Mubarak uses force to quell this revolt (it still is a revolt and not yet a revolution, IMO), the US government unfortunately is capable of public condemnation but private support.
Hillary Mann Leverett on Al Jazeera — ‘Obama’s Dilemma’
Well Phil,
I’m dying for your response on this one? Please make it good as you so often do.
Hej! tumta
Let Egypt be a light unto the nations. Let us climb down from suspicion of other races. Let us imagine a peaceful transition to democracy in Egypt’s neighbors too.
amen
A democracy can devolve into oppressive authoritarianism without a written constitution protecting the rights of minorities. The tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny. Israel’s problem is it has no constitution. Our problem is the government, all three branches, are shredding the Constitution.
Optimax, I agree; 9/11 has been used by the PTB the same way Hitler used the Reichstag fire. A small hope is that the House did not extend some provisos of the Patriot Act; but those in favor will try again with a less arrogant but more certain congressional tactic.
One should never take the USA as an example how democracy is created and how it works! The land of the free and the brave is not really free or brave.
This country was established in a huge bloodshed, millions of natives were massacred. After the indian wars came the mexican wars, the civil war, then the spanish-american war, WWI, invasion of several mid-american states, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. etc. This country has hardly ever known a long period of peace, the american empire was extending its territory and power with a huge military machine, shedding blood all over the world. Hardly an example to follow.
On the other hand we have Switzerland, where a true democracy is at work. They revolted against their oppressors good 500 years ago, wage no wars since, never attack a neighbor and the population votes on every important subject. (Did the US population vote on the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan or was it decided against the majority wish)?
To get ahead of any critic, the swiss is not perfect, however please show me another land with their positiv record.
Theo
Die SVP ist eine Schweizerische Tee Partei
seafoid
Every country has a few crazy idiots, however you cannot deny that the swiss have invented democracy, after the greek one did not work.
How about the moslem cultural center in NY? Those who live in a glasshouse should never throw stones.
Avi says…..
“The issue here is that both Phil and the community to which he belongs know very little about Arabs, whether it’s history, science, philosophy or literature. Thus, Arabs are viewed as unrefined, uncivilized people.
Look at the language that Phil uses to describe Jewish traditions. There is pride in that language, recognition of the accomplishments attributed to ‘Jewish heritage’, ‘Jewish Spirit’, ‘Jewish Thinkers’ etc.. The same cannot be said about Phil’s treatment of Arabs/Muslims for they remain a foreign concept to him, distant, different and sharing nothing in common. ”
Awful, awful awful. You’re so right!!! Weiss has no business having a normal human existence. He has no right to have learned some things about Jews and approve of any of it.
Even worse, that he doesn’t know and approve and applaud all of the things that the Arabs have accomplished in the last half millennium or so.
It’s your duty to denounce and deplore his failure to conform to your standard.
Of course, your standard is a single one and you denounce and deplore any Arabs/Muslims who know more of their own culture and accomplishments and approve of any of it more obviously than they know and approve of the culture of Christians, Jews, or Hindus.
Nice Zionist strawman argument there fuster. If someone considers Jewish culture and values as equal to, rather than above, Arab or Islamic culture they must be denigrating Jewish culture. That seems to be your Zionist argument here. No objection from you to anyone considering Arabs “unrefined, uncivilized people”. Nope, its all about the Jews for you. We’re special and superior and if you don’t recognize that then you’re an anti-semite!!!!!
Don’t see how you draw that conclusion from the Frog’s comments, tree. It’s not a question of a value judgment, one culture superior to another, it’s a question of knowing what you know and and not knowing what you don’t know.
Also, Jewish ≠ Zionist, just as anti-Zionist ≠ anti-semitic. For that matter, why should we consider ourselves obligated to speak of Zionism itself as monolithic? Maybe real existing Zionism is in a critical sense anti-semitic, and drawing closer to a true or ideal Zionism therefore becomes the best antidote.
CK, reread Avi’s comment and then read fuster’s response. Avi is talking about the prejudice of viewing Arabs as “unrefined, uncivilized”.
Fuster’s strawman followed:
Awful, awful awful. You’re so right!!! Weiss has no business having a normal human existence. He has no right to have learned some things about Jews and approve of any of it.
Even worse, that he doesn’t know and approve and applaud all of the things that the Arabs have accomplished in the last half millennium or so.
Apparently to fuster, if you don’t subscribe to negative prejudices about “uncivilized” Arabs, the only alternative is to “approve and applaud” everything that Arabs have done. And considering one/s own culture as superior to others, which was what Avi was criticizing, is redefined by fuster as simply knowing and approving some things that Jews have done.
It’s not a question of a value judgment, one culture superior to another, it’s a question of knowing what you know and and not knowing what you don’t know
Nope, when you believe that another culture, which you know little about, is “unrefined, and uncivilized”, that’s a value judgment and a prejudice. Fuster couldn’t handle that so he had to create his strawman.
Also, Jewish ≠ Zionist, just as anti-Zionist ≠ anti-semitic.
Yes, we all know that very well. But Zionists tend to be more likely to believe in Jewish exceptionalism. (Whether they are themselves Jewish or not.) Fuster has shown himself to be parroting a Zionist line, hence my comment. I have no idea what Fuster’s personal background is, and don’t care.
Maybe real existing Zionism is in a critical sense anti-semitic, and drawing closer to a true or ideal Zionism therefore becomes the best antidote.
Real existing Zionism is a true Zionism. Zionism wasn’t perverted over time. It was faulty to begin with, filled with prejudice against Jews and non-Jews alike. It had much the same glaring faults as any other romantic blood and soil nationalism.
Well, I confess I’m a small town yokel-y kind of naif with a dopey tendency always to see the best in people and frogs, but I think fuster’s sarcasm was aimed a little differently – to underline how PW’s use of the phrase “politically sophisticated Arabs” could be interpreted much more neutrally than Avi chose to, and how anyway there was little cause, on the basis of these remarks, to go nuclear on PW.
Now, I’m relatively new to the discussions at MW, so for all I know Avi has much better reason than I’m aware of to deny PW the benefit of whatever doubt. Avi strikes me as admirably committed to a morally rigorous stance, and I doubt that many here take reminders about subtle and not so subtle Orientalism and other forms of prejudice too much amiss. On the other hand, I’m aware that PW has been furiously denounced by big name dudes as a traitor to the Jews, dangerous Islamophile, etc., so that’s got to count for something if you’re at all inclined to grade on a curve.
I confess I am so inclined, even if that kind of thing has already gotten me denounced as “mr hasbara” by another MWer. I had a similar “can’t we all get along?” reaction to the fierce response to J Slater. Naive though I may be, I have been a little bit around the block in politics, and have seen pointless fratricidal splinter-group tendencies do their work before. Not saying it’s happening here – how would I know? – but it’s got a bit of that aroma.
As for RE Zionism: It is, as you say – not sure whether you entirely meant it – merely “a” true Zionism. If it was, as you also say, and as I also believe, “faulty to begin with,” then that makes it conceptually vulnerable, susceptible to deconstruction from within, and to the nurturing of a less faulty understanding of what “Zion” ought to have stood for.
“have seen pointless fratricidal splinter-group tendencies do their work before.Not saying it’s happening here – how would I know? – but it’s got a bit of that aroma.”
It does happen here. Of course one person’s pointless battle is another person’s fundamental position which can’t be compromised. You pick and choose your battles or walk away if you don’t want to argue.
But as you say there can be a bit of a tendency to come down hard on people inappropriately. I’m not saying it’s happening here–I think Phil is doing an admirable job and is open about his failings, but he doesn’t seem to mind criticism from what I can see.
im concerned about bandwidth, and as readers know im not a very ideological person, fratricidal splintering scares the bejesus out of me; adam and i blend our editorial approaches and i tend to emphasize efforts to use the site as a gateway drug for nonzionism. that means getting Jews to look at stuff here, because I think Jews are very powerful in terms of our middle east policy… one of the joyful parts of the egyptian revolution though was observing events in which americans and american establishment jews had very little influence. and watching news broadcasts where three arabs were being interviewed. amazing/democratizing
In a setting where Zionism exists, then reform of Zionism is the only humane form of dissent.
Non-Zionism is already revolutionary, as in destructive of democracy revolutionary.
There are practical ways to morph to non-Zionism, as Wondering suggested above, but those are consistently rejected here as not revolutionary enough.
Well there’s a logical contradiction there, comrade Witty. To admit, today, that “morphing to non-Zionism” is or may be desirable is to take, today, an, as it were, pro-non-Zionist position, which is conceptually a non-/anti-Zionist position. So you’re already engaging in that form of dissent.
My reading is that your real main concern would be humanitarian and realist in the sense that a frontal attack on Zionism and on the secure, wealthy, and powerful Zionist Entity would be counterproductive and destructive – whether conceptually “just” or not.
“In a setting where
Zionismwhite supremacy exists, then reform ofZionismwhite supremacy is the only humane form of dissent.”Really? Does that pass the smell test? I think not.
But Zionism is alsoready anti Democratic Witty, so how can anti Zionism be destructive of democracy?
Yes there are, but you only accept the failed approach.
Non-Zionism is already revolutionary, as in destructive of democracy revolutionary.
non zioism isn’t revolutionary. it’s a natural state for people who are not ethnic nationals (america not being an ethnic national state it is a natural stance for an american).
zionism is not a revolution in democracy (nor was it ever) likewise a non zionist is not destroying a democratic value. there’s nothing democratic or revolutionary about ethnic cleansing.
I’m glad you acknowledge that there is nothing democratic about ethnic cleansing. (It is often used in revolutionary zeal however.)
So, whenever ANYONE suggests forcefully removing 500,000 Jews that live on the West Bank from their homes, I’m assuming that you will speak up.
Israel exists. And, it is a democracy. IF the citizens of Israel determine that they elect to become part of a single state, or federal state, wonderful. That would be democratic.
ANY flirtation with, or advocacy for a single state currently is an advocacy for the elimination of the self-governance of Israelis.
You want to deceive yourself and call the removal of self-governance progressive, go ahead.
Criticism of policies is one thing. Advocacy for the elimination of a democratic state is another.
So, whenever ANYONE suggests forcefully removing 500,000 Jews that live on the West Bank from their homes, I’m assuming that you will speak up.
Befoer you condem forceful removal that has not yet taken place, shouldn’t you begin with teh forceful removal of 750,000 Palestinians in 1948, and the continuing process of forceful removal tghat has been takng place continuously ever since?
And should those who knowingly settled on land they knew belonged to someone else have the right to consider the process of returning that land forceful removal? IS it unethical to ermove a stolen vehicle from a car thief?
Israel exists as a facist apartheid state.
Isn’t that precisely what Israel has been doing for 63 years?
Don’t confuse elimination of a democracy with justice Witty.
I look forward to Eljay giving you the reply you deserve.
acknowledged? what are you talking about.
whenever ANYONE suggests forcefully removing 500,000 Jews that live on the West Bank from their homes, I’m assuming that you will speak up.
you mean the homes built on stolen land? it’s theft witty, and those who partake in that theft partake in w/ethnic cleansing. not those who want their land back. it’s also against international law and US policy.
Advocacy for the elimination of a democratic state is another.
you’re such a drama queen richard. israel is an apartheid state. no amount of declarations to the contrary will change that. only actions will change the statu quo. that is why bds is growing and will continue to grow.
see ya
Israel itself is not an apartheid state, and you know it well.
And, your rationalization for even considering removing 500,000 from their homes is an advocacy of a second ethnic cleansing.
Another remedy is required.
“Their land back”. Those that had title to land deserve their day in court. Those that resided by permission of an absentee landowner also do, but cannot reasonably expect more than moderate personal compensation.
You are a dogma queen Annie. Even accused criminals have rights, or is that too democratic for you?
Multiple generations in homes, is their personal homes.
Israel is indeed an apartheid state. Just ask Henry Siegman, formerly national director of the American Jewish Congress, who writes: ”As a result … Israel has crossed the threshold from ‘the only democracy in the Middle East’ to the only apartheid regime in the Western world.”
Segregation of Jews and Arabs in 2010 Israel is Almost Absolute
link to haaretz.com
No Witty, you just cannot fathotm any scenario what doesn’t involve granting gross provbelages to Jews at the expense of Palestinians. Posession of stolen propoerty is an offense and a crime and as such, those guilty of it don’t get to claim ownership of stolen goods.
You know it well.
You mean, a unique one for Israel where Israel get’s unique and prefenretial treatment and faces no accountability.
According to what Witty, your ethnocentric sensibilities?
Thanks for demonstrating once again that Israel is not a democracy. Palestinians do not have rights after all.
Phil’s use of the term “non-Zionist” is ambiguous.
It could mean the personal psychological attitude of universal acceptance (humanizing the other), or it could mean the imposition of a single state political form.
My objection to the single state is that it is an anti-democratic approach, in that the majority of Israelis certainly, and an unknown significant number of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians do not desire to live in a single state, but desire to live in their own national state.
Again, if the majority of both communities (an #and# statement), desired to live in a federal state or single state, then that would be a democratic choice, a consent of the governed.
The current proposal of the single state is an imposition of the governed, not a consent of the governed.
The consequences of imposition are conflict. In this case, unless we are all old and passive, the consequences would be war. But, the prospective war would be the result of injustice, to fight an injustice (a pendulum).
When, a remedy is possible that results in a compromise (“injustice from the perspective of militancy”), that stops the pendulum swinging. In a word, peace.
The PA is offering it. Likud is not. Kadima is close, and with US bridging is there. Hamas is not. BDS is not (for its ambiguity as to what it means by “occupation”).
Have you read Avishai’s article in the NY Times Magazine?
Even accused criminals have rights, or is that too democratic for you?
and your little apartheid state gets around that by never accusing them richard. how special!.
frankly, i find you unworthy of debate on this subject (or any). take the last word.
Israeli Palestinians vote, publish, speak, assemble, have equal access to courts, right of appeal, right of habeus corpus, right to representation.
Israel internally has features of a class-stratified society, of too widespread personal racial and cultural prejudice.
But, not apartheid.
I guess at some point the functional prejudices appear as so institutionalized as to comprise almost a shadow status of law. And, that takes permanent commitment to the principle of democracy in the dual character of Israeli law as Jewish AND democratic.
Words matter.
Yeah right Witty. It looks like apartheid, sounds like apartheid, smells like apartheid, but isn’t apartheid.
In the absence of that commitment, you have apartheid.
Actions matter a lot more. Words are meaningless.
I guess at some point the functional prejudices appear as so institutionalized as to comprise almost a shadow status of law.
;) you crack me up richard.
It looks like some prejudices, smells like some prejudices, sounds like some prejudices and is remedied by reform and attention, not by ridicule or revolution.
Those create a new prejudice, a pendulum swing, pretending to be justice.
>> And, your rationalization for even considering removing 500,000 from their homes is an advocacy of a second ethnic cleansing.
But you, of all people, know that ethnic cleansing is sometimes “necessary” to create “a good in the world”. Moreover, in light of this wonderful admission of yours…
So, I cannot consistently say that “ethnic cleansing is never necessary”.
…I can’t understand why the thought of removing illegal settlers/colonizers from stolen and occupied land troubles you.
Oh, that’s right, I forgot: It’s because they’re not Palestinians, they’re part of your “collective”, and you’re a Zio-supremacist hypocrite.
Call me when it’s legal for non-Jews to marry either Jews, or Palestinians in occupied territory. Then we’ll talk about Israel not being apartheid.
Clearly it’s neither anti-democratic to propose or even to insist with all your strength and all your soul that only a one-state solution is acceptable. As a proposal, it may not currently have majority support, or even be taken seriously by a substantial minority. So? People and times change. What was unimaginable yesterday may be unquestionable tomorrow. That was the point of Phil’s “revolutionary thought” as I took it.
There are more alternatives than those two. “Non-Zionism” on its face is a negative, but passive and relatively open formulation. It simply dis-invests in Zionism. It doesn’t necessarily imply active anti-Zionism, or active opposition to the continued existence of Israel as presently constituted, or replacement by any particular set of ideals. Of course, that doesn’t prevent partisans from seeing such disinvestment as effective collaboration with the other side.
Richard Witty,
“The current proposal of the single state is an imposition of the governed, not a consent of the governed.”
Your democracy fetish is precious, but wrongheaded. Democracy is not a good in and of itself. It is only good if it results in the protection of individual human rights and liberties to the maximum extent possible. (Which is government’s sole and only legitimate goal.)
For the most part, democracy does this better than any other form of government. However, there are some situations where democracy fails because a majority is hell bent on denying human rights to a minority. This was the case in places such as the South in the US during the slavery and Jim Crow eras, during Apartheid South Africa, during the current Nakba-era in Palestine, starting in 1947. As you can see, it is usually racism that is the problem with democracy as a good in and of itself. (And with regard to the Zionists in Palestine, I use “racism” as a handy shorthand for “ethno-religious bigotry akin, and equal in all respects, to racism.”)
In those situations, democracy fails because it does not promote the basic human rights of all to the maximum. Consequently, it is not a problem to bypass the democratic process in order to impose a paragigm that would result in greater respect for human rights and liberty. Thus, anything lost in imposing a solution is compensated many times over by the resulting human rights and liberties realized to the oppressed.
Applied to the Palestine issue, the Israli government’s current violations of the human rights of the native Palestinians, both inside and outside the 1967 line demand that the so-called democratic process which the Israeli government have used to oppress the native Palestinians — which is not at all democratic, since 50% of the people affected by the Israeli government have so say in its decisions — be dismantled and be replaced by one that does not have the racist characteristic inherent in Zionism.
A one-state solution in which the government which replaces the current racist Zionist state with one in which the human rights and equality of all would be respected is one solution to the problem.
It might be possible that some other solutions could be used instead. However, because Israeli Jews are by and large such virulent racists, with no hint of this racism being abated in the near future, and because the ideology of Zionism is inherently racist, it is unlikely that one other than an imposed single state solution could be proposed which would be more respectful of the human rights of the oppressed.
Indeed, even the “two-state solution” being peddled by the less-racists Israelis still fails to respect the Palestinians human rights as the envisioned Palestinian state would be hobbled and not worthy of the term “state” as it would have even have the ability to defend itself from the evil Zionist wolf at its door.
First of all, Woody, fantastic post. This sort of intelligent reply is why I stick around this place, and what this place should be about (well, it is about that, but we seem to get sidetracked way too often).
Second, Witty, my African American partner has been reading over my shoulder a few times now, and he commented (and graciously gave me permission to post) that your attitudes toward Palestinians remind him of white attitudes toward his people in the South during the 1950′s. Just thought you could use that input, yeah.
>> … African American partner has been reading over my shoulder a few times now, and he commented … that your attitudes toward Palestinians remind him of white attitudes toward his people in the South during the 1950′s.
I’m sure nothing comforts your partner more than knowing that white “humanists” probably view lynching as “currently not necessary”, although at one time – even if they had to “hold their noses” while others did the dirty work – they would have considered it “necessary” for “a good in the world”.
I suspect, however, that he might find this “humanist” sentiment somewhat less comforting: “So, I cannot consistently say that ‘lynching is never necessary’.”
Yes Witty, this of it as bypassing the democratic process while we “hold our noses” becasue it is “currently necessary” for the sake of creating “a good in the world”.
Once it’s done, bypassing the democratic process will no longer be necessary.
We’ll just have to “hold our noses” for the sake of creating “a good in the world” Witty.
the use of the term non zionist is neither ambiguous or any more negative than the term non fiction or non violent are negative. it just means no, i am not a zionist as i might say no, my business is not for profit (non profit) etc etc.
It simply dis-invests in Zionism.
divesting implies one previously invested or one initially came from a zionist mind frame or proponent of ethnic nationalism. my beliefs were formed prior to ever having an understanding of what zionism was. for others your description might apply.
It doesn’t necessarily imply active anti-Zionism, or active opposition to the continued existence of Israel as presently constituted
beinart
No criminal reforms by themselves. Criminals only reform when they’ve been caught, prevented from continuing their crimes and then made to pay the price.
So yes witty, reform is fine so long as it comes after justice.
fuster,
Your post is entirely irrelevant and you come across as a simpleton and a provocateur who’s not worth the time of day.
Theo, It’s a good thing the Swiss didn’t listen to you when they wrote their Constitution in 1848, some of it based on ours–their Parliament is a two body configuration similiar to our Congress–and also the French Revolution. What I find superior to our Constitution is they can’t send foriegn troops abroad (they can under the U.N.), strong Cantons and weaker central government and they can re-write their entire Constitution and vote on it, instead of just amending it ,nd any law passed by Parliament can be challenged by 100,000 voters signing a petition to bring the law to a national vote. Our 1787 Contitution increased the power of the central government. The anti-Federalist (a misnomer) arguement is most interesting. One being that a strong central government will desire to become a great nation and will need a large military to do so. An example of one problem with a weak central government is that women’s suffrage did not become national law until 1990 in Switzerland because voting rights were determined by the individual Cantons. But IMHO the Swiss balance of self-rule and central government is better than ours and we as a nation are moving in the wrong direction.
My problem with rabid American nationalists and rabid anti-Americans is both are hopelessly romantic. The first wants to return to what he considers the perfect past of our founders. That last believe it is possible to design a perfect world and must destroy all that comes before to create it. Visionaries–you can’t live with them and you can’t live without them.
Full disclosure. Though a typical American Euro-mutt, the largest part of my ethnic makeup is Swiss. Something I, for irrational reasons, find comforting. Also, I believe in a Land Value Tax (Georgeism), am interested in Distributism and “More cowbell. You can never have too much cowbell.” This romantic side of mine is a vision I realize will never become reality.
Thanks for filling in the picture.
I apologize in advance, but no celebration of the glories of Swiss history as against the ugliness of certain other national histories can be complete without the following:
link to youtube.com
The forces of history, and its principal actors, are often less squeamish than many visionaries, and are forced to deal with the human material as they find it, and circumstances as circumstances find them. Something someone once said about omelettes and eggs also comes to mind.
Maybe Americans are not “heading in the wrong direction” as a nation so much as depending more than previously on others to point the way, but we can take some heart, for all we’ve done wrong, in having helped create the setting for them do so, and often the content they return to us.
Oh please, MacLeod. You think the Bomb, the Hummer and MacDonalds are more impressive than the cuckoo clock? I’d rather have 1 000 more Switzerlands than one more USA
after all, the cuckoo clock ( like the wheel) has sublime enduring qualities.
… and the bird keeps telling you what time it is during a power outage. As long as one can still count to 12.
I confess. I find the Bomb, among other things, more impressive than the cuckoo clock.
As for +1k S-lands vs +1 USA, you don’t get to choose! We’re stuck with the neo-empire for the foreseeable future, and getting to the replacement system may entail some ups and downs. However, a world of 1k S-lands – if you mean 1k smallish democracies, with yodeling and Ricola for all, well I admit it has some attractiveness as a model to aim for… I anticipate, but don’t expect to live through, people waking up and discovering that the difference between One World and 1K Switzerlands all comes down to how you squint.
Why do we keep forgetting the Tunisian revolution and the Tunisians?!! Unfair! They started the whole “bloody” thing!!