My intention was to write a general response to the criticisms of my essays on this site. However, I will limit myself—enough is enough—to responding to David Samel’s “Zionism’s History, Real and Imagined.”
This may be my swan song to Mondoweiss. Samel considers me to be too sensitive to criticism, but far too much of what passes for “criticism” among the Mondoweiss regulars is some combination of incoherence, inability or unwillingness to read what I actually say and characterize it correctly, and just pure venom. However, in the final analysis what drives me to the reluctant conclusion that this is probably not the place for me is not so much the calumny, hatred, and insults of so many, but that Samel, who knows far better, has written such a disingenuous caricature of my argument.
David Samel is a lawyer, if I’m not mistaken, a trial lawyer--I’m willing to bet he’s a damned good one, too. So is Alan Dershowitz, who wins a lot of cases through trial-lawyer tactics. The problem is that when lawyers draw up briefs for their clients—in Samel’s case, the anti-Zionists—they have no interest in subtlety, balance, distinctions, or—to put it directly-- truth. Indeed, truth is often their enemy, for it may undermine their arguments and cause them to lose their cases.
So what Samel has written is not a serious, good faith effort to rebut an argument he disagrees with, as he has every right to do. What he has written, rather, is a demagogic summation of a brief, delivered to a jury whose predilections he has only too correctly understood. Before elaborating on Samel’s distortions , though, I will first address the issue, raised in good faith by many of you, of why I thought my consideration of alternative histories was relevant.
The larger question I’m trying to get at is whether Zionism and a Jewish state was ever justifiable, and even if it was in the past, is it today? It is therefore relevant to examine the question of whether Zionism was intrinsically unjust--as opposed to having been corrupted by the actual but avoidable actions of the Israelis. If it was true that a Jewish state in Palestine could have been established only by murderous ethnic cleansing, then—as I explicitly said-- Israel should have not been established in the first place, and nor should it continue exist as a Zionist state, at least so long as it refuses to end its occupation and repression of the Palestinians, and grant full rights to the Israeli Palestinians.
My argument is that Zionism and the establishment of a Jewish state could have been done with far less injustice to the Palestinians—notice, I don’t claim no injustice, but so much less injustice, especially if remediated in a variety of ways, as to be outweighed by the historical need for security—and often life—for Jews endangered by murderous anti-Semitism. I argued this at some length in my essay, though you wouldn’t know it from Samel, who doesn’t address any of my specific arguments.
The same reasoning process must be gone through to get at the question of whether it is legitimate for Israel to remain a Zionist, Jewish state. And my answer is the same: a conditional yes, but only provided the Palestinians also get the only kind or degree of justice that is feasible in the foreseeable future.
Many of you (not Samel, if memory serves, at least not so blatantly), have fulminated this argument demonstrates that “Slater believes Might Makes Right,” that I confuse power with morality and legality, that it is wrong to “allow” Israel to get away with its crimes, and so on. It is a preposterous charge, as even a casual reading of my argument, let alone my entire history, should have made obvious. What I do argue is that since no one is capable or willing to force Israel to end the occupation, it follows that the Israelis must willingly accept a settlement. Yes, all kinds of economic and political sanctions should be brought to bear on Israel—I have been arguing precisely that, in writing, for years. In particular, for many years I have been arguing that the U.S. should make all of its aid to Israel conditional on the end of the occupation and the creation of a Palestinian state. Unfortunately, the U.S. government refuses to listen to me.
In short, my position is that Might Makes Might, not Right—and this has consequences, no matter how much we deplore them. But the criticisms have convinced me: from now on I refuse to “allow” Israel to do anything I disapprove of. Poof, I disallow the Israeli occupation, so from now on the proper address for legitimate complaints against the weakness of the US and Western response to the occupation is to the governments of those countries, not to me.
Now, my specific comments on Samel. There are many more examples of his distortions, but I’ll limit my comments to the following:
1. Samel characterizes my argument about compulsory relocation in an essentially nonviolent manner as boiling down to requiring the Palestinians to leave “with bribe money stuffed in their pockets.” He means to cast contempt on my argument—as all good lawyers do—by characterizing it in the most unfriendly manner he can think of; worse, he doesn’t mention my full argument, namely that the Palestinians who would have to be relocated “could choose where they wanted to go, and would still get generous compensation for the loss of their homes and then also get financial assistance in picking up their lives wherever they chose to go.” Actually, reducing my argument to Palestinians leaving “with bribe money stuffed in their pockets” would be even more contemptuous of any Palestinians who felt they had no choice but to accept generously compensated removal.
2. Samel goes on: “Ethnic cleansing most definitely was not part of the UN partition plan. He [Slater] estimates that 50,000 Palestinians would have refused the bribes; how would they have been expelled “essentially nonviolently”?
Many historical conflicts have been resolved on the basis of forced relocations, none of them on anything like the generous terms I proposed. Moreover, democratic states also often seize the property of their citizens, requiring them to leave, involuntarily if necessary, but with some compensation. What happens if they refuse to leave? I imagine they receive a court order, and if they still refuse, I suppose the police would remove them, with minimal violence.
That’s what I had in mind. No different than what Israel actually did? Only if you are incapable of making any distinctions whatever. It gets worse: Samel asks, “Why is Jerry bothering to conjure up a vision of a kinder and gentler nakhba? (emphasis added)
So, compulsory but well compensated relocation of say, 50,000 Palestinians as opposed to terrorism, massacres and the murderous expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians is merely a kinder and gentler Nakba.
3. Samel: “Where we go from here depends on what happened, not flights of imagination. Palestinians and the rest of the world have been living with the consequences of what really did happen, and the future must be guided by those realities”
Yes, indeed, but how? I argue for a two state solution; Samel argues that we should forget about two states, but he doesn’t contest my extended argument about why the one state argument is certainly unrealistic and quite possibly undesirable. Rather, Samel ends up with the lame and unelaborated notion that we should just concentrate on improving the civil rights of the Palestinians. Aside from the vagueness of what that means and how it might be accomplished, if you reject two-states but can’t refute the argument against one-state, by default what you are left with, to use Samel’s language, is a kinder and gentler occupation and colonialism.
That may be good enough for Samel (as well as a number of others who have made similarly vague proposals), but it isn’t good enough for me—and, of infinitely greater importance, to the Palestinians.
4. Samel claims I make the case for the creation of Israel “with virtually no analysis at all.” You would not know from that statement that I made an extended argument that the history of the Jews, ancient but especially modern history--not limited to the Holocaust-- makes the Zionist case “essentially irrefutable.” True, the Palestinians didn’t think so, for perfectly understandable reasons, but almost all of the Western and Christian world did. Of course, that doesn’t prove my argument, but it certainly shifts the burden of proof—morally, as well as factually-- to those who say, in effect, forget about history and the problem of murderous anti-Semitism.
5. Relatedly, Samel continues: “At most, he can argue that Jews required special protection at that time, and still require the promise of such protection should there be another outbreak of virulent anti-Semitism (a point much more debatable than irrefutable).” Exactly what is “debatable?” I didn’t say there would be another outbreak, I said it couldn’t be ruled out, in light of history, and that is one of the reasons—not the only one, he ignores my other reasons—that the continuation of Israel as a Jewish state is reasonable.
6. Samel: “He claims that people who advocate for one truly democratic state are consigning Palestinians to perpetual misery in the current status quo. In his view, preference for one state implies “giving up” on two, and “condemn[ing Palestinians] to live indefinitely under Israeli occupation and repression…..Once again, he offers no analysis to support this logical leap.”
No analysis? I wrote 15 paragraphs in support of that argument. It doesn’t mean you have to be convinced by the argument, but it would be a good idea to at least mention it, even if you can’t be bothered to rebut it.
7. Samel: “Who is presuming to insist that the Palestinians take any particular position?” For starters, not a few members of the radical left, both Jews and Palestinians, such as those who cast contempt on the PA negotiators, including Abbas, who are prepared to drop the demand for the right of return on the condition that they get a limited but genuinely viable and secure Palestine in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.
8. Samel continues: “Who is insisting on a choice between one state or a continuation of the occupation? “ I didn’t say that anyone was so “insisting;” I said that abandoning the two-state solution for an impossible one-state solution could have that consequence.
9. Now comes this: “Jerry is insisting that Palestinian citizens of Israel accept permanent second-class status.” This is worse than standard-issue lawyering; it comes close to being an outright lie. Take Samel’s word for it, and you wouldn’t know that I wrote that “Israel has the right to remain a Jewish state if--but only if--it finally lives up to its commitment to treat its minorities with full equality” and that “the Palestinians should have at least the moral if not the legal right to insist that the Palestinians remaining inside Israel must be given full political, civil, societal and economic rights.”
Samel will be indignant that I say he is here “coming close” to lying. He will observe that I did argue for one exception to total Jewish-Palestinian equality within a Jewish state--I wrote that it was legitimate for a Jewish state to continue allowing Jews, but not Palestinians, an unlimited right of immigration into Israel. I went on to elaborate on and to defend that exception. You don’t have to accept that argument, but that single exception—as Samel well knows--is not what is normally implied by the term “second-class citizens.”
10. Samel: “Why should those of us who feel that a Jewish State, especially one with Israel’s awful history rather than the alternative history Jerry has imagined, is an anachronism whose continued existence cannot be ethically defended, refrain from voicing our opinion?”
Dear me. I didn’t insist that you refrain from voicing your opinion—for example, by stating my argument in a fair and accurate manner and then refuting it, point by point. I only insist that you refrain from distortions, emotive language, deliberate omissions of key points—and worse.
11. Samel: “Finally, Jerry has the good sense to direct his ire not at Palestinians themselves but at their supporters who enjoy comfort and security, but his reasoning is equally applicable to Palestinians who advocate for one democratic state, who must be committing the same grave errors. “
Agreed—except that there are hardly any Palestinians who are genuinely arguing for a single binational state. An occasional “threat” by a Palestinian official--that if Israel keeps blocking a two-state solution, they’ll just have to demand a single democratic state-- doesn’t count. Not only does Israel not take that “threat” seriously, neither do the Palestinians. How do I know that? Well, common sense will take you quite far, but no need to rely on it: the Palestinian leaders who have occasionally made that threat are the very same ones willing to make major concessions to get a state of their own.
12. Samel: “Jerry is fond of making points with old jokes, so let me give it a try - please excuse the morbid taste. The Nazis catch two Jews hiding in the forest and bring them before a firing squad. One starts crying and begging for his life. “On your mark!” More sobbing, more begging. “Get set!” The other Jew turns and says, “Shh! Don’t make trouble.”
No, I don’t excuse it. It’s not the morbidity that is unforgivable, but both the implied analogy—the Israelis are the Nazis—and the explicit charge that I am the Jew who says “shh, don’t make trouble.”
What a disgraceful way for Samel to end his “critique.” First, here’s a good rule of thumb when discussing these issues: forget about analogies to Nazi Germany. Second, you will find nothing in my writing, ever, that equates to my telling the Palestinians or their supporters—of whom I am one--to be quiet and stop making trouble. What I am arguing is that the demand for a two state solution has a far greater chance of being eventually realized (however dim the current prospects) than one state, and moreover if somehow a one state solution were forced on the Israelis, it would be far more likely to be a disaster for both peoples than a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Perhaps I am being too “thin-skinned,” too hard on Samel? After all he does dissociate himself from some of the more intemperate comments, but I don’t think that is good enough. In some ways, what he has done here is worse, precisely because Samel is intelligent, writes well, and likes to appear as moderate. Consequently, his clever demagoguery is more destructive of serious debate than the incoherent rants of others.
Leave this kind of stuff to Alan Dershowitz.
This may be my swan song to Mondoweiss.
Camus was another ‘beautiful soul’ who bade farewell to vulgar allies such as Sartre and de Beauvoir who insisted on ‘attaching equal weight to an Arab life as to a French one during the Algerian war’.
excuse me for cutting in line.
oh this is rich.
mr slater, this is nothing more than prefacing your response w/a great big ad hominem washing away the arguments against yours by making your audience incompetents and worse. this was the same insult you made when i challenged you on the other thread and here you go about it again, it is as if you can’t even hear the criticism’s and you go all bonkers on people. (you started the insults on the thread as i pointed out to you and you acknowledged , explaining “you haven’t earned the right to be sarcastic” !!!!) so i will address the very same part of your argument with the very same challenge since you keep defending it as if it were something normal.
here we go again: mr slater, what do you think the response would be if you suggested jews should or could be financially compensated for leaving israel? what price do you think would be appropriate or fair?
you went crazy when i asked you these same questions and accused me of being incoherence, inability or unwillingness to read what I actually say and characterize it correctly (perhaps not your exact words but definitely that was your response). iow you evaded the argument.
do you realize it is racist (something i did not accuse you of before because i thought i owed you at least that much respect, but here you are again attacking us and accusing us of incoherence and inability instead of actually addressing the points) to suggest or imply one ethnicity could be bought off but not another? so tell us mr slater what kind of compensation do you think would be fair for jews to leave israel? let’s just put your argument in perspective. remembering jews would still get generous compensation for the loss of their homes and then also get financial assistance in picking up their lives wherever they chose to go.” name the price please. without going completely apeshit on me.
oh, and i’m just addressing your #1 for expediency’s sake. i called your argument absurd before. is it or is it not absurd to suggest jewish israelis could be bought off? if it is then why is it not absurd to suggest palestinians could?
here we go again: mr slater, what do you think the response would be if you suggested jews should be compensated for leaving israel? what price do you think would be appropriate or fair?
exactly. let’s ask mr. slater and any other of the zionists here offended by helen thomas’ remarks what their views would be if she had said they “go back to where they came” from, but with slater’s added suggestion of “with compensation.”
another thing mr slater, i reframed my argument and still you refused to address it:
annie — I love the delicious idea of proposing to Israeli Jews the idea that they all pack up and move out in return for a monetary payment. I never imagined such a wonderful turn-about-is-fair-play, perhaps because I’d never imagined that such an offer had ever been made, or considered to be made, to the Palestinians. (It should be stressed, along Zionist lines, that the $$$ would come from elsewhere, not from Palestinians. And that host governments might have to be bought off as well!) (And once a favorable answer was had, it would be argued that now that the principle had been settled, all that remained to be determined was the price!)
If and when the settlers are required to leave the OPTs, I expect that they will demand to be paid off. I hope that, in that case (apart from the GOI), the world will say to them: “Nemo plus iuris in alium transferre potest quam ipse habet.” (One cannot transfer to another more rights than he has. Israel as occupier could not “own” land in OPTs and therefor could not sell or lease it. Caveat emptor!)
“
pabelmont, i wouldn’t describe it as delicious. it just seems insulting to me to presume palestine is more important to jews than it is to palestinians. it implies jews feel more. the idea one might get all tweeked about even the idea of buying off jews while lecturing, berating, insulting us for not comprehending the “complex argument” that contains exactly his own logic, flipped over. but i don’t find the idea delicious. hey, they offer awesome deals and money to come there it just makes sense the financial incentive could work in the opposite direction. (for some maybe but not for all). the idea is no more absurd than paying palestinians off, in fact one could argue it is less absurd.
after all, palestinians have a fairly awesome track record of millions of them not leaving under radically dire circumstances. if jews in israel had to live under a brutal occupation for 60 years (their kids hauled off in the middle of the night, their most virile men jailed, their best and brightest targetted for extinction) while having the option to leave i wonder how many of them would stick around for their land?
I think this article should be re-titled as “Slater’s Complaint”.
“Slater’s Complaint”.
that’s a syllable too succinct. ‘slater complaining’ is more accurate.
Jerome,
I got dumped on as well in my post. I don’t think that the venomous responses are helpful, but I think that they are part of the ecosystem of Mondoweiss. Mondoweiss is extraordinary because breaking through hasbara narrative in the United States and western countries is extraordinarily difficult. Mondoweiss provides that intellectual firepower. Please continue to post on Mondoweiss.
It is unfortunate how much venom is spewed by commenters (not so much posters) on this site. I think you did a good job of describing and naming the tactics used to twist arguments as in a courtroom, as opposed to dealing with opposing viewpoints honestly and with integrity.
The minute venom, sarcasm, caricature, ad-hominem attacks begin, it’s a signal that the conversation has stopped and the bestial aspects of partisanship are coming to the fore.
That was an excellent comment Robert,
Describing Mondoweiss as an ecosystem is an apt one, even though I felt uncomfrotable when I first read that comment. Ipon reflection, I don’t think there is any point denying it.
What I found particularly useful about your comment however, was your observation that Modoweiss does serve an invaluable role in disecting missinformation about the I/P conflict in the US. Sometimes, this comes at a cost.
The other point this highlights, is the challenge that comes with delivering this firepower, while still maintaining a welcoming atmosphere for dissenters. The fact that Jerome has found this forum too hostile is a shame, because it is evident to me that he is sincere in wanting to have a dialogue about this very sensitive topic.
I concur – please do not refuse to continue to post because of the intense disagreement with some of your points as your insight is valuable and the arguments that are provoked are valuable as well.
I also had the impression that David was caricaturing your comments.
It was hard for people to hear, ‘I guess I would be a Zionist, by some definition.’ (I don’t remember the direct quote.)
And, hard to hear that you acknowledge that 1948 was a period of struggle, struggle between difficult choices, and struggle between contending parties (that was probably more my point than yours).
“caricaturing”
Learn English, Witty. It’s supposed to be your native language, and they have these things called “dictionaries”.
I don’t know why berating your audience because they aren’t satisfied with your colorful narratives would get you sympathy, in your mind. You’re just as culpable for the atmosphere of hostility around here as anyone else.
This debate has been intriguing as a microcosm of Israeli diplomacy. The Zionist A) builds a case by ignoring factual historical information, B) lauds the overwhelming might of the position he supports as an immovable wall that everyone else must heave to, and then C) walks away, bemoaning how there’s just no one to negotiate with. And then just keeps right on doing exactly what he pretended to abhor, because he “gave dialog a chance and it failed.”
I’ll say it’s been intriguing to observe in that regard, but not exactly educational. It’s been done before.
Otherwise known as “my way or the highway.”
Yes Chaos, you can really tell that Zionists are people who have suffered from persecution, and have had to make all kinds of compromises just to survive.
Jerome,
Trial lawyers are hired to win, not to be polite and engage in thoughtful discussions – unless it’s an intentional tactic being used to further their client’s advantage. You’re not on trial here. You don’t have to defend yourself.
My question is, why even listen?
How about taking a break – maybe forever – from reading others’ replies to what you write? Just put out there what you think, what’s important to you, and let it go.
You can still choose to grow in your thoughts and positions by reading the posts and others’ individual comments, here. Reply to them or not but stop reading what anyone says to you. Reduced to its lowest common denominator, unfortunately, a great deal of back and forth is less about productive conversation than it is about ego, anyway.
I suggest that you consider interacting more freely, online and offline, with those whom you feel respected by and bring back, here, what you want to share. Heck, no matter what any of us say, at any time, anywhere, others take it or leave it, learning from us or not, as they always do.
Why not think about giving this idea a shot, a time-limited trial, so to speak. You may find it very freeing and can still hang around here so we learn from you – and learn about ourselves – through what you have to say.
Exactly.
I’m glad that Slater decided to respond to Samel’s piece, since Samel has made many of the same points that I have, to whom Slater does not deign to reply.
Unfortunately, all he seems capable of is repeating the same points over again without addressing the points his interlocutors have made.
He repeats: If it was true that a Jewish state in Palestine could have been established only by murderous ethnic cleansing, then—as I explicitly said– Israel should have not been established in the first place, and nor should it continue exist as a Zionist state
Now, think about this. Suppose it was possible to establish a Jewish state in Palestine without violence. Yet the proto-Israelites did not consider this possibility, opting instead for ethnic cleansing. How does this make the Jewish state less culpable than under the conditions in which it should not have been established in the first place? If there were an alternative, they spurned it. They chose violence when less violence was possible. Because the fact is, it was established via ethnic cleansing.
Therefore the only logical options would seem to be, Israel should not have been established in the first place, or Israel should not have been established in the first place
Now, this business of necessity. You would not know from that statement that I made an extended argument that the history of the Jews, ancient but especially modern history–not limited to the Holocaust– makes the Zionist case “essentially irrefutable.”
I have to conclude that Slater simply does not know what a logical argument requires. Yes, he discusses the history of the Jews, but he does nothing to link this history to the case he is trying to make and which he laughably declares, “irrefutable.”
Well, it is in a sense irrefutable, since you can’t refute an argument that doesn’t exist.
Slater’s non-argument can be boiled down to:
Nope. To make such an argument, Slater would have had to define “necessary” and the conditions that might make any existential condition necessary, and then to prove that the Jewish state meets these conditions.
He has not done so. At all. Not even a little bit. He has illustrated that the Jews throughout history have been persecuted. We knew this. But what Slater can not or will not try to understand is that this fact, in itself, is not an argument.
Which, I am sure, is why he will never reply to my comment.
Didn’t think so.
I would still very much like an answer to one of my questions posted on the first thread concerning your piece.
1. Please define what a Jewish state is (theocracy, a simple Jewish majority, apartheid?)
2. Please explain what you are willing to do to preserve a Jewish majority should the non-jewish population ever exceed 50% (ethnic cleansing, forced relocation, some less-unjust solution etc)
I’m really, really dying to know what you think.
*waits*
P.S. you compare David to Alan Dershowitz? Ouch.
Slater, Robert and Witty are treating the Mondoweiss readers as the Israelis treat occupied Palestinians.
Slater buddy, this isn’t Israel, the US congress or pathetic UN where you can get away with berating and insulting people becaue you know you can get away with it.
What bothers you guys is that we aren’t groveling at your words and aren’t beholden to you guys as the US Congress is beholden to Israel. We can point the finger and say the emperor has no clothes and this pisses you off because it’s true.
If you don’t care what we think or what our responses are, then you wouldn’t have responded. We are intelligent enough to see through the crap. And we happen to think we are your equals.
Very important. The one-staters are all arm-chair activists many of whom have never talked to a real live Palestinian before. Anyone who claims that an Israeli can go his whole life w/ out talking to an Arab really shouldn’t be qualified to tell either the Israelis or Palestinians what is ‘best’ for them.
DBG,
If there were a one-state solution where all Jews and Arabs would vote, you say that this would lead to a civil war. Who would throw the first punch in this war? The Arabs? They would attack for getting the right to vote? The Jews? Well, yeah, maybe. Probably. So you are saying that Palestinians can’t get the right to vote because there is a danger that Jewish Israelis would attack, and there would be a civil war. I have a suggestion. Live up to your democratic values, and use the IDF to keep the peace in the event that Palestinians are given the right to vote and it leads to Jewish violence.
Robert, who knows who would ‘fire the first shot.’ they both hate each other with a passion and you want to move them all in together.
Let’s follow your SA analogy, what happens when all Palestinians (apparently their descendants in the camps too) become citizens. How will we deal with the huge economic disparities between the two groups? SA hasn’t exactly turned into a utopian society. What if the Palestinians decide that they don’t like this and then try to nationalize all private companies using their new majority. How will that work out?
Are Israelis and Palestinians even on board with a one state solution?
There are so many unknowns when you propose to join two groups who’ve been basically fighting each other for last 80 years.
Factual data suggests otherwise.
Chaos,
I don’t see the connection.
If that is the case and the Israelis are as horrible as you seem to think, why are you a proponent of the one-state solution.
DBG,
“they both hate each other with a passion and you want to move them all in together.”
Nonsense. They are moved in together *right now*. That’s why I mention before that they are in physical proximity. The difference would be that Palestinians could vote and would have equal legal protection.
“Let’s follow your SA analogy, what happens when all Palestinians (apparently their descendants in the camps too) become citizens. How will we deal with the huge economic disparities between the two groups? SA hasn’t exactly turned into a utopian society. What if the Palestinians decide that they don’t like this and then try to nationalize all private companies using their new majority. How will that work out?”
Now you’re talking, DBG. Even though you’ve framed it negatively, at least you are talking the details about political and economic changes caused by Palestinian voting rights, and that is a subject that has answers to it.
What if the Palestinians want to nationalize all private companies? 1. Why not ask them? This may be a question no one has ever asked before, but…..What do Gazans think about tax policy? What does a Hamas member think about industrial and tourism policy? What does a West Banker think about modesty laws, and hate crime laws, etc, etc. What are the answers to these questions? The bottom line may be, that Palestinian integration may shift Israel-Palestine politics, but nothing that hasn’t been dealt with before. I mean, Israeli politics is very grave right now. It could get a lot better.
“How will we deal with the huge economic disparities between the two groups? SA hasn’t exactly turned into a utopian society. ”
How about massive investments in education for the Palestinian population? How about using all of that IDF talent for a corps of Jewish and Arab teachers? How about reducing the extremely radical income inequality in Israel, which is among the highest in the developed world?
See, this is real discussion about the nitty-gritty details of life after Palestinian integration, and how might life change? Would the changes be manageable?
Wow Robert,
Thanks for the honest answers. It is nice to get some questions answered on here without disparaging comments. I am very hesitant to believe in a one state solution, but the answers you’ve given me have helped to open my mind (if just a little).
thank you!
“democratic values” in an Apartheid state? You lost me?
No it’s a much better idea to ask the Israelis. They will tell us.
I do understand, however, that there’s no way I could learn from Palestinian sources want, cause there’s no Internet or telephone or video invented yet.
And there’s one things that even surer than hell (for non-Zionists) and that is there is no way I could even start to extrapolate what Palestinians feel or want by looking at what I might want in the same situation. Those people are just, well, well… you know, they’re Arabs.
So I guess the only choice is to listen to Israelis, or the people Israelis select. Of course, we could cut out the middlman, and just take your word for it, DBG. I’m sure that’s the best way.
No it’s a much better idea to ask the Israelis. They will tell us.
and they are really experienced to speak for the Palestinians, since they are by now the world experts on the Arab mind. And don’t forget once they actually speak for themselves they demand vicious things like BDS.
Those people are just, well, well… you know, they’re Arabs.
Yes, that’s probably the better way to say it.
So I guess the only choice is to listen to Israelis, or the people Israelis select. Of course, we could cut out the middlman, and just take your word for it, DBG. I’m sure that’s the best way
Look at the dangerous scenario DBG paints? They might intend to make Israelis pay the price for their dispossession. These Arabs seem to both savages and communists. Nationalization, that’s Stone age.
Now according to the usual antisemitic – Zionist dialectic the Israelis are not liable, the international community has to pay the compensation. But given the circumstances, I can imagine one better remains suspect. These Palestinians may not be really be civilized people and understand how business works. They may not understand that they better ask the Germans for compensation and to a lower extend the Russians, maybe the French, the Dreyfus affair after all inspired Herzl? But that the more efficient way is to put the burden on more shoulders, and that is the “international community” or all non-Jews.
Could we please disassociate compensation for the victims and their descendants from the national and private advantages gained from land, that once belonged to others?
Could we please
at least symbolically, I mean.
Now this:
1. Samel characterizes my argument about compulsory relocation in an essentially nonviolent manner as boiling down to requiring the Palestinians to leave “with bribe money stuffed in their pockets.” He means to cast contempt on my argument—as all good lawyers do—by characterizing it in the most unfriendly manner he can think of; worse, he doesn’t mention my full argument, namely that the Palestinians who would have to be relocated “could choose where they wanted to go, and would still get generous compensation for the loss of their homes and then also get financial assistance in picking up their lives wherever they chose to go.” Actually, reducing my argument to Palestinians leaving “with bribe money stuffed in their pockets” would be even more contemptuous of any Palestinians who felt they had no choice but to accept generously compensated removal.
I am afraid, I found the argument apt, and Slater’s pretentious, since we always had and always will have to take the “no choice” as a given. just as 63 years later we hear hesitant talk about compensation, that was never ever really considered before, while the theft goes on. A compensation that has to be paid by the international community, while Israel’s confiscations go on. What about at least a “symbolic” compensation by Israel and the Jewish National Fund?
So who is contemptuous of other people’s rights? Yes they had “no choice” but to live under military law both inside and outside the green . But it’s really hard to imagine what they would like to be; Free, maybe? Free to move, free to study. Free to live their lives?
DBG – there are a number of Palestinians who have posted here. All or most of them have supported the binational state.
Are you not willing to let the Palestinians decide what they think is best for them, if it happens not to be what you want, yourself?
Are you not will to let both the Palestinians and the Israelis decide what is best for both of them? If that is what Palestinians and Israelis want, I am fine with it, but it for them to decide, not some foreign body.
I am perfectly willing to let the Palestinians decide. As for the Israelis, we know what they want – everything – and they have had what they want for too long. Someone else’s turn.
Well then trouble is brewing. Totally disenfranchising the Israelis to get back at them isn’t the right way to approach the situation.
Who said anything about disenfranchising Israelis? A binational state would not disenfranchise Israelis. It would only give all non-Jews living there the right to vote and fully participate together with Israeli Jews in decisions that jointly affect their lives and their futures.
Potsherd,
I don’t agree with Jerry’s assertion that “there are hardly any Palestinians who are genuinely arguing for a single binational state”, and I believe that his reference to “an occasional ‘threat’ by a Palestinian official–that if Israel keeps blocking a two-state solution, they’ll just have to demand a single democratic state” is indicative of his own ideas of what constitutes Palestinian leadership and opinion-making. I also don’t think that it really matters that much at this point. What I would like to see is some informed Palestinian commentary on the views we Jewish guys (Slater, Samel, myself) have been ascribing to them and on which we have been building our theories.
Yes, that’s it!
Have we not seen it here?
Of course we should always welcome other voices.
You hint at an argument that could be made. I could even piece it together and make it if I wanted. The problem is you do not make the argument you claim to make, and neither does anyone else. So why should I bother putting together the argument no one is willing to make, and I am not supportive of?
Your argument is Jews are special and deserve special treatment. It is implicitly European centric. Even as a European centric argument it denies such groups as the Roma – and their plight both inside Europe and inside Israel.
Take Samel’s word for it, and you wouldn’t know that I wrote that “Israel has the right to remain a Jewish state if–but only if–it finally lives up to its commitment to treat its minorities with full equality” and that “the Palestinians should have at least the moral if not the legal right to insist that the Palestinians remaining inside Israel must be given full political, civil, societal and economic rights.”
We’re not stupid nor blind here. A Jewish state is by definition a denial of full equality. Interestingly, it denies full rights to both Palestinians and Jews. Activities that threaten the Jewish state must be limited in scope – whether that be Palestinians who engage in fucking (the demographic threat) or Jews who marry non Jews (again the problem of who fucks whom and how often). To many Palestinian babies and not enough Jewish babies and goodbye Jewish state. A state that monitors the fucking of its citizens – even indirectly – and attempts to maintain an ethnic/religious/cultural identity as Israel does, and would do under your proposal is not providing full equality. Saying otherwise does not make it so. The only system that I know of that provides full equality is a secular democracy, and its damn clear you aren’t calling for that.
If you wish to make an argument for theocracy light then make the argument. Don’t go telling me that a Jewish state offers full democracy to anyone, let alone Jews. And don’t expect me to make your argument for you.
I feel a draft. I think it’s the swan’s wings beating. Must be migration time.
Moose. Lol.
“A state that monitors the fucking of its citizens – even indirectly – and attempts to maintain an ethnic/religious/cultural identity as Israel does, and would do under your proposal is not providing full equality. Saying otherwise does not make it so. ”
God forbid someone should bring up the dreadful Nazi analogy and mention the Nuremberg race laws. That would be just ‘disgraceful’. So what if the parallel is striking, there’s nothing to see here. “First, here’s a good rule of thumb when discussing these issues: forget about analogies to Nazi Germany” (Slater). OK, how about Jim Crow laws or Apartheid South Africa? Better? The fact is that the Jewish state is built on primitive notions of humanity and society.
The most subjective parts of this debate are perhaps the question of the Jewish need for a state as a safeguard against anti-Semitism, and the question of whether the Zionist movement could have acted differently (and hence might act differently in the future). I don’t see much point in continuing to argue these points.
We are missing some crucial information however, about what Palestinians think of all this. Jerry’s arguments (and mine and David Samel’s) are based, inter alia, on what Palestinians want and believe. Is ROR a deal-breaker for Palestinians? Who represents Palestinian public opinion and who has an influence on Palestinian public opinion? How diverse is Palestinian public opinion and are there significant voices in favour of various permutations of the 1ss (single state, binational, federation, annexation and greater rights under Israeli rule, etc.)? (I can think of a few names, even for the latter idea, but I am not an expert on Palestinian opinion or society). How relevant are the views of refugees and Palestinian Israelis – in the eyes of Palestinians of the WB, Gaza and E. Jerusalem, and in terms of their ability to block an agreement? (Edward Said insisted that no agreement would be viable without adequately addressing all three components of the conflict – refugees, occupation, Palestinians inside Israel).
If we wish to move forward, rather than endlessly debating what might have been and which solution is the least unlikely, perhaps we could have some learned contributions on what Palestinians want, need and believe possible.
“If we wish to move forward, rather than endlessly debating what might have been and which solution is the least unlikely, perhaps we could have some learned contributions on what Palestinians want, need and believe possible.”
Oh Smuel, everybody knows what the Palestinians want! They want to be permanently militarily occupied by the Israelis, have their homes demolished, and be generally oppressed, kept at near subsistence level, be attacked and then be gradually eliminated as a people. Oh they won’t say it, but all you have to do is look at them, standing around yearning for it, and you can read their minds.
Sometimes I don’t know what to make of you, Shmuel. What the hell do you think they want. Couldn’t you even begin to guess? Well, try real, real hard.
Sure I know, they slightest improvement, even those well within the power of the Israelis, must wait until we find out if it’s what they really want. Don’t forget to ask them if they have any basic desire to live, cause if we can get a “no” on that one, the whole problem is moot, huh.
Sorry, but sometimes I wonder if you can take the boy out of Israel, but can’t….. oh, never mind. Oh, I forgot the checkpoints. Yes we need to make sure a majority of Palestinians object to the checkpoints, we don’t want to forget about those that just loooove checkpoints, we’d ruin their day if they didn’t have their favorite checkpoint!
Yes, I know, this discussion is over the ultimate settlement, and until that comes, we have to make sure the Palestinians don’t love the situation as it exists now. Some people just hate change, you know.
“perhaps we could have some learned contributions on what Palestinians” (my italics)
Yes, we should find the people who really know. Dead men tell no tales.
Antlers moulting again, Mooser?
Well, I do think we can make some pretty good guesses, and certainly there are steps which can be taken in the meantime.
But of course, if you are talking about the long-term solution in which, hopefully, Israelis and Palestinians can be accommodated and the situation resolved, you are right, of course. That’s two “of course”s.
It was just the “learned” that got me. My first thought was that those who really know, ain’t talking. Or composing, for that matter.
We are missing some crucial information however, about what Palestinians think of all this.
not to pile on, but your question about ‘what Palestinians think of all this’ presumes that palestinians (both inside israel and in gaza and the WB) live in an environment that permits them to form civic groups, political parties, provides media access, freely associate with jewish israelis, etc., without the GOI prohibiting or undermining such efforts. an open discussion of what palestinians want cannot even take place in the current environment. as mooser suggests, removing the collective boot from the necks of palestinians is a necessary first step.
Marc,
But Palestinians do form civic groups, political parties, have media access, associate with Jewish Israelis, etc. – despite the devastating effects of Israeli oppression. The point is that we are having this discussion, boot or no boot (may it speedily be removed in our days), and we are talking about what Palestinians want and/or will accept (Mooser’s snide remarks aside). Don’t you think it’s a little ridiculous to be having this discussion without them?
Shmuel: YES. But that’s precisely the point. Slater’s argument presumes that he has the right to decide for others what their state should look like. It’s true of his historic (or ahistoric) vision of a “softer Zionism” and it’s true of his vision of a utopian “democratic Israel.” The “other” is simply not part of the equation–even in his noblest imaginings. And therein lies the essence of Zionism and the reason why it can NEVER offer equality.
“despite the devastating effects of Israeli oppression. “
Yes, they do, but there is no comparison between those type of activities taking place under occupation, especially of this type, and those activities taking place in freedom. To begin with Israel has every reason, and every capability of infiltrating them and/or subverting them, and ultimately, every association is subject to Israeli banning, which can make any association that isn’t a suspect of collaboration. While those activities are laudable, and courageous, they cannot serve the same functions or reflect the polity under these circumstances, even tho they make make superhuman efforts to do so.
But I guess, after all, we do agree, then (in spite of my snide remarks, for which I thank you for your patience): While not perfect, between universal human longings and what Palestinians are able to tell us, we at least a rough idea of what’s needed.
Do we need a plebiscite among Palestinians to decide whether the growth of the settlements, the immunity and impunity of the settlers and their defense in criminal activities by the IDF is a good idea or not?
mooser makes my point, again, which is, not that palestinians can’t form such associations, but the relation of those associations to main stream politics. i suppose that whoever said it in this thread may be right: it may be up to jewish israelis to decide whether they want to permit real reform or be faced with a revolution. reform or revolution. now that’s a catchy title.
Not saying that this exchange on the one state vs two state solution isn’t informative, but that, as an American Jew who is dedicated to antiracist struggles of all kinds, seems to me that the main task of the antizionist movement here in America is to find ways to sever the U.S.-Israel alliance, thereby forcing the settler entity to deal with the consequences of its occupation of the Palestinian’s homeland without being able to count on the unconditional support of the U.S. of A. Standing in the way of those of us who seek to undo said alliance, of course, are the dual loyalists – the Israel lobby and its puppets in Congress. For sure they’ll throw all sorts of vitriol at us. Undaunted, though, we go ahead and nail them with the charge of being Israel-firsters (which they are), and we’ll get the attention of the American people. By our wielding statements by General David Petreaus, among others, that Israel’s intransigence vis-a-vis a peace accord with the Palestinians endangers our troops in Afghanistan as well as the rest of us here in America, we’re can pin the “traitor” label on the IL and make it stick. How will the public react? Mark Twain’s definition of patriotism comes to mind – “Patriotism is supporting one’s country all the time, one’s government only when it deserves it”. As for the one vs two state debate, unless the evil alliance is severed, why would the Zionist entity make any concessions to the Palestinians? Perhaps it would as a result of BDS & pressures generated from the Arab Spring, but add the undoing of the U.S.-Israel alliance to this mix and, voila, the conversaion between the U.S. President and the Israeli Prime Minister just might go something like this -
“Looks like we’re in serious trouble, Mr. President.”
“What do you mean we, occupier of the Palestinian homeland.”
While I quibble with your choice of words, I strongly agree with the notion.
I again quibble with your choice of words (it’s not an ‘alliance’), but think the answer to this question should be common sense by now for anyone paying attention to this issue.
I hope I live to see the day. I’d rather see Israelis preempt such an eventuality by forging a just peace, of course, but the harsh reality is that their political establishment simply has no interest in one and their population is growing more racist, fascist, and violent as the secular founding generations die off. There will be no salvation from below.
Israelis have clearly chosen the path on which they wish to tread, and via the Israel Lobby are dragging us along behind while attempting to obscure our view of the way ahead so we don’t attempt to bolt for the bushes.
The final confrontation to neutralize the Israel Lobby will be painful enough for most Americans. It is preposterous to think the United States might go beyond this by taking the harsh stance against Israel vitally necessary to change the embedded will to ethnic cleansing and colonization of its entire political establishment. If a majority of American Jews aren’t willing to do it to save Israel as a Jewish state, why should the rest of us? I think most of us simply want a comprehensive and definitive termination to our involvement in Israeli affairs.
So, compulsory but well compensated relocation of say, 50,000 Palestinians as opposed to terrorism, massacres and the murderous expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians is merely a kinder and gentler Nakba.
Compulsory relocation is a nice euphemism for forced expulsion. The issue of compensation is very much another matter, then, but let us recognize once and for all that your proposal is still one of ethnic cleansing (i.e., forced of compulsory, if you will, relocation of an ethnic group). What you are proposing is very much a kindler and gentler Nakba, one which espouses its inherent and central value of ethnic expulsion, but one which (as you have purposed earlier) “mitigates” the pain of it by compensation and “choice” (not sure how you can call it choice when you have already decided that “relocation” is “compulsory”). Samel hit the bullseye with his remark. You are still justifying ethnic cleansing in theory and deed, Slater, albeit one that is cushioned for its victims with a perks and consolation package (which the Palestinians should, in your absurd and vicious worldview, be thankful for). Ironic that you call Samel out to be a lawyer when it is you speaking the deceptive language, but again you have proven the more a Zionist speaks the more their racism is clear.
If you deem opposition to such a heinous proposal as “pure venom,” so be it. It wouldn’t be the first time that a Zionist on this site has accused its readers of hatred while simultaneously and clearly supporting racist crimes against humanity. You won’t be missed like any other of your hypocritical brethren.
Jerry, I have read your article, if not followed the response threads. I think its main flaw may have been a certain ahistoricism (not sure that’s exactly the word, but can’t think of a better one) : not exploring whether a Zionist commitment to exclusive rights within the entire Palestine mandate was so embedded in the Zionist project that your speculations are a little bit beside the point. That said, I think your point that Israel could have, in theory, been established with much less injustice is a good one. If 50,000 Palestinians had been paid to leave in 1948, I doubt most of us would still be discussing the matter, and I doubt Israel/Palestine would be an issue (which it is now) with the potential to unleash a nuclear holocaust.
That said, my larger point it that I would be very disappointed if you didn’t post anymore on mondoweiss. I didn’t bear the brunt of David Samel’s polemic, true–but it’s a small matter. I have been sharply attacked for things I’ve posted here, and later (in another venue) gotten along quite well with the person who attacked me. The American media is full of real idiots on this subject, and people who at least know what the issues are and have some morality about them should stick together, rather than fragmenting into factions.
i think it’s interesting that the question of the whether israel could have been established justly can even be posed in good faith. of course you cannot move people in, move natives out , and establish a new state justly. it’s silly and denotes a pretty extreme kind of delusion to think you can, or could have. this guy is just another zionist who pretends to have a moral compass.
phil is so right, these arguments are exactly like the south before civil rights. “separate but equal” .
the only scenario i can think of is to find a country that the natives willingly moved over, and gave up their power and government in favor of the new people…pretty unlikcly.
Bingo…..another argument by a Zionist who has been so brainwashed, his moral compass is not functioning. Somewhere down deep there is one. Reading his post, you can feel that moral compass way down deep struggling and all the inner conflict.
Jerry and I established a very friendly email correspondence, and when he visited NYC, we had a lovely lunch together. I really like him personally, and I regret that our friendship ended in this conflagration. After all this, I certainly do not believe that he is all right with human suffering of any kind, and consider him to be a very decent and honest man. I think his two biggest problems are that he fails to understand the logical consequences of his positions, and that he can be unnecessarily nasty and dismissive of criticism. I do not believe that any of my representations of his positions are even slightly misleading, much less dishonest. I think Jerry is wrong, not a liar, and I’m sorry to see he feels otherwise about me.
That being said, Jerry could do worse than to take pixel’s advice above. It certainly was not my intention to drive him from this site.
This has been the problem with the Zionist project since its inception, and even worse, a complete refusal to see the need for it: failure to understand or assess the logical consequences of the positions it takes.
MRW- “…failure to understand or assess the logical consequences of the positions it takes.”
I assume you are referring to liberal Zionists. As for the others, I think that Jabotinsky in his “Iron Wall” exhibited a reasonably clear understanding of the consequences of Zionism, and, in fact, criticized the Labor Zionists for their failure to forthrightly acknowledge the obvious. As for the “liberal” Zionists, I think it is less a case of them being unable to assess or understand, than it is of suppressing the information which causes them psychological discomfort. To admit the truth would be much too disruptive to their world.
I agree with all of what you say. I was extremely disappointed to see Jerry’s reaction to your post. He has been the recipient of some harsh criticism here that got personal and I felt bad about that, because I really respect what he has written over the years, but with this post he didn’t make the distinction between harsh criticism and personal nastiness. He could have replied with a strongly worded argument against your position without accusing you of lying. Oh well.
As for substance, I’ve always been willing to listen to people who say that a one state solution couldn’t work because it might lead to civil war. Certainly there are reasons to fear this. It’s the one argument for a two state solution that has real force so far as I can tell. (Well, if the Palestinians also prefer a two state solution then that would settle the matter by itself–they are the injured party, but if they want a separate state that’s that.)
On logical implications, it surprises me that Jerry can’t see why so many of us are very disturbed about the notion of people being asked to leave their homes because their ethnicity is wrong and not because they did anything to deserve it. The Palestinians (leaving aside the handful which actually did commit terror) did nothing wrong. “Compensating” them so they can live somewhere else, anywhere else, because they aren’t Jewish–well, my God, I’d like to think we’ve moved beyond that kind of thinking. Sure it’s not as bad as what actually occurred and sure, other people have been forced to leave their homes by the government, but surely the cure for humanity’s long history of intolerance and racism and genocide and ethnic cleansing is not to promote more discrimination and expulsion on the basis of ethnicity.
I think you hit the nail on the head here David. For example, consider this statement made by Slater .
Many historical conflicts have been resolved on the basis of forced relocations, none of them on anything like the generous terms I proposed.
Slater seems to miss the difference between the outcome of unforseen conflicts (ie. wars) and a pre-meditated policy (the forceful removal of Palestinians). If the aim is to remove an indigenous population, then you had better be offering a generous incentive if you have any hope of succeeding and avoiding a conflict. I can’t think of too many forced relocations througout history that were not a consequence of conflict or war.
The other issue that Slater completely fails to address is the effect of Palestinians aspirations for statehood and self determination. The assumption that the Palestinians would get up and leave for the right price, assumes that the society was not a conesive one and that their own nationalist aspirations were nill.
One only needs to consider the example of Iran, where the popualtion of 25,000 Jews have refused to budge, in spite of generous incentives to migrate to Israel. These people are not simply holding out for a better offer, they have rejected in because they consider Iran their home.
Without intending to be nosy David, did your friednship end as a result of this conflagration?
Because if so, then I don’t think this speaks too well of Jerome’s character or emotional maturity. Throughout my years of blogging on this topic, I have encountered numerous individuals who I fiercely diagreed with, but managed to maintain a great deal of mutual respect for. There were many heated exchanges, some over the top, but at the end of the day, we were able to remember and allow each otehr’s humanity and recgonzie the decency we all ultimately hold dear.
You’re always a class act in my book, David. You got unfairly maligned and still you kept your part of the disagreement civil and open and on point. That’s more than I could have done under the circumstances. Good for you.
I’ve been rather absent and seem to have missed any previous pieces you or others wrote regarding Zionism. But just from reading this piece I have a few thoughts.
You write:
I’m guessing this is the root of what you are looking at. You are wondering if the Jewish state could have been founded without the injustice on the Palestinians and whether Zionism itself is a just goal.
My own personal thoughts are that 1) regarding the founding of Israel it is hard to see how it could have gone down any different. The Irgun stategy of frankly scaring away first the British and then Palestinians was essential to the success of Zionism in forming a jewish state.
2) On Zionism and whether it was justifiable I’m rather boxed in. Being a Marxist and believing that most issues whether economic or geopolitical boil down to oppressors vs oppressed it seems fairly clear cut to me that that Zionism was intellectually founded and matured during colonialist times and that it reflects that mentality.
You seem to be searching for a more moral or just form of Zionism that allows the ideals to continue but doesn’t cause injustice to Palestinians. It’s not a bad intellectual effort but I just don’t see how that could be. The fatal flaw in Zionism and the search for a Jewish homeland was the complete disregard for the native population similar to alot of the colonialist experiments in Africa and even in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Slater:
Let’s take one small part of all this at a time. I have utmost respect for the perplexity of the lawyer arguing a dreadful case, as well for the perplexity of the ethical defender of Zionism-in-practice. But as a lawyer who has had the (nearly unheard of) luxury never to have had to argue a case I believed to be legally insupportable, I recommend coherence, which I don’t find in the following fragment, which I analyze.
“If it was true that a Jewish state in Palestine could have been established only by murderous ethnic cleansing, then—as I explicitly said– Israel should have not been established in the first place, and nor should it continue exist as a Zionist state, at least so long as it refuses to end its occupation and repression of the Palestinians, and grant full rights to the Israeli Palestinians.”
Perhaps I misunderstand, but “refus[al] to end its occupation and repression of the Palestinians, and [to] grant full rights to the Israeli Palestinians” seems to me to fall well short of allow full democratic rights to all Palestinians, including the refugees of 1948 and 1967, within a democratic Palestine (with all Israel’s Jews) and I assume you mean something else. I don’t know what.
To me this is incoherent. If “Israel should have not been established in the first place, and nor should it continue exist as a Zionist state” makes sense (an it does have a sort of moral coherence from “murderous ethnic cleansing”), then one would think the case was closed for this BRANCH of the argument. One would expect you to call for the erasure of Israel as a state (and especially as a Jewish state) and its replacement by Palestine — with full return for Palestinians and an end to “return” for Jews.
(One would then go on to consider the case that “murderous ethnic cleansing” (MEC) was NOT REQUIRED. This would involve two sub-branches, the one in which MEC was forced upon unwilling Zionists by circumstances and the other in which Zionists elected MEC even though it was neither forced upon them nor necessary otherwise.
You have inserted a third branch to this perplexity, namely, that Zionists could have gotten their substantially Arab-rein state without MEC (buy buying the removal of some or all Palestinians from some unspecified part of Palestine). I’m frankly puzzled by this. Sure it could have happened if an offer was made, and the price was agreed, and sufficient people said “yes” (including, perhaps, neighboring states). But it’s a very big “what if”. What if this method of peaceable ethnic clearing did not work? “What then” (as Peter’s grandfather said, of a wolf coming out if the forest)? I abandon this branch, although I believe it is your favorite. I believe it to be a straw-man without historical reality. It was not tried as far as I know.
What of the other two sub-branches?
If the Zionists chose MEC all unforced, it is even worse than the earlier case, for they abandoned a possibly morally-clean possibility in favor of a despicable one. In a way, this is what actually happened, when the Judah Magnes, Ahad Ha’am, cultural Zionists were pushed aside by those (who as Magnes said) followed a path that necessarily required bayonets and oppression. The winners in the inter-Zionist collision were the statists, who chose violence and murderous ethnic cleansing (MEC) over an AVAILABLE peaceable alternative. There is no suggestion that a buy-out was ever actively considered, ever regarded as a real possibility by anyone. It is (for me) a straw-man only.
If MEC was forced on them, well that’s something else. But who can show that the Zionists were “forced” by any circumstances to seek a STATE? To seek war? To seek a “Jewish State”? etc., etc. Judah Magnes, as I understand it, was busy creating Hebrew University and looked forward to Jewish institutions constituting a Jewish “homeland” inside Palestine, not instead of it.
I know I’ve missed something important, because I’ve too many friends who are Zionists not to have respect at least for the “longing” if not for the process that was historically chosen. and I know that the theory of Zionism was formed at a time when European “white” settler colonialism was widely practiced, which made the “murderous ethnic cleansing” understandable (in the ethos of the late 1800′s) especially to Jews who felt very ill-used and sought understandably to protect themselves from such ill-use (even at a high cost to others).
This is what “to make an omelette you must break eggs” means — someone else must suffer. People for whom murderous ethnic cleansing and the like are ordinary, perfectly acceptable enterprises understand this.
I understand it. And reject it.
I think you do too. Thus, in large part, we are agreed. Your buy-out plan is described as affecting only 50,000 (rather than 750,000) Palestinians, suggesting that you had in mind either a much smaller Israel (like the NYC-sized Israel I’ve sometimes suggested — as a gedanken experiment regarding the future) or a much more Palestinian-rich (rather than Arab-rein) Israel than the Zionists actually elected to go for, what amounts to a fantasy or gedanken experiment regarding the past, an unreal experiment which it is no longer possible to implement (unless Israel — which appears unwilling to pay for the property of the 1948 refugees — suddenly and unexplainedly becomes willing to pay relocation expenses to all of them AND to all the Palestinians of today’s Greater Israel or of some large part of it).
LASTLY, to respond to your “the history of the Jews, ancient but especially modern history–not limited to the Holocaust– makes the Zionist case “essentially irrefutable.” True, the Palestinians didn’t think so, for perfectly understandable reasons, but almost all of the Western and Christian world did.” This assumes that the UNGA 181 (1947) (and later forbearance for Israel) was approval for the “murderous ethnic cleansing”. I don’t buy that. UNGA 181 proposed a voluntary division, sent out invitations to a party that was never held (the Palestinians refusing the offer). It did not approve unilateralism. It did not approve MEC. and that “forbearance” that followed was largely the product of US arm-twisting, still very much a “happenin’ thang.”
Actually, I am a Zionist. It’s all about the “longing”. But it’s a longing that will destroy you if it’s fulfilled. But the longing itself, and the way it shapes your life, may be good for you. As long as you don’t get there, of course.
“As long as you don’t get there, of course.”
Of course, me, I’m always going in the opposite direction of wherever it is. Oh well.
Sounds like Heroin?
Mooser, you are being an existentialist now, are you?
But I do agree with you about the concept of “Zion”. I too believe that citadel was erected as something to aspire to, a place of the mind, and a spiritual destination for the mindful. Because aspiration is good for people and keeps them on their toes. There were many good old Rabbis, I hear, who understood that all too well. But then they got replaced by a new generation of faux rabbis, who said “here’s zion! let’s take some!”. And the people – really sheep in people’s clothing – followed, so now here we are…
A an aside, I also wanted to mention that I liked your comments (now which thread was THAT on?) about Jews having their own state being a really really bad idea. Wanted to elaborate and raise you one. But no time now to undermine the supposed “deed of trust” though it badly needs some serious undermining. In the meantime, please keep thinking deep thoughts and administer periodic spanks to all who need it….
How is it possible, regardless of one’s good intentions, to support a political movement that is dominated by an ugly racism that is driven in large part by religious fanaticism? Isn’t one aiding and abetting this ugly racism and religious extremism by trying to put a moderate and reasonable face on it?
It should be obvious by now that the entire Israeli political establishment has intended all along to expand Jewish-only settlements in the occupied territories to the borders of Greater Israel. The peace movement led by supposedly fair-minded and decent Zionists like Dennis Ross has been a ruse, a stratagem for stalling and buying time while the Israeli government, under both Labor and Likud, continued to build settlements.
Does Jerome Slater want to be associated with this political enterprise? Does he believe that there will a miraculous transformation in the attitudes of the people who presently control Zionism? All the leading demographic trends indicate that this problem is going to grow much worse, not better.
At what point do you cut your losses and admit that you made a bad bet?
Game over:
“Poll: Young Israelis moving much farther to the right politically”
link to haaretz.com
“Study shows increase in number of Jewish youths that put defining Israel as a Jewish state as a number one goal, while fewer youths recognize the importance of Israel identity as a democratic country.”
Mr. Slater: this is a political culture to which you wish to attach yourself? Can’t you see where this is going? Can you read the demographic tea leaves?
“Samel considers me to be too sensitive to criticism, but far too much of what passes for “criticism” among the Mondoweiss regulars is some combination of incoherence, inability or unwillingness to read what I actually say and characterize it correctly, and just pure venom. “
I don’t think Slater is trying to delegitimize or even single out Mondoweiss readers here. He’s just saying they share the characteristics of everyone who does not agree with him, or criticise Israel. So don’t feel bad.
“criticise” should be “criticises” in the next to last sentence. Wait for me, Witty, we’ll enter dotage homeland together.
We could take a page from our own Supreme Court in Brown vs. Board of Education here:
We need to find more creative ways to lay bare the fallacy that a state that self-identifies as “jewish” although 20% of its citizens are “non-Jewish” can also be “democratic” and “equal.”
Part of this entails compelling a discussion on what the meaning of “Jewish state” really is. In the current political constellation, this definition entails very severe disadvantaging of the minority in every sphere of life. If all the recent laws just passed weren’t sufficient to convince you of this, you might refer to the web site of Adalah, which notes, inter alia:
I would like to hear how Slater’s “Jewish state with a minority” would, in fact, practically speaking, be able to change this reality.
Also, it would be useful to understand further why it is so viscerably unthinkable to Slater and others who share his views that political power could be shared. I suspect deep down, the answer has to do with a sense that Arabs are, by definition, inferior and even sub-human. As we see from the legal opinion excerpted below, a Jewish state in which Arabs were “separate but equal” would by definition be one in which they were de facto inferior, lesser, and not worthy. Why should such a homeland be acceptable to them?
I think it is a stretch to ascribe this motive to Prof. Slater. One doesn’t have to look down upon others to not want to share political power with them, one just needs to not want to share power. It’s a perfectly normal human reaction exhibited countless times throughout human history by both individuals and groups.
I suspect that the motives of American and Israeli Jews may differ to a significant degree. Sharing of power would end legally enshrined Jewish privilege that has been embedded into the social, political, and economic fabric of Israel since 1948. Generations of Israelis know nothing else. They have a culture of unconstrained entitlement. Many American Jews, on the other hand, are in my opinion more motivated by inculcated fear of gentiles and the need for a safe haven from a potential resurgence of antisemitism, whatever the cost.
Point well taken, but I still think this is worth exploring further. One hears it over and over and over from Zionists that their state MUST be majority Jewish. I would be really interested to hear some reflections that answered the question: “What would happen if…?” What would happen if the state was NOT majority Jewish – what is it that is so terrifying that might be lost? Is it privilege? Or is it that deep fear of losing everything and being “extinguished?” There needs to be some real tangible work done on exploring why this is so untouchable. Is it fear of assimilation or inter-marriage? Is it fear of diluting some “Jewish” way of life? Is it a need to have a theocracy? I’m just throwing out hypotheses here – I honestly don’t know and obviously not everyone would have the same answer. But I would like to hear those here who have some answers or reasonable hypotheses (and granted, mine above was probably not a fair hypothesis regarding Mr. Slater, and I apologize, but it could be applicable to other political and thought leaders) explore this a little.
So much does not seem to make sense and to be very convoluted thinking:
“as I explicitly said– Israel should have not been established in the first place, and nor should it continue exist as a Zionist state, at least so long as it refuses to end its occupation and repression of the Palestinians, and grant full rights to the Israeli Palestinians.”
The Zionist ideal could not allow this. It was obvious and stated from the start it would not be possible create a Zionist state (which is a child of imaginations of ethnic nationalism) without requiring ethnic supremacy over the Palestinians.
“is legitimate for Israel to remain a Zionist, Jewish state. And my answer is the same: a conditional yes…” How is that possible?
“the establishment of a Jewish state could have been done with far less injustice to the Palestinians..” How? With a greater acceptance of the Zionist scornful invitations to just leave? Why should that have done so? With what basis? (And they are punished for fighting those who came to disposes and dominate, and branded terrorist.)
“U.S. should make all of its aid to Israel conditional on the end of the occupation and the creation of a Palestinian state. Unfortunately, the U.S. government refuses to listen to me.”
Yes, of course. The US has a weak government with lots of weapons. But that is another issue and a diversion.
You support Zionism and that is what is behind the the criminal settlement project (and the Jewish State support of the settlements movement). And this insane movement is built on ideas of knowing exactly what God said to Abraham back in the Bronze age, God telling Adam what tribe gets what.
While many who adopted Zionism were well meaning and suckered into it just as many good, but naive souls are suckered into ideas of ethnic nationalism, Zionism has gone the path of all those movements: it is a vehicle for bigotry, ignorant nonsense, greed, self-righteousness and even sadism.
If Jews really cared about the future of Judaism , or even Israelis, they would reject the horrors of the Nazi era as an excuse for Israeli crimes and rejected the self sustaining lies and obfuscations in support of nationalistic and racist Zionist enterprise and the ideas of a “Jewish State.”
Only then will Israel become a healthy and modern nation.
Ellen wrote:
“While many who adopted Zionism were well meaning and suckered into it just as many good, but naive souls are suckered into ideas of ethnic nationalism, Zionism has gone the path of all those movements: it is a vehicle for bigotry, ignorant nonsense, greed, self-righteousness and even sadism.”
It can’t be emphasized too strongly that the insoluble problems that Zionism is facing are not particularly a Jewish problem, but a universal human problem faced by all messianic ethnic nationalist movements. Zionism stands as good a chance of surviving as the Confederacy, Nazi Germany, apartheid South Africa or any other ethnic nationalist movement you would care to mention. (And, no, I am not placing Zionism and Nazism in the same category in terms of crimes committed.)
For modern Western democracies — and for Americans especially — nothing could be more alien and unappetizing than not only ethnic nationalism, but ethno-religious nationalism. (Exceptions: Confederates and Christian Zionists who were crushed in 19th century in their biblical/Old Testament defense of white racism and slavery. If they get out of hand, and push comes to shove, they will be crushed once again.)
“It can’t be emphasized too strongly….care to mention.”
Thank you, sean. Very much! The reason it is so important is because Zionism and Israel can’t be considered in isolation. We have lots and lots of similiar situations to look at for evidence and ideas about what will happen. I’ve always felt that Judaism was the biggest distraction in looking at Zionism. As if because this project was being done by Jews, it must be completely unique.
” knowing exactly what God said to Abraham back in the Bronze age, God telling Adam what tribe gets what.”
An IDF soldier was caught by Hamas, and told he will be executed. He said “I scorn your execution, God will save me”
And the next morning they shot him. So he’s at the heavenly checkpoint, they’re deciding which way he’s gonna go, and he pipes up and says: “God, I was a good Jew and a good Israeli, why didn’t you save me” And God replied: “Look I sent you America, and vastly reduced social anti-Semitism and the almost complete elimination of legal anti-Semitism, and economic and educational and artistic triumph for Jews in almost every area. Why didn’t you take the lifeline I threw you?”
Needs more work, but there is something there. And the joke really falls flat if your audience has a vastly different idea of Jewish entitlement then the teller.
I keep trying to read this and not shake my head.
Imagine an army invading a state, or any power, holding a press conference where they annouce to the local populaton that they will be imposing a small amount of injustice on them, for a worthy cause, but not a lot.
I’d love to hear someone like Slater make the case that Nazi Germany could have been done with “far less injustice to the Jews.” But you know, just a tolerable amount.
This is why I keep complaining that Zionism is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Slater’s gone through hideous contortions to exonerate Zionism, and where has it gotten him? Does Zionism actually like any more palatable? Let alone to non-Jews, it seems the Jewish anti-Zionist commentators here are just as offended by it.
Chaos,
Your comment about someone making a case for Nazi Germany, comparing it to what Mr. Slater said is appalling. Can you tell me why you think the Nazi analogy is so useful in your attacks on Mr. Slater? How does comparing an unprecedented genocide of the Jewish people help the Palestinian cause?
Justice for the Palestinians is very dear to me, the Nakba was horrible as has been the occupation. But as a Jew to hear constant references to Nazi Germany and comparing it to the Nakba makes my resolve stronger and makes me question any solution which would again put a large group of Jews in jeopardy.
Trust will be a huge part of any sort of solution, when I hear people talk so viciously about Judaism and Israel, it makes that trust harder and harder.
Please rethink your strategy of equating everything the Israelis do with Nazi Germany, it may seem like a good technique for you, but it doesn’t help the Palestinian cause at all.
“makes my resolve stronger and makes me question any solution which would again put a large group of Jews in jeopardy”
Why does it place them in jeopardy? But look, here’s a solution: Just think of them as humans, people, who have committed certain actions, created a situation which many people, both for their sake and a lot of other people’s sakes, are trying to resolve.
And again, how does pointing out some pretty goddam glaring parallels and comparison place Jews in danger?
A rougher way of asking the question would be: so what crime does a Jewish person have to commit before he’s considered a human criminal, not a member of a Jewish group?
And believe me, Golden Rule (now, that’s ironic!) almost every solution on offer involves complete or almost complete amnesty for Israel and Israelis. So you will much more than likely get your wish: Israeli war criminals will be protected because they are Jewish.
I might add (yup, looks like I will) that if anybody in the entire world might have known what kind of acts would get you compared to Nazis, it would have been the Zionists. Can you tell me why they were unable to avoid them?
Hitler killed 11 million people. That’s around 5 million that you have managed to ignore. It is possible that the Roma have suffered even greater than the Jews did, though in another respect the death of each person who died – whatever their ethnic origin or religion was an equal tragedy.
Hitler’s genocide was large, but by no means the largest. Perhaps Stalin gets the gold medal. When it comes the the percentage of a population wiped out, the US, among others have done far better by wiping out 100% of some of its Native nationalities. Unprecedented – hardly. I wish.
We like to pretend that Hitler was unique, and that Jews are unique. The answer is – neither are unique. We also imagine that everything was just fine until one day mean old Hitler came along and suddenly the next day the death camps appeared.
Hitler was a process – a process that started before Hitler that he took advantage of. It was a process that hid from the majority of the population how evil it was until close to the end – and even then it managed to hide its evilness from those who were willing to not look too close. It was a process of little “white” lies and big lies.
If we are unwilling to examine the process that lead to Hitler, and the process that lead to the acceptance the violence that he represented then we will help repeat it.
Jews are just as capable as Germans and of Russians, and of Americans of committing extreme evil.
I rather doubt that Mr. Slater would ever support the evil of Nazi Germany in any guise in any location – including Israel. The problem is, he is willing to make the excuses – the little “white” lies that others will build on. He is not willing to accept what Israel is and what it must be. He imagines that just a little ethnic cleansing must be done and justifies a small crime – bristling at the comparison of a larger crime. As if small crimes do not lead to larger ones if unchallenged. In his own way he furthers the Banality of evil by hiding evil and disguising it, and refusing to deal with it openly while claiming realpolitik.
I think that Mondoweiss caters to a highly idealist crowd. I can see a certain frustration that Slater would have with this. Still, I think that Slater is wrong if he thinks he is being pragmatic and real.
I think that not only are the comparisons to Nazi Germany, and all other genocides apt, they are necessary if we really believe that never again means never again to anyone anywhere. That, in part, means that the little “white” lies are not to be tolerated – even by well meaning people who point out and who attack the bigger lies.
If we don’t know how Nazi Germany, Ukraine, United States etc. all happened and we aren’t willing to draw the comparisons because it is some how offensive, then we will repeat the evilness over and over until we are willing to draw the comparisons.
So you find the comparing of Israel to Nazi constructive? Why is it constructive? Will it help bring justice the the Palestinians?
As for numbers, the number was closer to 12 million, without me mentioning any numbers, how do you know i left anyone out? As for the Holocaust being unique, it wiped out 1/3 of the entire world Jewry, something we are still recovering from.
Comparing the Genocide by Stalin, by Hitler, or any other lunatic to the Nakba is an inaccurate comparison driven by hatred only. It is purely a tool to incite both sides to hate each other even more.
As for Jews being able to commit evil, of course they are. The Nakba and the occupation are evidence of this.
Mooser,
I don’t know if I am supposed to take what you are saying seriously, you seem to be the class clown of Mondoweiss.
Just for argument sake I will address your opinion that the Zionists must pay. Does that also mean that the Palestinians will pay for their crimes against Jews? How about Americans for their crimes against the Iraqis and Afghans? Who will be paying for all of the crimes perpetrated during the recent unrest around the Arab world? How is throwing all of the perpetrators of injustice over the last 60 years in jail going to bring justice to the Palestinians?
Hatred seems to drive many of the commenters here, much more than justice for the Palestinians. Trust me, I understand, but at the same time, I know it won’t help in the long run.
Crimes will need to be addressed on a case by case basis, but with most negotiated settlements in armed conflict, there are many perpetrators who get amnesty, it is the way the world works.
Of course comparing Israel and Nazis are constructive. You know, Hitler didn’t wake up one day, wave a magic wand and suddenly Germany and Poland were dotted with death camps.
There was a progression that happened, a rapid descent from democracy to fascism that was predicated on race hatred.
You know, the audience here isn’t just Jewish. I think you should worry less about badgering people for reaching a natural conclusion about two ideologies that are driven by the same ethnocentric militant nationalism, and worry more that there is a growing perception of what Zionism really means to non-Jews.
“it wiped out 1/3 of the entire world Jewry”. If your numbers are correct, then it wasn’t, strictly speaking Genocide, a lesser bad maybe? Jews weren’t in danger of disappearing from the face of the earth, according to you. I personally think that the first couple of innocent individuals you waste puts you on the other side of the line, probably forever. If body counts and percentages rule the day, I think the Tutsies/Houtus got much, much closer to genocide, with machetes no less? I’m an engineer/chemist, but I still don’t understand these formulas.
I haven’t read the piece in full and I realize there are already so much comments, but nevertheless I want to add my thoughts:
If we accept that Jews need a homeland because they are so persecuted, why should that homeland be in Palestine? Wouldn’t it be more just to get them a homeland where virtually no people live, or make place for a Jewish state in, say, America or Australia? There Jews can govern themselves, build up an army to defend themselves, provided they don’t start pouring white phosphor over their new neighbours. From there on, orderly negotiations could be made regarding whether the current inhabitants of Palestine are okay with a controlled influx of Jewish individuals who obey the laws of Palestine and only demand to be able to pray at their holy sites.
In short, why make the Palestinians suffer for the crimes of Russian and European Jewhaters?
“If we accept that Jews need a homeland…”
And then just turn them over to those calling themselves the leaders of that Jewish “homeland” the ones who made the deals with the Gentiles to get it? Don’t do me any favors. Does it ever occur to people that the men who “founded” Israel might have been no worse than, say, Cecil Rhodes? Not a bit worse.
MOOSER- You are much too subtle. Others may not be aware that Herzl was an admirer of Cecil Rhodes.
Keith, when it comes to me, never attribute to subtlety what could just have been the result of ignorance!
“make place for a Jewish state in, say, … Australia?”
Let’s look at the map. Hmmmn. None of the decent agricultural land, of course. That’s all spoken for. Most of the bushland, forest, and wetland is, too. It’s either private, National Park, or Aboriginal land. Have to be some area of sand, spinifex, and gibbers. A lot of that is Aboriginal land or otherwise spoken for, too.
Maybe a bit near Maralinga or Woomera. It’s seven-eighths of bugger-all out there. Just the place for them to show their make-the-desert-bloom skills. It’s radioactive from the A-bomb tests, but I’m sure that won’t matter.
Wouldn’t it be more just to get them a homeland where virtually no people live, or make place for a Jewish state in, say, America or Australia? There Jews can govern themselves, build up an army to defend themselves, provided they don’t start pouring white phosphor over their new neighbours.
You mean, like an Indian Reservation in the north end of Texas, or a ghetto Jews-only section of eastern Montana, or Australia’s Queensland? (Please don’t tell me they want Manhattan.)
One the topic of Jewhaters: DBG and hophmi made me question this yesterday: if Jews need Israel because they’re going to be persecuted and victimized tomorrow and forever into the future, why do they complain about anti-semitism outside of Israel (and waste their time here accusing us of it), especially when Jews worldwide have automatic Israeli citizenship? Aren’t we Gentiles allowed the privilege to be as anti-semitic as we wannabe now that Jews have their own state? Or is this like ‘This is my basketball court and only me and my friends can play here under our rules, but every basketball court in the world has to play the way we say’?
[I guess Shmuel's quaint notion of asking and including the other is too far-fetched.]
[I guess Shmuel's quaint notion of asking and including the other is too far-fetched.]
Of course, he’s right in the ultimate sense, but I think we could maybe make some rough guesses in the meantime. You know, like wanting not to be killed, to eat, stuff like that not have their houses demolished. I realise it’s a very different culture of death in Gaza and all that , but still, it might be a step in the right direction.
Moose,
I think we could maybe make some rough guesses in the meantime
But they never seem to count, although the three you mention are a good start.
That is a slippery slope MRW. There are, at minimum, 10 countries which consider themselves Islamic States. Does that mean we can hate Muslims world wide?
Your argument is quite racist to be honest with you.
Not an argument, Goldenrule. Tongue-in-cheek, but maybe you didn’t read all the backy-and-forthy yesterday when DBG and hophmni accused all of us here of being anti-semites for not going along with their view of the world and why Israel should be allowed to do anything it wants, with anyone, anywhere, and that we were not allowed to object. Fair is fair, GoldenRule (as your moniker shows you understand). And it’s time someone pokes them in the eye with the same level of idiotic imperialism and exceptionalism they employ around here.
As for the hate Muslims worldwide bit, we seem to be doing a great job trying to drum that up right here at home for the past 10 years, don’t you think? Like we didn’t learn a goddam thing from the 20th C?
And oh, by the way, Golden Rule, nobody gets to call me anti-semitic because
(1) I’m a Gentile, and easy prey, and
(2) I complain about behavior now that defined the term in the first place.
“Never again” is not a tribal edict for me.
There’s exactly one German state. Heck, there used to be two! Should we hate Germans? I suppose there might be a Martian state, and maybe we should discuss whether hating an imaginary extraterrestrial state is at least as relevant to your argument, right?
Chaos,
I was responding to MRW, who admitted his comment was tongue-in-cheek. I haven’t reviewed what is is referring to, but I think the anti-semite moniker should be used with caution.
I see you brought up Germany again why did you pick that country, are you German? I have a great love for Germany and for their people. I had the pleasure of meeting a Jewish girl from Germany on Second Life she was an amazing person with a heart of gold. The idea that Jews can live in Germany again after only 60 years following the Holocaust brings tears to my eyes.
As for hatred, I don’t think we should hate anyone. Life is too short to hate!
Sorry if I came across as a little hostile. I’m in the US, but my ethnicity is German and Polish. (Several generations back, granted, but still.)
Germany has become a really brilliant light in how to run a country right in recent years. I had the opportunity to become friends with an exchange student from Germany, and it’s pretty amazing to hear describe a government that actually runs on common sense. :)
Second Life too is an amazing place. I’ve been through there intermittently and as a digital artist, it’s proving to be a fertile medium. But that’s a bit of a sidebar.
Chaos, could you elaborate on what your friend told you about Germany exactly?
I concede that the German governments of recent years are somewhat better than some other governments, but in order to be “a really brilliant light in how to run a country”, something must be pretty much perfect, no? And as a German citizen, I assure you it is not perfect :-)
I hate to get down to this level, but wasn’t as certain amount of ethnic cleasing (in Palestine) necessary to restore Jewish self-respect for themselves (which, of course, is part of self-self-determination) as a martial people? As a people just as good as the Gentiles (or whoever)? I think if you look at the early Zionists, that was a large factor. The tree of Jewish self-determination had to watered with the blood of Palestinians.
Cool! My religion kills! What does your no-account religion do, Gentile?
Which religions don’t kill Mooser?
Sure, most of ‘em used to, but in these degraded times…?
Listen, Golden Rule, does your foreclosed, three strikes, two-timing, one-horse, no-account religion got its own atom bombs? Huh? It’s own army? (Missionaries on bicycles don’t count, they tried attacking me once but their ties got loosened and tangled up in the spokes.) Just ask me how many divisions my Rabbi has! More than the Pope, for sure.
Sorry, sorry, Golden Rule, got carried away by nationalist pride there for a minute.
Mooser,
I don’t follow what you are saying really, I apologize, are you trying to be clever and funny?
There are religious wars all around us, if you are saying that the Palestinians are being killed in the name of Judaism than you have to agree that Muslims are killing other Muslims, Christians, etc. in the name of Islam, no?
I guess I might be confused as to what you are implying, but if you are saying Judaism is killing people and that is unique than I disagree with you.
I don’t follow what you are saying really, I apologize, are you trying to be clever and funny?
Yes. And he is. He is the Mondoweiss Mascot.
OK…. thanks MRW. I am little dense sometimes :)
Equivalency hasbara. Look, Golden Rule, you can’t get away from it, it’s the Jewish State. And if all those Zionist Jews tell me it’s the Jewish State, I believe them. You yourself worry about them as “groups of Jews”
So are you saying that what Israel does would be allright if it was just a disparate group of people, or that what Israel does is allright because it’s Jewish?
Listen, Golden, I’m not the one who wants it to be a Jewish State, it’s the Zionists who claim it’s a Jewish State. And why shouldn’t a Jewish guy be proud of his Jewish State and its martial prowess?
Maybe I can’t work at a white-shoe law firm or get into certain social clubs, and maybe I’m scared to death every time a Gentile gives me a dirty look, but that doesn’t mean I can’t go home and look at my IDF posters, and admire the rippling muscles in their arms, the blocky muscular thighs , the smooth, tan skin and wish they would make my desert….I think I’ll go bath my temples in eau de cologne again.
Judaism in its latest incarnation as Zionism is of course killing people.
And there is nothing unique about religions killing people.
What is unique about Israel is the fact that Zionism has managed to corral much of supposedly enlightened Western liberal values in pursuit of that killing, and continues to demand support from nations that supposedly embrace those values.
At some point, those contradictions break down inevitably.
“Maybe I can’t work at a white-shoe law firm or get into certain social clubs”
You remember what Groucho said about club membership?
wicca
“This may be my swan song to Mondoweiss”
Come on. If you can’t talk to Mondo you have lost the argument.
Zionists have to get the message (non hasbara) across to the goys. Otherwise khalaas, ya’ni.
“Many historical conflicts have been resolved on the basis of forced relocations”
I think this is important. The explusion of the Palestinians didn’t resolve anything. If it did Israel wouldn’t need a conscript army, torturers, white phosphorous, home demolishers, hasbara.
Israel is the only settler colonial state other than South Africa where the natives outnumber the settler colonists. And we all know what happened in SA.
“Many historical conflicts have been resolved on the basis of forced relocations”
Oh this is rich, a Jew and a Zionist lauding forced relocation! If you need me, you can find me in the lavatory, alternately clutching my brow and applying eau de cologne to my temples. So I won’t be here for Slater’s list of “historical conflicts” that have been “resolved” by forced relocation.
But I’m sure he’s got a long list of ‘em. History, after all is written by the victors.
Yes, that one caught my eye too.
The gaping hole in his argument is that he ignores the difference between resolving an unforseen conflict by forced relocation, and implementing forced relocation ahead of the conflict.
A war ravaged population might be open to the idea, but how do you convince a popualtion, with natioalist aspiration to get up and move to make room for a state that is to accomodate an immigrant popultion?
Her’s some money, now move along please. We’re expecting guests to arrive and we wouldn’t want you to spoil their party.
“Many historical conflicts have been resolved on the basis of forced relocations”
Like the Indo-Pakistan partition. That solved everything. No trouble ever since.
I, for one, found the back and forth on the issues aired here, to be fascinating and will most certainly regret to not have someone like Slater among us. Let’s face, it, the issue of zionism and whether it was ever justified, even more than the one state/two state debates raging in some quarters, are minefields, intellectually and emotionally. Yet, only for the palestinians it is a physical minefield, and I am with Shmuel and David Samel in the camp that aims to continue to shine the light on this one immutable aspect. It is, after all, them that suffer, not the Jews in the US or in Australia or Canada, or the ones who call themselves Jewish in Israel, no matter when and how much Jewish ancestors suffered in the past.
It’s also fair to assume that the majority of the people who care to take their time to post comments on Mondoweiss are emotionally vested in I/P or they wouldn’t be here. For some Jewish people it’s Israel on one side and holocausts (past and future) on the other. For others – Jewish and not – the conflict is summed best through a dead puppy (or horse, or sheep) killed by settlers who live to joyfully smirk about it, even as comfortable Jews argue the relative merits of “solutions” and “peace plans”. Obviously, equanimity can be expected to be in short supply. For myself, I’d normally be in the second group, but I also recognize the need to engage with people of the first group (the holocausters?) , because to do otherwise is to prepare for the end of days with many more dead puppies and horses, not to mention babies and just plain people.
And this is why I believe, that brittle psyches aside, we should all, now and then, take time out to remind ourselves who the enemy really is. And the the enemy is the evil that walks among us, humans all. And though Jerry may not be a frontline warrior in battles galore, he is an ally, in the grand scheme of things, in the one grand battle that counts, though it may not be always obvious to everybody. For the commenters who take him on so harshly here, I’d point out that it is people like Jerry who will ultimately need to come over to human rights as the appropriate framework for resolution seekers. If we cannot continue such discussions, however hurtful the issues are, in a civil manner, then what hope do we have of ever prevailing upon the many others out there, that it is the fight for rights and dignity that really matters – for Jews and non Jews alike?
In that vein I’d like to add my voice to those who’d like to see Jerry continue to contribute to Mondoweiss. At the very least, people must admit that it’s rather brave of him to take on this particular community, which, by definition is in a fighting mood. Hopefully, some share my view that the discussion is also interesting on its own merits, however aggrevating the disagreements are. I learnt a lot from the posters and commenters and hope to continue to do so.
To Jerry I’d just like to point out – yet again – that whatever zionism, is, was or could have been, when it comes to the two state “solution”, we are debating a mirage. There is no solution on the table from Israel’s side, and none was there that could be considered serious for at least over a decade (however serious Barak was or wasn’t). And that’s true whether the effort from Olmert or Livni were in good faith or not. There’s simply no there there, no matter how wedded J Street or JSlater are to the IDEA of a two-state as something (or the ONLY thing in their view) that could be practically workable. The actual Israelis, who people like Witty prefer to forever ignore, have – by all accounts – no intention of “giving” the Palestinians a state, no matter how truncated and unstatelike. That’s the bottom line. Everything else is just hashing over burnt gulash.
Darn, now I made myself hungry… -
Excellent post as always Danaa,
But this brings us to a what I beleve is another false choice that Slater has presented; that a 2 state settlement is guaranteed to be better than occupation. One look at Gaza, and you woudl have to ask, is that an improvement over occupation? How would Israel gtrat a Palestinian state? What is to stop them putting that state too on a diet? What is to stop them making baseless claims that the state is a haven for Al Qaeda or whatever the terrorist organization du jour is, and use that to justify a siege?
One thing that occuaption has going for it is that Israel is less likely to drop bombs and whote phosphorous on the region for fear of inflciting harm on Israelis living there.
So on that basis, one could argue that a one state solution is indeed worth holding out for.
I, for one, found the back and forth on the issues aired here, to be fascinating and will most certainly regret to not have someone like Slater among us.
Yeah, Jerry brought this board to life with some hard pounding on the keys.
The actual Israelis, who people like Witty prefer to forever ignore, have – by all accounts – no intention of “giving” the Palestinians a state, no matter how truncated and unstatelike. That’s the bottom line. Everything else is just hashing over burnt gulash.
Yep. That’s the bottom line the day before April Fool’s 2011. Plain old reality. And why we bitch n’ moan here. I don’t think anyone is under any illusion that we can change things in Israel, but we are changing hearts and minds here.
Precisely, and given that without Uncle Sam’s unconditional support the settler entity will be in serious trouble, isn’t changing public opinion here not only a can do, but a must do? And for the umpty umpth time isn”t our attacking the Israel lobbby on the dual loyalty issue (where the IL is most vulnerable) the way to go? Not only on MW (that’s easy) but by challenging those Israel firsters by all means that are available to us, including but not limited to chants, such as “Hey, hey, AIPAC, how many GIs did your allegiance to Israel kill* today”? Not only will this get the public’s attention**, we have the facts to back up such charges.
*as per recent statements by General David Petreaus, Vice President Joe Biden, among others that Israel’s intransigence vis-a-vis a peace accord with the Palestinians endangers our troops in Afghanistan as well as the rest of us here in the homeland.
**something that even heated arguments on the one/two state issue are unlikely to do.
Nobody, absiolutely nobody, is forcing Mr. Slater away from Mondoweiss, except Mr. Slater. And as a matter of my own daft opinion, I think Phil and Adam would let him post with no comments, if that’s what it took.
Or he could just not read the comments, as one astute person suggested.
“And as a matter of my own daft opinion, I think Phil and Adam would let him post with no comments, if that’s what it took.”
That’d be fine with me. I will continue to read Slater, but he must not be terribly familiar with how impolite most blog comment sections tend to be if he thinks there’s anything unusual about Mondoweiss. Anyway, Slater posts without a comment section, then Shmuel or Samel or someone else replies in another post, etc… I’d be happy to let the discussion with Slater be dominated by all these folks whose names start with an S. (Saleema and Seham could get into the act as well.)
And as a matter of my own daft opinion, I think Phil and Adam would let him post with no comments, if that’s what it took.
what a bad idea, to reward slater for his tantrum, as this post displays every characteristic he accuses others of in spades, the vitriolic, the ad hominem, the broad brush. and since he has so casually slandered samel’s arguments with multiple associations to dershowitz and his ‘profession’, perhaps slater should consider his own bona fides, the professor being unused to having his faulty logic challenged so forcefully. i for one don’t care if he posts again or not, but i certainly don’t want some privilege carved out for him on account of his whining. go back to the lectern professor if you only want to be bathed in the adulation or snoring of your students.
I agree with marc b. Slater hasn’t really added anything to his argument in this post, besides petulance and and personal attack on David Samel. It would be wrong to let him post without criticism. Frankly, it would be wrong to bend the rules for anyone, but certainly wrong to bend them for someone who seems to spend just as much time making personal attacks against those who disagree with him as he does simply restating his original thesis and claiming its irrefutability.
Actualle Slater appears to have refines or removed one point from his argument posted here a few montgsh ago. On the occasion, he included the argument that within a demoratic Israel, there shoudl be equal rights for all, though Jews should have some exceptional privelages. This opened a can of worms, because like his arguments about “generous compensation” and “minimal injustice”, mininal and generouos become vague and shifting targets that could clearly be exploited.
Danaa, as usual you make great sense. I have defended Jerry on this site a number of times, not only in comments but in at least one post, for many of the same reasons you give here. I don’t take back any of the opinions I expressed, and do think that Jerry’s criticism of me is without any merit. On the other hand, I may have taken it a bit too far. I am also mindful about how unseemly it may appear that a couple of American Jewish guys are bitterly aguing over what’s best for Palestinians. This is not a candidate for my favorite exchange on mondoweiss.
Why not start arguing about how the rights of Jews would be curtailed in a Jewish state?
Sure Palestinians are by far the most immediate and the most serious disaster to come out of Jewish nationalism. I still think that it needs to be make clear that Jewish nationalism is not just about control of the Palestinians, it is about control of Jews as well.
Even with Jerry Slater’s fantasy state in his fantasy world, you still have the problem of religious nationalism. Christian nationalism in Europe only stopped being so bloody when it was replaced with a secular state. There is little reason to think that Jewish nationalism would go all Gandhi on us. Look at the Zionist response to those Jews who are supportive of a democratic secular state – for example.
white southerners who liked to think themselves christian and “nice” people, condoned segration and unequal rights for black citizens. they could be very kind to black individuals , even loving them, believing it is wrong to mistreat human beings even those that are lesser. they liked their society and life style, so they tortured logic in order to justify it to themselves. they needed to do this in order to think well of themselves. then there were the other types that didn’t give a damn about niceness. slater is trying to think well of himself.
Exactly. Being a child of “Jim Crow” I often think I’m out of place here? What’s there to debate if you’ve been here before? There’s nothing new here. Just got to do it all over again. If the stakes weren’t so high, I’d be dying of boredom. Over and over again. Things really don’t change?
Then you’re plugged into the pain of it, thetumta. And what it does to the interstices of your soul day-by-day. It’s a numbing.
I think the nice ones are more dangerous.
I think the nice ones are more dangerous, because there’s two, three, or more, layers of denial to peel off. And just because some people use terms that aren’t PC, generally uneducated ones or those who resist verbal strictures, that does not mean they are prejudiced, or using it in the terms that the urbane decry.
It’s the action that counts. How it translates.
Too bad Jerry’s feelings are so easily hurt. I kind of like him. He really has over the years been up front with some severe criticisms of Israel and he has said things that few in this country have said.
Basically, he carries around the so far insoluble dilemma epitomized by the term “progressive Zionism”. There is a contradiction there that cannot be purged by lengthy philosophical argument. I had little patience worrying about this debate with his ramblings about what Zionism “could” have been and not what in fact it has become.
Uri Avnery suffers from this condition too, though I would never publicly chastise him for it, his contributions have been just too important over the years for him to be pilloried for one contradiction.
Anti-Semitism and persecution of Jews culminating in the Holocaust as a reason for the creation of Israel and the dispossession of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians —
What I’m interested in are the reasons behind Jewish persecution. How do we assign blame? If we go down a road suggesting that the behavior of some fragments within the Jewish community (perhaps the neocons/neolibs of generations if not centuries ago) were partly responsible for angering some fragments of the gentile communities who lived among them, is this blaming the victim?
I feel uncomfortable bringing this up in part because the conflict between Jews and gentiles in Europe did end in the Holocaust. Obviously, no matter what part Jews played in the conflicts between Jews and gentiles in Europe, the Holocaust could never be justified. (But that brings up the question: Did European gentiles cause the conflict or is blame more aptly placed at the feet of Hitler, a deranged if charismatic sociopath?) But even though this terrible event happened, I don’t think it’s right to ignore the realities of two-sided conflicts between fragments of the Jewish and gentile communities in Europe.
Slater seems to be saying: It’s all (European) gentiles’ fault.
I can’t go along with this.
“It’s all (European) gentiles’ fault.”
Well, yeah, it is. But what the hell does it have to do with the Israel-Palestine issues? If anything, the actions of the Gentiles should have shown the Zionists very clearly what not to do.
And I don’t think that persecution, segregation, forced relocation, discrimination and attempts at genocide are a “conflict” There was no inherent “conflict” between the Jews and Europeans.
But go ahead and look for the ways the Jews caused the “conflict”. It’ll make it so much easier for the Zionists to explain why it’s all the Palestinians fault.
Jews aren’t a constant, they were in one situation in Europe (for the most part) and another in Israel. In one they had very little power, in the other, almost all of it.
If there was a “conflict”, why didn’t it show up in America, where Jews were not a prori prevented from doing just about anything they liked?
The actions are those of human beings, formed into groups. The name of the groups don’t matter as much as the power relationship and the groupings.
“Well, yeah, it is.”
I couldn’t detect any self-reflective irony in your comment, but I have to say I’m astonished that you would think the conflicts (not even limiting ourselves to the minor, petty conflicts) in “old Europe” between Jews and gentiles were exclusively the fault of gentiles. Your opinion of your own ethnicity (relative to mine, at least) must be sky high.
Also, you must subscribe to the Alan Dershowitz thesis: understanding anti-Semitism (in Europe, anyway) has nothing to do with understanding the actions and behaviors of some fragments of the Jewish community and everything to do with the abnormal psychology of the gentiles.
What this has to do with the I/P issue? Do I really need to answer this one? Slater used it to justify the creation of Israel.
“If there was a ‘conflict,’ why didn’t it show up in America . . . ?”
I alluded to the conflict in my post–”neocons/neolibs of generations if not centuries ago.”
The past is a predictor of the future, but the present can shed light on the past, right?
In the clear light of the present, in America, we see some American-Jewish Israeli advocacy groups sending our taxes and other resources in mass overseas to help their fellow ethnics–seemingly oblivious to the dual loyalty implications.
Also, we have the (largely Jewish) neocon faction starting a war for their fellow ethnics. Imagine you’re the father of a gentile son who’s been killed in Iraq. You later study up and conclude that the reason your son was in Iraq to begin with had to do with neocons and their passionate attachment. How do you feel about the neocons? And, would there be any spillover effect in terms of how you began to feel about Jews in general? (Answer to the latter question: There shouldn’t, but in actuality, given the imperfections of human psychology, there very well could be.)
Obviously, none of this justifies hate. But it does lay the foundations for distrust, suspicion, and anger of the Other. And that is conflict–conflict which could have been avoided if Jewish fragments had behaved differently–which, hence, could have led to better relations between Jews and gentiles (again, because inevitably there is a spillover effect–the actions of a few will be applied with a broad brush by those outside the group–think of Palestinians having negative feelings toward Jews in general as opposed to the specific Jews perpetuating hostility toward them). And feelings between groups are foundational to any injustice which subsequently takes place.
To switch gears abruptly: Think about the Catholic pedophilia scandal. One could argue, as some conservative Catholics have, that the problem of pedophilia in the Catholic Church began recently. I read one conservative indicate that it started in the ’60s–it was the ’60s fault! Most people, however, suspect that the Catholic Church has had problems in this area for centuries. In other words, the problems pre-date the modern, evident manifestations of today.
I wonder if some folks on this site take a stance toward Jewish history the same, mutatis mutandis, as the one the conservative Catholic commentator took. In other words, problems inside the Jewish community which caused conflicts with others outside of the Jewish community began no earlier than 1948. It’s 1948′s fault!
And I’ve got a bridge to sell you . . . .
I would think that most of the time in the past 2000 years when there’s been anti-semitism it has mostly been the fault of the Gentiles. Maybe not 100 percent their fault–I don’t know– but usually when there’s a conflict between a large powerful group and a small relatively weak group, it’s not the weak group that is picking the fight.
It’s got nothing to do with victims being inherently morally superior. Israel is a pretty good illustration that when a victim group acquires power it starts behaving badly. (Which is not to say that Israel has sunk as low as the worst anti-semites–they’re more like Cossacks than Nazis, IMO.) The Palestinians are not completely innocent in the conflict, but they have much less power and are much more the victim than victimizer. It would have been the same for Jews in Europe for most of the past 2000 years.
“why didn’t it show up in America”? Because Jews, like many other people found the best home here. Show me accusations of antisemitism in this country and I’ll show you the pampered upper class. I have never seen an American Jew, not one, suffer anything remotely like what I have seen other American racial groups be forced to endure in my lifetime, right before my eyes. No beatings or worse. Somebody said something not nice. Not even close. This gentile resents explaining myself to a bunch of self-absorbed yuppies on this issue. I leave it to you to decide, if I’m talking about you.
Show me accusations of antisemitism in this country and I’ll show you the pampered upper class.
no, it definitely exists. i’ve had some very surreal conversations. it’s truly mindboggling what some people believe.
As an American non-Jewish anti-Zionist, I also want to urge Mr. Slater to reconsider his intention to post-no-more at Mondoweiss. I appreciated his original post (not so much, though, his reply to Mr. Samel) and felt that many commenters’ criticisms of his earlier opinions were too harshly expressed, even as I agreed with their positions.
Mr. Slater, I hope that you will continue to think deeply about Zionism and its effects. As you do, please do share with others your thoughts and opinions, for I am sure that you wrestle with them mightily. Also, try not to become so offended when people disagree with you and express opposing views. (The facts that Samel is a lawyer and you are a scholar are not germane to the conversation.)
To you and all posters and commenters at Mondoweiss, I would like to plead that all discussions of the issues here concerning I/P and Zionism be treated with the seriousness, earnestness, and intensity they so much deserve (Mooser exempted). Mondoweiss provides a unique forum for critical, probing discussion of some of the most important issues of our time. Let’s keep it that way.
“(Mooser exempted)”
Exempted of the seriousness, earnestness or intensity? or perhaps all three?
When Mooser decides to use a drill-bit, it’s industrial acupuncture. I think he plays court jester while scoping his next spot.
The topic is so grim and depressing that we need a fair amount of frivolity to remain sane. Mooser does his best, but the need is greater than even his considerable powers can supply.
The topic is so grim and depressing that we need a fair amount of frivolity to remain sane. Mooser does his best, but the need is greater than even his considerable powers can cope with.
Is there an echo in here?
Rutherford, if you think I am joking, you are mistaken. Very mistaken.
Robert-
“See, this is real discussion about the nitty-gritty details of life after Palestinian integration, and how might life change? Would the changes be manageable?”
There would be so many ways that Jews and Arabs could benefit from a 1ss: Integrated army, integrated political parties and civic associations, schools, science, industry… Normalized relationships with other states in the region. It’s wrong to assume that Jews and Arabs would uniformly cling to tribe politics if they found common cause with specific political issues: the environment, poverty, education, the law, etc…
If the sentiments of most Jews and Arabs were the only consideration then a 1ss seems unlikely, but practically speaking a 1ss already exists. The inertia of ‘facts on the ground’ will inevitably collapse the exclusive politics of I/P.
“It’s wrong to assume that Jews and Arabs would uniformly cling to tribe politics if they found common cause with specific political issues …’
There’s a HUGE “if” in that sentence. But I like to think that a hundred years from now your statement will be seen as having been prescient.
I think the possibilities will be greater in 100 years than they are now. There is too much animosity right now.
DBG,
Arguing about 100 years from now is no argument at all. Things tend to happen in revolutions and breakthroughs, where a lot of progress is made at once.
My outlook on this is that the Palestinians are operating on a long-term plan, where they are going through their stages. They will push to get diplomatic recognition from the UN and multiple states on the ’67 borders. Their goal will be to achieve a state with real independence. Israel will move to block this, because their plan is for the current Bantustan situation to last forever.
Palestine will be disconnected little shit-lets. Netanyahu is talking about annexation of the settlement blocs in response to UN diplomatic recognition of Palestine on the ’67 borders. At this point, the PA will have a decision to make, to disband and demand one-state.
If they don’t make the decision, there could be a third intifada to collapse the PA, after which the people in general will demand one-state. The international Palestinian partners will now make this into a full worldwide BDS push with ostracization of Israel, equivalent to South Africa. Life is going to be really unpleasant for everyone.
Eventually the Israeli Government will move to allow universal voting rights for Palestinians, perhaps West Bank first. I give this scenario about a 10 year timeline. On the one hand, there are many events that have to play out and I don’t think that this is around the corner. But on the other hand, events can move very rapidly, especially with Internet and news travelling so fast.
100 years. You are a dreamer! 100 days, months maybe?
Hej!
You mean, get on with the neighbours?
link to youtube.com
Hi, Shmuel:
I entirely agree that we would greatly benefit if some Palestinians contributed to the debate; I wish I knew how they might be encouraged to do so. Maybe that’s a job for Phil and Adam.
And all of your questions are excellent. I do think we have a pretty good idea of what the true bottom line is, not for all Palestinians, but at least for the major leaders of the Palestinian Authority–and we had a pretty good idea even before the Palestinian Papers nailed it down.
Their key demand is not ROR, and I don’t think it would be a deal-breaker. Assuming all the other issues fell into place (borders, water, levels of permitted armaments, international peacekeeping forces, and so on), the real deal-breaker would be Jerusalem: the Palestinians are not going to allow Israeli sovereignty over the Haram, nor over the remaining Arab areas of East Jerusalem–and they are entirely right in that position.
My reading of the history of the negotiations, especially the Geneva Accord, is that if there ever is to be a two-state solution, it will be based on a central compromise: the Palestinians give up ROR (except for some symbolic Israeli concessions that would not change the demographic balance within Israel), and the Israelis agree to the Clinton parameters: what is Arab is Arab, what is Jewish is Jewish, and the Temple Mount/Haram come under some kind of international or binational sovereignty.
Note that I am not saying that this is my personal view of what should happen–though in fact, it is–I’m saying that there is a great deal of evidence that this is what reasonable Israelis and reasonable Palestinians have already, in effect, agreed to.
One more point: there can be no doubt that if the Israelis keep expanding into East Jerusalem, it will even further kill the chances for a two-state settlement. Nonetheless, we have to act as though it isn’t dead, because all the other alternatives are worse: a continuation and probable expansion of the Israeli occupation, or the one-state fantasy.
I have to admit that I have to really struggle not to give up, and to somehow hold in mind two conflicting thoughts: on the one hand, I think that the situation is hopeless, because the Israelis are hopeless; on the other hand, I can’t bear the implications of that belief.
I have to admit that I have to really struggle not to give up, and to somehow hold in mind two conflicting thoughts: on the one hand, I think that the situation is hopeless, because the Israelis are hopeless; on the other hand, I can’t bear the implications of that belief.
Unfortunately, that’s what makes you human. I would suggest a book, but (1) you’ll never find it, and (2) I doubt you have my interest in the theatre. It’s called Tragedy and Melodrama by Robert Bechtold Heilman. You need the interest in theatre because of the plays he references. Only the first 151 pages apply here. He discusses casts of mind and how they operate, and how we see ourselves (and others) as either wholly good or wholly bad (melodrama, but not the pejorative definition of it), and that knowledge that comes from self-knowledge, however halting in its grasp, which is fraught with the awareness of yours I italicized (tragedy). One of the most brilliant books I’ve ever read. What it would offer you are coffers within which to hold these valuable thoughts.
Heilman makes the point that American culture/civilization is not mature enough yet, not advanced enough yet, to appreciate great tragedy written for our age. We are still at the beginning of the ladder, where the melodramatic cast of mind reigns, assigning blame outside of ourselves — melodrama is also the basis for great comedy — and outside of our participation in it.
The tragic cast of mind is the more advanced, the more mature, but infinitely more difficult to come to, which is why only the highest of societies can engage in it.
In contrast, I would hope that you dive deep and identify what your faiths are, your primary beliefs that are independent of condition.
From my read of you, one of them is the faith in democracy and by extension, in people. The belief in democracy is a belief in persuasion, noting that people live in a state of personal conflict between voting and living altruistically and rationally vs fearfully.
If I am characterizing your views accurately, then there is never any “…. are hopeless”. Maybe distracted, maybe tired.
And, the answer then always is electoral, to persuade the Israeli populace to elect different parties than currently, with different fundamental principles and criteria for action.
The conclusion “Israelis are hopeless” is an advocacy for revolution. It is the logic that nothing can change by discussion and persuasion, that the tensions that Israelis experience in their deliberation of who to elect, is not a tension but only that they are depraved in some way. (And, that conclusion is irrational to my mind. I know too too many Israelis that do discuss, do consider, maybe from too limited choices.)
I conclude, that if anything, the left has given up on persuasion, given up on its faith in people, in democracy.
To heal that would require engagement (not divestment), more and more intent and effective participation in shaping hearts and minds, developing and promoting reasonable and effective platforms, succeeding, and completing fair and mutually satisfying negotiation.
Netanyahu is exposed currently electorally. He will win subsequent election ONLY by the divestment in Israeli electoral process of the liberal left.
“The conclusion “Israelis are hopeless” is an advocacy for revolution.” Revolution? Americans have many reasons for “revolution”, but the Judea\Christian Disneyland in Palestine is certainly not one of them. I learned my lesson in Southeast Asia as a boy. I’ll fight here this time. Where will you fight, Witty?
Hej!
It’s good to see you still commenting here, Professor Slater.
Everyone has joined the chorus in singing to you, now what say you?
Oh won’t you stay, just a little bit longer?
Please stay, just a little bit more
pm
Oh Frankie P, Frankie P
I enjoyed your little poem to me.
So how can I resist, dear Frankie P?
I think that the issues of “moral or immoral origins of Israel” and “one or two states” should be separated.
To give an example, some Indians argue fairly persuasively that establishment of Pakistan as an Islamic state was a deeply flawed idea. In particular, as Islam was and is a distinguishing feature and reason to be for the state, Pakistan political culture is defenseless against Islamic extremism, as exemplified by recent controversies on blasphemy law (to call it mildly). I am sure that there exists persuasive arguments in the opposite direction. For example, Indian idea why Kashmir is justly Indian is quite ridiculous (one man one vote, and the man is the maharaja). Yet, jinns cannot be re-bottled and it could be helpful to design solutions that would give a better future to the people in that region.
Being unfamiliar with Arabic, I am more familiar with ridiculous Zionist arguments. My favorite is the idea of Fakestinians, a people created ex nihilo with the only purpose to make the life of Jews difficult. Authorities differ on the causes of that phenomenon, some attribute it to the descendant of Amelek who have an innate inherited urge to slaughter Jews, preferably from ambush, and on the news that Jews appeared in Palestine in larger numbers started to gather in the same location. Another school attributes it to nefarious external influence that of late comes from Iran (formerly Gog and Magog). I would not be surprised if similar stories (but with a different cast) circulate also in Arabic.
In this context — using myths and counter-myths — I would ask: why Jerome is inventing an alternative history of Zionism and why it irritates some people here so much. Is it the contention that (a) Zionist state is not an inherently unjust concept, and it can be adapted to the modern world versus (b) nothing of the kind, Zionism is predicated on racism?
Aren’t we all guilty of parsing the past too much? I mean, it is OK to reach some clarity on historical facts, but the real challenge is to correct the future. In that context, both “one state” and “two state” solutions would require some radical changes in the way Israeli state is operating, with its huge pile of laws and institutions that privilege Jews. For example, the land in Israel is not so much owned as controlled by the state and parastate Jewish institutions. This could be perpetuated to “one state solution”, hence a form of “one state solution” is advocated by some Israeli right wingers (the most moderate fascists of Likud).
My God man, have you no sense of decency?
Samuel is right and you are..well, …I hardly know how describe you. Except that I have seen your brand of zionist so often I usually don’t even bother so comment.
Let me start with this:…
“If it was true that a Jewish state in Palestine could have been established only by murderous ethnic cleansing, then—as I explicitly said– Israel should have not been established in the first place, and nor should it continue exist as a Zionist state, “…
It doesn’t matter if it ‘could have been”,.. it wasn’t. It was established by murderous methods. I am going to give you a objective place to start to learn about your own history and Israel, the British National Archieves.
Records, by those on the ground when the events took place. Now typically whenever I suggest to a zionist that they consult real history and actual facts regarding the Jews actions and violence immediately upon entering Palestine they reply that the British during the Palestine mandate or whatever other factual source of real history offered is all anti semitic and everyone is lying but the zionist.
link to archiveeditions.co.uk
Zionist Movement and the Foundation of Israel 1839–1972, The
And this?….
“Samel characterizes my argument about compulsory relocation in an essentially nonviolent manner as boiling down to requiring the Palestinians to leave “with bribe money stuffed in their pockets.” He means to cast contempt on my argument—as all good lawyers do—by characterizing it in the most unfriendly manner he can think of; worse, he doesn’t mention my full argument, namely that the Palestinians who would have to be relocated “could choose where they wanted to go, and would still get generous compensation for the loss of their homes and then also get financial assistance in picking up their lives wherever they chose to go.” Actually, reducing my argument to Palestinians leaving “with bribe money stuffed in their pockets” would be even more contemptuous of any Palestinians who felt they had no choice but to accept generously compensated removal.”…..
Shows me you don’t’ understand how depraved you are. And the Israeli Zionist have already beat you to that suggestion –or perhaps you got it from them? Maybe you read this transparent “Hitlerian” mode of thought and thought it was a great idea?
link to jerusalemsummit.org
The Humanitarian Solution
- A Synopsis –
A. Assessment
1. The conventional-wisdom paradigm for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has failed woefully, bringing nothing but misery and despair to both sides – but particularly to the Palestinians as individual human beings.
2. This conventional paradigm has attempted to solve the conflict by means of a Political Approach involving the establishment of a self governing Palestinian entity on territories in Judea Samaria and Gaza which have been under Israeli control since 1967 i.e. on the basis of a “Land for Peace” approach.
3. Dispassionate assessment of the history of the conflict and its current development will strongly suggest that persisting with attempts to attain a political solution on the basis the conventional paradigm are at best futile – and at worse harmful. Accordingly, alternative modes of resolution must be pursued.
B. Analysis
1. Analysis of Palestinian deeds and declarations over the years make it difficult to avoid the conclusion that they are in effect both unwilling and incapable of achieving and maintaining statehood.
(a) Palestinian Unwillingness: This is reflected in the fact that the Palestinians have rejected every single viable proposal which would have afforded them a state – from the 1947 partition plan to the 2000 Barak proposals.
(b) Palestinian Incapability: The Palestinian national movement has enjoyed conditions far more favorable than almost any other national independence movement since WW-II – widespread international endorsement of their cause, unmitigated support of a superpower in the decades of the Cold War, highly sympathetic coverage by the major media organizations, and over a decade of Israeli administrations who have acknowledged (and at times even identified with) the Palestinians declared national aspiration. In spite of this, the achievements of Palestinian national movement have been more miserable than almost any other national independence movement – bringing nothing but privation and penury to its people.
2. It is thus far easier to understand Palestinian conduct if one assumes that it is driven less by lack of Palestinian self determination and more by the very the existence of Jewish self determination; less by the aspiration to establish a Palestinian state and more by the aspiration to dismantle a Jewish state.
3. The latter, and seemingly more plausible, explanation of Palestinian behavior – i.e. rejection of Jewish self determination and the dismantling of the Jewish nation state – reflects an agenda totally unacceptable by any international standards and thus must be branded as devoid of any legitimacy.
4. Accordingly if the accepted version of the Palestinian narrative – i.e. a desire for Palestinian self determination and the aspiration for Palestinian statehood – cannot be reconciled with the history of Palestinian behavior, this narrative also must be branded as devoid of any legitimacy.
5. This issue of legitimacy of narrative is crucial. Indeed the very fuel of the Political Paradigm involving the establishment of a Palestinian state is the perception – or rather the misperception – of the presently prevailing Palestinian narrative as legitimate.
C. Conclusion
1. The establishment of a Palestinian State must removed from the international agenda.
2. However, removing the issue of a Palestinian state from the international agenda will not eliminate the humanitarian predicament of Palestinians residing in Israeli-administered areas.
3. This is clearly an issue that must be addressed and resolved. But it must be addressed not in political terms but in humanitarian ones.
4. Thus, to successfully resolve the Palestinian problem, the Political Paradigm must be replaced by a Humanitarian Paradigm. This, however can only be done if the current Palestinian narrative, which fuels the Political Paradigm, is de-legitimized.
5. Thus, the de-legitimization of the Palestinian narrative becomes a vital prerequisite to any comprehensive resolution of the Palestinian issue.
D. Proposal
1. A comprehensive Humanitarian Approach to the Palestinian issue would entail three major elements:
(a) The dissolution of UNRWA – which will end the discriminatory treatment of the Palestinians with regard to their status as refugees;
(b) The termination of ethnic discrimination against Palestinians , living in the Arab world – which will end the discriminatory treatment of the Palestinians with regard to their status as residents;
(c) Generous relocation grants to Palestinians living in Israeli administered territories on an individual basis and not via any official Palestinian organization.
2. UNRWA is an organization that perpetuates the Palestinian refugee problem. It is an anomalous organization which exists solely to deal with Palestinian refugees, while all the other refugees on the face of the globe are dealt with by the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR).
3. The organizations not only deal differently with the refugees under their auspices, they each have different definitions for classifying an individual as a “refugee”.
4. This difference in definition has far-ranging consequences. For in contrast to the UNHCR definition, which results in a decline in the number of refugees over time, the UNRWA definition leads to an inflation of the number.
5. In fact, if the UNHCR’s otherwise universal definition were applied to the Palestinian case, the number of refugees would decline from 4-5 million to 200-300,000 i.e. by over 90%!!
6. It thus appears that UNWRA is perpetuating the very problem it was designed to eliminate.
7. Accordingly, the dissolution of UNRWA is an essential prerequisite for any comprehensive, durable settlement of the Palestinian issue.
8. With the dissolution of UNWRA, the remaining, and drastically reduced, number of Palestinian refugees, should be placed under the auspices of UNHCR – in accordance with the accepted practice for all other refugee groups on the face of the globe.
9. Those Palestinians no longer classed as refugees under the new arrangements, must be offered all the privileges afforded all other peoples resident in their current countries of domicile in the Arab world — including the right to acquire citizenship.
10. In order to do this, a vigorous diplomatic and media campaign must be mounted to induce Arab governments to end their harsh discriminatory behavior towards the millions of Palestinians domiciled in their countries and absorb them into their societies as fully fledged citizens. After all, even the Palestinians assert (in the opening paragraph of their National Covenant) that they are “part of the Arab Nation”.
11. As for the Palestinians resident in Israeli administered territory, there is only one reasonable and feasible alternative that will facilitate:
(a) extricating them from their dire humanitarian plight;
(b) free them from the yoke of generations of misrule by their leadership;
(c) ensure the survival of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews.
12. This is a generous relocation and resettlement package to allow them to build a new life for themselves and their families in countries preferably, but not necessarily exclusively, with similar religious and socio-cultural conditions.
13. In order to minimize the ability of organized Palestinian interest groups to impede the success of such an effort, the offer of financial inducement to emigrate must be “atomized” – i.e. made to individual Palestinian breadwinners on a one-to one personal level and not on a communal level via some formal Palestinian entity.
14. A survey conducted among the Palestinians in Nov. 2004 indicates that only about 15% of the Palestinian population resident in Israeli administered areas would reject such an offer outright. By contrast, over 70% would accept some form of material compensation as an inducement to emigrate permanently from the areas currently under Israeli administration (see link to jerusalemsummit.org)
15. The economic cost of such a policy of generously financed humanitarian relocation and resettlement would be eminently affordable and would compare favorably with almost all other settlement proposals on the table today. Indeed, its total cost would be around 50% of the present total US outlay on the War in Iraq!!
16. Indeed, given Israel’s present level of GDP, it is an initiative that it could well undertake on its own over the next decade to a decade and a half. It should be realized that this is the period that has elapsed since the initiation of the Oslo process – which has brought nothing but failure and tragedy at the cost of billions of dollars and thousands of lives.
17. Of course, if the US, the EU and other developed nations were to contribute to this effort, it could be implemented in a far shorter space of time and with almost no burden on the world economy.
18. Quite the opposite, the Palestinians arriving in their new countries of domicile will not be impoverished refugees but reasonably affluent émigrés. The funds that they would be bringing with them would provide a considerable boost for the economies of these nations – most of which would be developing countries with a pressing need for such a substantial influx of funds.
E. Summary
The proposed initiative constitutes a “win-win” proposal which will:
Alleviate, and even eliminate, the humanitarian plight of individual Palestinians
Ensure the continued security and survival of Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish people
Provide a Significant Boost to the Economies of the Developing World
Transform poverty stricken refugees into affluent émigrés
If you think your idea, which is the same as the JSummit idea is a good idea than you are sick beyond repair. Zionist of your type who think this is a humanitarian solution are exactly why the world despises Israel and zionism.
You claim Jews are ‘entitled” to their own country because of the holocaust and becuase the world always hated them? The Romans hated you, the Christians hated you, the Egyptians hated you, Russia hated you, Spain hated you, the Turks hated you, Europeans hated you, Germany hated you……and the entire world is murderously anti semitic, including the US…..ad infinitum.
Well now the Arabs hate you too.
There is actually no point in going into long drawn out discussions of an I/P settlement, rehashing every effort, and picking apart every deal because in reality no matter what you are given, where ever you are, you will always make enemies, enough will never be enough.
And this is a harsh reply because it needs to be, no more tip-toeing thru the tulips….if you and the zionist want to keep living your destructive delusions and myths and entitlements go ahead, but you will be called on it…and no doubt answer for it eventually.
American, I take issue with the oversimplication involving the relocation of refugees or to “permanize” their residency in their current host countries. It’s more in line with solving Israel’s problem than the refugees’ and apt to create new problems for the Palestinians and their hosts.
One of those is Lebanon where at present the current refugee population is somewhere between 400,000 and 500,000 that are almost all Sunni Muslims. The current Lebanese Sunni population would be favourable to the naturalization because the added numbers of Sunni would put them back on top of the hill currently occupied by the Shia Muslims. This naturalization is a recipe for another civil war in Lebanon as the Shia that took 60 years to get there wouldn’t accept such a large number of new Sunni. Neither would the Christians that 60 years ago represented about 53% of the total population and that today stands at between 15 and 20% of the total and the naturalization of so many Palestinian Sunnis would blow the Christians off the map, so they too would stand in the way even if it meant another civil war.
As to disbanding UNRWA, this would never happen as long as the US that picks up 70% of its tab is riding shotgun for Israel at the UN and UNRWA along with the bogus Oslo is what’s permitting Israel to occupy the WB without having to pay for it. The “bribe” money that you and the professor discuss assume that with the payoff money in their pockets, the refugees could decide where they’d live and this is absurd. All of them may decide, for example, to relocate to sunny California but nothing says that California would absorb all these people or even a fraction of them. There have been offers by some countries to take in Palestinian refugees like Canada, as an example, but there the number was limited to 20,000 and even these had to meet Canadian immigration criteria such as being married, of child-bearing age, educated, excellent health and so on so it wasn’t really an honest offer to take in refugees, it was cherry-picking. Australia was another with a limited offer.
There has been a standing offer on the table by the US and Saudis to pay around $20 billion to Lebanon to naturalize the refugees. This offer was not to be distributed to the Palestinians to forget about Israel but to the government of Lebanon to build the cities, homes, schools, hospitals, industry and so on to accomodate the half-million Palestinians. It’s wrong to think that the Palestinians would be getting any money out of any final settlement. To this, you have to add what would happen to Syria and Jordan in naturalizing another million or so refugees. You can’t throw money at this problem.
I don’t know what the solution would be but I can tell you that what you are proposing wouldn’t work. To that, you can add that thanks to Bush, Congress passed a non-binding resolution (but morally binding according to Israel), recognizing the “facts on the ground” in the WB, that most of the settlements aren’t going anywhere and negating the Palestinians’ right of return.
Walid, I believe you are mistaken in attributing these ideas to “American,” who is quoting at length from something he/she considers to be “Hitlerian.”
David, it was somewhat confusing as American’s post contained things from him/her and some from someone else. Wherever these ideas of paying off the Palestinians came from, and I think the professor touched a bit on that, I just wanted to stress that this is a concept that won’t get far for the reasons I listed. It looks like the 2-states solution is gone and Israel is in the process of gearing up for the single state eventuality with the laws that are being enacted to fence in or out Palestinians on either side of the green line. Israel is out to grab as much as it can and establish more facts on the ground before its joy ride runs out of gas.
This proposal basically consigns the Palestinians to the fate you accuse them of wishing upon the Jews: “rejection of [Jewish] Palestinian self determination and the dismantling of the [Jewish] Palestinian nation state”. With the bill footed by the West in your fantasy. To call this a “win-win” is absurd. It’s a total defeat of all Palestinian aspirations in order that the Israeli Jews can enjoy total fulfillment of all their aspirations and pay no price. It’s bizarre to say the least. The complete erasure of Palestine and the Palestinian people – fait accompli.
Fortunately I don’t think this option is or ever will be on the table.
As said above I am not the one advocating this.
I am showing you it is already a plan by the Israeli right.
Well, I’ve done a scientific count of the comments on whether I should drop out of Mondoweiss. I classified them into two groups: “Good riddance to bad garbage,” and “stick around.”
“Stick around” won by a 52-48% margin, not exactly a rousing vote of confidence. And it came out that way only because I gave one point to the hit-the-roaders, and 2 points to stick around. So what’s a little creative math in a just cause?
(Mooser: I’m baiting you, so don’t disappoint me: you have 20 seconds after this comment appears to respond that my alternate history-that-might-have-been is also based on creative math.)
In the course of this commentary, I have received a lot of wise advice–really–on how to react or better yet, not react to comments I don’t like. And I will try real hard to do that. Still, Slater being what he is, I am bound to fall off the wagon sometimes.
Actually, beginning now, for I would like make two serious comments.
First, was my response to Samel churlish, and does his gracious response and continuing compliments make me look childishly vindictive? Yes, I’m afraid it does. You’ll forgive me–or not–for wondering, just a bit, if Samel’s sweet reasonableness isn’t something of a manipulation, designed to create exactly hat impression.desuspecting that his sweet reasonableness is a bit of a manipulation.
Probably not. Even so, it is hardly sufficient. I put a great deal of time, effort, research, and thought into what I write. It therefore is very hard to take when the response is incomprehension, misinterpretation, and distortion. Arguments with which one disagrees must be stated fairly, and then rebutted. This is the essence of serious discourse.
That’s not what Samel did, and since he knows better, he wrote a hatchet job, and by God he stands by it to the last word (“I do not believe that any of my representations of his positions are even slightly misleading, much less dishonest.”) Never mind that he ignores twelve specific instances of his departures from honest discourse–and those were only the most obvious.
That’s not the way serious intellectual discourse and debate are to be carried out–and, yes, it does affect my feelings of friendship when people who know better fail to live up to rightful rules of the game.
A final comment: Well, Mondoweissers, what do you want to make of “American?” Forget about his lunatic vitriol against me, do you think we might just characterize this as classic anti-Semitism? Yes, I know that serious criticism of Israel is often so characterized, and I have vigorously argued against that nasty ploy, in print, and often, for example in defending Mearsheimer and Walt against that charge, even though I have substantial disagreements with them.
Now, I will personally punch in the nose (verbally, of course; after all I am Jewish) anyone who reads this and says, Slater you fool, don’t you know that critics of Israel or Zionism are often smeared as being anti-Semitic? You stand warned.
If this dreck isn’t anti-Semitic, then what is? And, since comments are supposedly moderated here, why has it passed the moderation process? If this passes, then what doesn’t?
If this dreck isn’t anti-Semitic, then what is? And, since comments are supposedly moderated here, why has it passed the moderation process? If this passes, then what doesn’t?
Things used to be a lot worse. A bleary-eyed moderator must have slipped up. Understandable, considering the large number of comments generated by jnslater’s latest post ;-)
Glad the “stick around” group won – dodgy methodology and all.
Jerry: First, let me enthusiastically add my vote to the 52 percent. I haven’t followed the debate as closely as I would have liked; I’m recently back from Cote d’Ivoire, and in the middle of writing up what I saw.
You are right; classic anti-Semitism does make in onto Mondoweiss from time to time. It was considerably worse before moderation started. I know the moderators; they work hard, but Mondoweiss gets tens of thousands of comments (5286 last year from Richard Witty alone), and I’m sure they miss something from time to time.
Have you ever looked at any of Martin Peretz’s posts over at The New Republic? His open racism, followed by the vitriol of the commenters, makes Mondoweiss look like a tea party.
Hmmmm – tea party – perhaps not the best choice of words :)
What is happening here? Are you guys using the “everyone sucks” argument? I thought it was widely looked down upon in your circle.
No, actually, North is only saying Martin Peretz sucks.
Jerry, may I offer you my nose? But allow me first to apologize. Not meant to keep you from punching, real hard, by the way.
I already knew when I maltreated my keyboard, I should do something reasonable. Interestingly American also hinted at hesitations to respond. Yes, American was vitriolic, but could we all to a certain extend have simply taken your bait?
what passes for “criticism” among the Mondoweiss regulars is some combination of incoherence, inability or unwillingness to read
Let’s look at the evidence for antisemitism: Did he generalize, “the Jew” or it’s new equivalent “the Zionist”? No, in fact he didn’t. I am no special fan of American, by the way. But I want to understand why you singled him out, and not me, or someone else? He wrote: “your brand of zionist”, which suggests he is aware there are be other zionisms. No? Now this may be highly unfair, but is it antisemitic? The second piece of evidence probably is:
Maybe you read this transparent “Hitlerian” mode of thought and thought it was a great idea?
Couldn’t this be, highly cynical? The quotes signal irony, or unusual usage. It feels there is a much too obvious difference between you position and the document he cites. So could it be indirectly the slightly impatient question, how long do we have to discuss slight differences given suggestions as this?
This leaves us with his, but not only his, mine too, inability, to read your article the way you want us to read it. [I will give it a second try in context including a more serious analysis, with close attention to why it felt in the end emotions took over...].
Now, how many reasons could this impatience have? Not enough time for careful analysis, mood, taking the bait, but maybe basically really impatience given matters like these: Jerusalem Summit proposal?
This leads us to a macro perspective in the post 911 world and a more complex vulnerability scenario. Something much more obvious in the Jerusalem summit’s mission statement, than in the call for the de-legitimization of the Palestinian narrative he quotes.
Jerusalem Summit mission statement
I cut the rest follow the links.
In the course of this commentary, I have received a lot of wise advice–really–on how to react or better yet, not react to comments I don’t like. And I will try real hard to do that. Still, Slater being what he is, I am bound to fall off the wagon sometimes.
Excuse me, but you couldn’t even last a full paragraph before you fell off the wagon.
You’ll forgive me–or not–for wondering, just a bit, if Samel’s sweet reasonableness isn’t something of a manipulation, designed to create exactly hat impression.desuspecting that his sweet reasonableness is a bit of a manipulation.
And then two paragraphs later you are full into your bad pattern.
That’s not what Samel did, and since he knows better, he wrote a hatchet job, and by God he stands by it to the last word (“I do not believe that any of my representations of his positions are even slightly misleading, much less dishonest.”) Never mind that he ignores twelve specific instances of his departures from honest discourse–and those were only the most obvious.
That’s not the way serious intellectual discourse and debate are to be carried out–and, yes, it does affect my feelings of friendship when people who know better fail to live up to rightful rules of the game.
David has defended your intentions and your character in several different comments made to other commenters here during the continuing discussion, even though he strongly disagrees with your opinions. His defense of you did not begin with his comment on this particular post. It has been ongoing. The fact that you are not only incapable of the same defense of his character, but feel the need to personally attack him and his motives, does not reflect poorly on him.
I suggest strongly that you get back up on that wagon as soon as possible and try recognizing when you are beginning to fall off, rather than waiting until you’ve hit the pavement hard and left a few skid marks.
Donald: I didn’t even notice it the first time around because the first part was about something else and he didn’t get into the notion that Jews must deserve to be hated since so many people hate them until late in his post and I’d stopped reading before then.
OK, I withdraw my defense. It escaped my attention beneath the long copied quote.
American’s statement was classic anti-semitism. I didn’t even notice it the first time around because the first part was about something else and he didn’t get into the notion that Jews must deserve to be hated since so many people hate them until late in his post and I’d stopped reading before then.
I won’t go through your 12 points, but many seemed flawed to me. For instance, under point 4 you say this–
“I made an extended argument that the history of the Jews, ancient but especially modern history–not limited to the Holocaust– makes the Zionist case “essentially irrefutable.” True, the Palestinians didn’t think so, for perfectly understandable reasons, but almost all of the Western and Christian world did.”
There is an irrefutable case that the Western and Christian world owed Jews restitution for the immense suffering that the West inflicted on them. (Who exactly should pay and who should get the payment is another question, but the basic idea is right.) It’s not at all surprising that the Western and Christian world came to agree that the way that restitution should be made was to strip Palestinians of their rights and land and give it to the Zionists. It fits in with what I’ve often noticed about liberal Christian Zionists–they feel so self-conscious about the long shameful history of Christian anti-semitism they think they are doing something good by refusing to criticize Israel as harshly as it deserves.
The compensation owed to Jews by the Western world (compensation also owed to countless other victims of other atrocities, btw) does not in any way whatsoever justify forcing Palestinians from their homes. The Palestinians reject your “irrefutable argument” for the simple reason that they’re right, you’re wrong, and they know it. The Western world does not because it had a bad conscience and saw a way of salving that bad conscience by making a third party pay the price for its own sins. That’s part of what has made discussion of the I/P conflict so morally perverse in the US for so long. There’s lots of misdirected guilt feelings on the part of liberals, guilt about what has been done to Jews in the past being manipulated to rationalize crimes against a largely innocent third party.
I just realized (I’m slow sometimes) that in going from paragraph 1 (criticizing American) to paragraph 2 I just took for granted the reader would know I was changing the subject back to Slater’s 12 points. That post probably should have been split into two.
SLATER – “If this dreck isn’t anti-Semitic, then what is? And, since comments are supposedly moderated here, why has it passed the moderation process? If this passes, then what doesn’t?”
Slater, you advocated in your over 9,000 word long essay for systemic apartheid against the indigenous SEMITIC population in the former Palestine. I can’t tell from American’s post what he is quoting from versus his or her own thoughts on the matter but the fact remains that you have come out glowingly in favor of permanent economic, political and cultural anti-Semitism on the grounds that maybe “Zionism isn’t inherently unjust.” Then when the very educated people here call you out on it you played the “I’m deleting my account from the Internet” card in some type of last ditch effort to garner sympathy which only stirred up more meaningless drama in an attempt to get people to beg you to stay because of your expertise, knowledge, perspective, etc. When that failed you went on to play the anti-Semite card against American for his long-winded post which seemed to me on the whole no more nonsensical and no less anti-Semitic than what you advocated in your posts. Am I mistaken here in the belief that the following photo basically sums up your attitude in relation to the discussion here?
link to i.imgur.com
tl;dr
1. You wrote a long flowery post endorsing apartheid against the Semitic population.
2. You got mad that many here called you on it and thus you threatened to leave the community.
3. You decided to stay based on a razor thin 52-48% vote and then played the anti-Semite card.
American: Blockquote is your friend.
Well, I fess up, I called Slater a racist. I based it on his proposal for the two-state solution that includes the words: “… and Israel remains a Jewish state–but which ensures near-complete equality between Jews and its non-Jewish minorities.” In other words, not the complete equality he claims he said in this post. Jews must remain supreme in Israel in his proposal.
Well, Slater also proposes lots and lots of compensation, none of it paid for by any Zionists who participated in massacres of Palestinians or those who received the stolen goods or profited from Israel’s mass murders, but he doesn’t come up with a figure. I mean, what is the compensation for being denied the right to live in one’s ancestral homeland and have the cemeteries where your ancestors are buried given to Jewish agencies so that they can pave them over or build a museum dedicated to the slaughter of Jews on top of them? Because that’s the meaning of a Jewish state in someone else’s land. What’s the compensation for decades in refugee camps, for destruction of a way of life and society, for 500+ demolished villages, for permanent exile and the 10s of thousands killed simply because they weren’t Jewish? What about the archeological history of Palestine, artifacts from Canaanite, Egyptian, Persion, Greek, Roman, Muslim civilization which Slater claims for the Jewish state rather than to the people whose ancestors lived there in those periods, or the culture inherited from those times, which the Zionists Judaized, or made a somewhat successful effort to destroy? None of which in Slater’s proposal do the Zionists have to pay for.
Other than that IMHO the proposal differs from the original excuses and hasbara provided us by the Zionist ethnic cleansers only in that the Palestinians have been rounded up into a fairly small area within Palestine. Many Zionists claim “Jordan is Palestine” and earlier Zionists used to claim it’s only a small injustice to expel the Palestinians because they weren’t any different than the other Arabs. Lets face it, Zionists don’t change their tune, they just try to find new excuses for ethnic cleansing.
I do give Slater credit for admitting that Israel hasn’t granted equality to Palestinians.
“… On logical implications, it surprises me that Jerry can’t see why so many of us are very disturbed about the notion of people being asked to leave their homes because their ethnicity is wrong and not because they did anything to deserve it…” (Donald)
We continue being told that what happened in 48 happened and nothing can get it undone. Now we are being told that the half-million Israelis that settled on the other side of the green line after 67 are now “facts on the ground” that also cannot be undone. This is already hard to accept from apologists and tomorrow after 75% of the WB would have been taken over, we’ll be told that this too has become another fact on the ground that cannot be undone. And the theft goes on, thanks to people, some of them of goodwill like the professor here, that are unwittingly helping in the theft by running interference with seemingly good intent. Whatever the intent, in the end the Palestinians are getting shafted.
I’m not a Palestinian and with no say in the matter and until very recently, I was positive to the prospect of 2 states based on 67 lines because the 2 people could never co-exist but with the way Israel continues carrying on, I now hope for one state that would demographically drown the Zionism that’s at the root of the Palestinians’ misfortunes.
Though Professor Slater makes me shudder I’d like to give him yet further credit for showing the weakness of the Zionist arguments based on ancient history.
For my part I never said ‘racist’, though I do think that any exclusion of moral demands – and this surely happens in Slater’s argument – because Israel will never accept these demands and has overwhelming power is a version of the idea that might is right. What else?
I still think that the justification of what was done by reference to better things that might have been – but were not – done is perverse.
I would still like to hear what theory Professor Slater adopts of how people in general come to deserve citizen rights.
a version of the idea that might is right. What else?
Might crushes right.
I think I also called him ‘racist’ because’ of his idea that Jewish suffering is unique in a way that makes a Jewish state a necessity, but no one else in the world deserves a state to protect them if threatened with mass murder. His chosen state protects only Jews, whether or not they’re threatened because of their religion, while its army kills Palestinians and Arabs with clearly genocidal intent. Rwandans, Biafrans, Congoese, any number of groups most of whom are actually indigenous to the areas they’ve been living in when threatened with genocidal campaigns, can just die, only Jews deserve a state to protect them. I don’t dispute the persecution of Jews or anti-semitism.
Here is some information about compensation :
link to unispal.un.org
Odd isn’t it ….
…. no so long ago Iranian Jews were offered a wad of crispy shekels to leave Iran and go live in Israel
….they refused
Thank you talknic, now you’ll understand why it would be so difficult to move Israelis back to Europe. like it or not Israel is their home now too.
As the Czechs how hard it was to move the Sudaten Germans out of the country. It had been their home for generations.
DBG<
The problem with Israelis is that the wad would not be large enough, maybe? Though based on my experience and what people tell or ask me, countless Israelis would jump at the chance to go somewhere nice, like US? some even without any wads, just a visa – -
Question is, would you want to see your county turn into mini-Israel, attitudes and all?
DBG
If Israel is their home now, why are so many Israeli Jews living in illegal settlements in Palestine?
They can go live in Israel.
Meanwhile the Iranian Jews are not living in illegal settlements, have been living in Iran for longer than any Jewish Kingdom or Jewish State ever existed. Just like the Palestinians. link to wp.me
To say that Jews have been living in Iran longer than they’ve lived in Israel is absolutely wild. I’ve heard it all.
DBG, re: your refusal to believe history about Jews in Iran.
Are you congenitally allergic to research? Roger Cohen in his IHT articles on Iran last year noted the Jewish gravesites and a cemetery he saw in Iran that were 3,000 years old.
are you saying Judaism began in Iran then MRW?
Israel the modern (sort of modern, but anyway) nation has only existed since 1948. There are presently at least 25,000 in Iran today.
Where exactly do you think Iranian Jews came from if you don’t believe any existed before 1948?
It certainly wasn’t created in Palestine.
DBG,
I am saying what I wrote. Reread it.
Israel – Declared in 1948.
For 2,000 years at least, it didn’t actually exist except in history and prayers.
2,000 years is longer than any Jewish Kingdom or Jewish state ever existed.
Seems a lack of basic maths is a pre-requisite for some folk.
Hey Jerome,
I want to thank you for your effort to clarify your position. As for your reaction- to avoid posting on Mondoweiss in the future, I must say that I empathize. You are “lucky” that the slings and arrows headed your way are only of the ideological variety. Other dissenters on this site have to suffer insults to family as well, but nonetheless I, too, at many times feel that participation on this site is not worth the effort. Nonetheless considering the fact that many more people read the posts here and don’t participate in the mud wrestling that passes for a discussion, your well thought out arguments deserve to be widely read and thus I hope you continue to post your thoughts and arguments. (Note: Not all discussers here are mud wrestlers, but a good portion of them are.)
Sincerely,
Yonah Fredman
Jerry,
First of all, I’d like to join Danaa and others here in encouraging you to stick around – including participation in the comment section, if possible.
I agree that Jerusalem is a deal-breaker, as demonstrated once again in the Palestine Papers. I also think that the Jerusalem issue goes well beyond settlement in E. Jerusalem itself, to settlement around Jerusalem and particularly to the south (within the Israeli “consensus”), which severely impairs Palestinian access to the city. The official Palestinian response to the Clinton Parameters specifically mentioned the crucial issue of access to Jerusalem from the West Bank, as one of the proposal’s main flaws. I see no possibility of any Israeli compromise here. Olmert didn’t even come close, and it is very doubtful that any Israeli leader will come any closer. This is one of the main reasons that I see the 2ss as no more likely than a 1ss, and in some ways even less likely. So yes, it is a struggle not to give up, and conflicting thoughts are par for the course.
You refer to positions taken by the PA, and I think it is important to address the extent to which these accurately reflect Palestinian opinion. A signed agreement is worth very little, if the signatories can’t deliver popular support (even grudging support). Rabin went ahead without a clear mandate and didn’t make it. It is doubtful that Israeli leaders in the future will be able to do any more, no matter how far-sighted and flexible, and not only for fear of assassination. On the Palestinian side, much has been said about extremist (and particularly Islamist) opposition to the peace process, but few have addressed opposition on the part of moderates, who seek compromise and peace, but disagree with the parameters drawn up by the PA leadership – if only because they believe such parameters cannot win sufficient public support (a Palestinian version of your own approach perhaps). So who are these moderates and how significant are their views in and on Palestinian society?
The above is a response to jnslater March 31, 2011 at 11:11 pm.
Any negotiated proposal is a proposal. Certainly, it is the result of long, arduous, soul-churning hard work, and would result in an enormous disappointment and chaos is not ratified.
But, still, it is a proposal requiring ratification by both communities’ parliament, and then by populace (per historical legislation in both parliaments).
The result of such an effort, ratified by parliament and populace, would be compelling, definitive.
Those that desire that issues remain permanently, do not wish negotiation to occur. And, there are many steps to that negotiation.
The choice to even hold a plebiscite for a single state (also necessary if to be consented) would take MORE steps to even get to that point.
How, practically? Again, this situation is entirely different than South Africa. In South Africa there was only a single political entity that had to consent. Here, there are now three, or more.
Anyone coming to hear Omar Barghouti speak at Hampshire College, April 14th?
Richard Witty
Any negotiated proposal is the result of long, arduous, hard work to get the Palestinians to forgo some, if not all their legitimate rights and for Israel to hold on to what it has no legitimate right to even claim.
Shmuel:
Agreed. I guess the underlying assumption of my argument, vis-a-vis what the Palestinian people will accept, is that if an agreement was reached that not only provided for a Palestinian state, but had the promise of improving Palestinian life in all kinds of ways, but which did not contain ROR, good Palestinian leadership could say something like this to the Palestinian people: “We are at a turn in the road: we were able to get this, this, this, this, and this, but we couldn’t get the ROR. The Israelis won’t budge on that. Therefore we must choose between on the one hand, a continuation of the occupation, the repression, the violence, and an ever expanding Israeli takeover of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and on the other independence, freedom, the end of Israeli attacks and sieges, and the real prospect of rapid economic growth, aided by billions of dollars in economic assistance from our friends and the international community.”
We will vote on which road we will now go down.”
What’s your guess as to how such a vote would turn out?
The Palestinians in the diaspora would be against it while those in the West Bank and Gaza would probably accept. What do you do then?
What’s your guess as to how such a vote would turn out?
You are making a lot of unrealistic assumptions about other aspects of such an unrealistic hypothetical, but I’ll play along (sort of).
1. Who gets to vote? Only residents of the OT? Refugees? The Palestinian diaspora? Palestinian citizens of Israel?
2. What kind of a majority would be required, and would a regular majority be enough to make such an agreement work?
Shmuel: I don’t know the answers to these questions, but I don’t think my argument requires that I do. When and if a two-state agreement is reached, then of course these questions will need to be addressed.
That said, I think the first set of questions are not difficult ones: those who would get to vote would very likely be only the citizens or the residents within the borders of the new state. Refugees outside of that area, the larger Palestinian diaspora, and Palestinian citizens of Israel, I presume, would not get the vote.
And why should they? Does the Jewish diaspora, or the Jewish citizens of the U.S. get to vote on Israeli issues? I’m not even aware of anyone who advocates it. As for the Palestinian citizens of Israel, they would presumably get to vote if they decided to move to Palestine and become citizens there, and presumably not if they decided to remain citizens of Israel. Which is how it should be.
The second question, by contrast, is a very serious and relevant one. Like I said, I don’t know the answer.
My underlying point is that those who claim that the Palestinians will “never” accept the loss of ROR have even less hard evidence than I do for believing that, under the proper circumstances and with intelligent leadership, they would.
Refugees outside of that area, the larger Palestinian diaspora, and Palestinian citizens of Israel, I presume, would not get the vote.
How convenient for Israel.
This is the kind of statement that makes people wash their hands of Slater. He’s sunk so deep in exceptionalism he can’t even see it.
That said, I think the first set of questions are not difficult ones: those who would get to vote would very likely be only the citizens or the residents within the borders of the new state.
If ROR is part of the proposed agreement, then the refugees must most certainly be given a vote on that issue. Are Israeli Jews the only ones allowed to vote on matters of reparations from Germany? No. Are they allowed to relinquish the rights of other Jews harmed by Nazi Germany? Of course not.
I strongly suggest that you try testing your hypotheses and assumptions by reversing the roles and seeing whether your suggestions and solutions would make sense to you if Jews were the victims here, and not Palestinians. (In other words, if Jews had been expelled from Israel, and were either in an diaspora prohibited from returning, treated as second class citizens, or ruled under a longterm highly belligerent occupation.) If your solutions don’t seem just if you reverse the roles, then they aren’t just or viable solutions.
Jerome, I am astounded that you would even think to compare the rights of refugees (who never asked to become refugees) with Jews who live in the diaspora as a matter of choice.
jnslater
“Does the Jewish diaspora, or the Jewish citizens of the U.S. get to vote on Israeli issues? ”
Are they refugees?
Not that the Israelis have made an offer of anything remotely resembling freedom, or that “had the promise of improving Palestinian life in all kinds of ways, …”
As extortionists would say, we promise to stop terrorizing you, we might give back some of your kidnapped children, and we’ll allow you food and water, if you’ll just agree to let us have the vast amount of goods that belong to you.
Not that if someone was threatening me with “occupation, the repression, the violence, ” i.e. mass murders, constant bombing, forced hunger, malnutrition for my children, deprivation of water, complete lack of economic opportunity and enforced joblessness, home demolitions and not allowing me to build homes for my family, land confiscations and pogroms (note: all because I wasn’t Jewish), I might make that very choice Slater thinks Palestinians should make, to give up trying to get back what those threatening me had already taken by those same means.
Can’t we get decent software in here so this The above is a response to jnslater March 31, 2011 at 11:11 pm won’t be necessary to follow the thread of a discussion?
Jerome Slater needs to be much more concerned about AIPAC, Likud, Benjamin Netanyahu, Avigdor Lieberman, Ovadia Yosef, the religious setters, Christian Zionists, etc. than about American or the occasional antisemite among the critics of the Israeli government. The fact that he isn’t nicely demonstrates why I don’t find him to be the least bit credible in the great debate about Zionism.
I’ve been watching carefully to see if Jerome Slater would make a persuasive effort to address the most important questions that have been directed his way. It’s apparent that he can’t answer those questions.
Jerome Slater has helped convince me that the Israeli/Zionist left has been playing a duplicitous game, providing the Israeli/Zionist far right with enough political space to get on with expanding the settlements into the boundaries of Greater Israel. They are members of the same team. At least Benjamin Netanyahu, Avigdor Lieberman and Ovadia Yosef are relatively upfront about what they are up to. The left component of this political machine cannot be trusted to utter a single honest word.
sean, you got it. what did i say about the segregationists in the south? same team indeed. all the rest of the words here are pointless.
should blacks go back to africa?
they could never learn to live among us.
they wouldn’t be happy living among us.
they are too different with their own ways and can’t be responsible citizens.
they prefer to live among themselves.
their children wouldn’t feel comfortable in a white school.
it’s not fair, to ask their children to keep up with white children.
these are some things that an ocean of words were wasted on. how to have segregation that didn’t look so ugly to the northerners. oh, and northerners don’t understand. blacks don’t reallky mind the system here , only the troublemakers do.
can we get on with the real discussion? stopping this atrocity?
peters,
And notice this: the Israeli government and the Israel lobby are increasingly relying on Southern Christian fundamentalists (Christian Zionists) to prop up their sagging support in American politics and all around the world. This is the same cultural group that spawned the Confederacy and fought the US Civil War (the bloodiest war in American history) in defense of white racism and slavery.
In its increasingly intimate alliance with the John Hagees and Mike Huckabees in American politics, Israel is showing its true colors. In the lexicon of most pro-Israel militants these days, classical liberals are demonic “Jew haters” because they oppose racism. Nearly all ethnic nationalist movements seem gradually to devolve into naked and ugly racism, and Israel obviously is no exception. No wonder so many thoughtful Jews are abandoning Israel and Zionism.
BTW Slater…….
You are behind the times. People no longer lay down for the anti semite smear. Do it to the wrong person and it might cost you.
Judge fines ADL $10.5 million in Colorado defamation suit | j. the …May 12, 2000 … DENVER —
A civil lawsuit that began with a neighbors’ dispute over garden plants and. of accusations of plotting against their family for anti-Semitic reasons. …
http://www.jweekly.com/…/judge-fines-adl-10-5-million-in-colorado-defamation- suit/
While pro-Israel “leftists” and “moderates” are regaling you with accounts of their wonderful good intentions and moral decency, the Israeli government and the Israel lobby are inexorably moving ever rightward towards outright fascism, racism and religious extremism. The more the “leftists” and “moderates” talk, the more the extreme rightists consolidate their stranglehold over Israeli and American politics, in the mainstream media and in both the Republican and Democratic Parties.
Don’t you know a con game when you see it? This one is absolutely classic.
Gosh, swans are graceful when they fly! They just flap their wings a few times, and you don’t even hear the honking anymore. Goodbye Columbus! Make love to me on this cruddy, cruddy couch!
;)
you never fail to entertain mooser, that’s for sure.
I’m betting that Jerome Slater arrives at this insight before long:
Zionism is bad for the Jews.
He is too smart not to.
seanmcbride, I think you are right. Smart people like Slater will arrive at this insight. But remember it is difficult when one has had a lifetime of the programing most all of us have had.
In the early part of the 20th century most all Jews rejected Herzl and Zionism for many reasons, but mostly because is was simply not in the interest of Jews. Just not good for Jews, as you say.
Only after it latched onto European worker’s movements, socialist movements did it gain momentum, and then acceptance after the horror and crimes of Die Dritte Reich.
In about two generations, Zionism will be completely unwound.
Israel will exist as a State in the ME and hopefully what it can be. Great institutions , society not at war with its neighbors and with itself.
To become that it must reject Zionist ideals.
If it does not, it will destroy itself.
Ellen,
There are many factors in play here, but here is one: many Jews have restless, inquisitive and brilliant minds, and are born iconoclasts and creators of vanguard movements that challenge the status quo and advance human progress.
For those Jews, who are often the most important and influential Jews in the world, ethno-religious nationalism may be interesting for a time, but it is too limited an ideological box to be trapped in. They will inevitably become bored with Zionism and move on to more interesting projects.
Without these talented people, Zionism is not likely to survive. If these talented minds turn their energies to deconstructing Zionism, then game over definitely.
What do you want to bet that even neocons like William Kristol have felt an ever-growing sensation of disgust at being forced to support dullards like John Hagee, Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee in order to lend a hand to Israel. At some point they will rebel from this idiocy and try to reclaim their sense of self-respect.
“Zionism” was salvageable as a brand perhaps until the collapse of Oslo, but not since then. The brand is now unsalvageable and Jerome Slater should give up on it. It’s a lost cause.
There is an argument to be made that Zionism was doomed from the start no matter what policies Zionists pursued. I am inclined to give credence to that argument.
I made a comment a day or so ago that was surprisingly converted by Mondoweiss into a thread of its own yesterday morning, “The current ‘one state’ reality in Israel/Palestine”
link to mondoweiss.net
A better title would have been: “Cut the Crap: Israel has been a single Apartheid Zionist State of Greater Israel Since 1967 and it Ain’t Gonna Change”.
My point, based on a personal epiphany caused by hours of labored reading through all the totured threads of Mondoweiss, is that it is all over but the shouting. Israel conquered its Greater Israel in 1967 and immediately began taking steps to insure its permanent inclusion into Israel through illegal population transrers and annexations. 44 years years later, Israel’s hard core Zionists can justifiably claim that Greater Israel is theirs. Israel has its apartheid state of Greater Israel and has neither the intention nor capability of changing that reality.
My point is simple: If indeed Israel is irredeemably an apartheid state, then all the discussion about future hypothetical solutions, single, double, whatever, is a waste of time. The horrible actual reality of what is now in place makes any remaining hypothetical two state solution nothing more than some liberal Zionist-lite version of apartheid-lite.
I think we need to go back to step one in our 12 step program and first admit reality. Instead of “My name is Jane Doe and I have been an alchoholic for 22 years”, it should be “My name is Israel and I have been an apartheid state for 44 years.”
The problem with this thread and many Mondoweiss threads is that they exist in some hypothetical nether world of solution creation while ignoring the irreversible reality of the single apartheid state solution that is already in place and has been for 44 years. This thread now has over 200 comments. Go back and read them and ask yourself how useful they are when compared to the reality of the facts on the ground. What exactly is going to change to allow for either a fair and reasonable two state solution or a democratic single state solution? Give me a roadmap showing what is going to happen politically in Israel and/or the US that would allow any progress toward either solution.
The ghastly, obvious answer is NOTHING. IT IS A DONE DEAL. The Zionist Apartheid State of Greater Israel, from the Jordon to the Med exists, and has existed for 44 years, and there is neither the intent nor the political will or capability in either Israel or the US to change it.
So, what to do? I say go back to step one of the program and examine the first admission: Israel is a 44 year old apartheid state. Examine that admission in detail: is it correct, is it accurate? If we conclude it is, then the truth of that statement must be somehow transferred to the mainstream Jewish and non-Jewish communities so that everybody is forced to contend with that horrific reality whenever the Israel – Palestine issue arises.
We need to use Occam’s Razor and cut to the chase, cut out all the bullshit and examine in detail and share in the horrible reality and truth that Israel is indeed an oppressive apartheid state and has been for 44 years. My hope is that once everybody can permit the truth to be told and looked at, the solutions will come much easier. The civil rights struggle against Black oppression in the US didn’t get off the ground until the actual horrors of Black oppression could be seen nightly on TV by mainstream normal Americans. Once the US mainstream saw and knew the problem, the political and legal solutions soon followed.
So, enough of the endless, pointless, aimless debate. Start first by defining the reality that Israel is indeed an apartheid state, then get the word out so that the mainstream communities come to also know that reality. Once that reality is known, change will soon follow and it won’t come from debate. It will come from a US and Israeli mainstream, Jewish and non, that will finally understand and no longer tolerate that reality.
Gil Maguire
http://www.irishmoses.com
Thanks Irish, an incisive comment that goes to the heart of the problem.
May I venture to suggest that Israel has been an apartheid state from the very beginning. The few Palestinians who were not killed or terrorised into leaving, were carefully and deliberately limited in where they could live, go to school and what political and civil rights they could exercise. At the very least, as discussed on this site, even after military rule was lifted, it was not and has never been a democracy, but rather a reasonably vile ethnocracy. Given that the JNC (as Max B is highlighting at the moment) and other ad hoc and systematic rules severely restricted where Israeli Christians and Muslim could live, in many ways it is closer to out and out apartheid
If I may quote one of the extreme right-wing from last year, there was never a golden age of innocence
Irish Moses: You are absolutely right.
Azmi Bishara said it best:
The One Clear Solution: Side with Racism or Be Against it
And why should they? Does the Jewish diaspora, or the Jewish citizens of the U.S. get to vote on Israeli issues?
The analogy is not valid for a number of reasons. First, this is not simply a “Palestinian issue,” but a renunciation of the individual rights of refugees (assuming such a thing is even possible). Second, the right of refugees to return to their family homes and lands, from which they have been barred for decades, cannot possibly be compared to a contrived “return” based on mythology and religious or pseudo-religious belief. Third, diaspora Jews who have wanted to participate fully in Israeli life have had ample opportunity to do so over the past 63 years – most have chosen not to.
I believe there is ample evidence that Palestinians will not accept a renunciation of the ROR – especially (but not only) when what has been offered thus far (and in any realistic 2ss) in return for such a huge sacrifice, with enormous symbolic, historical and emotional significance, has been sorely lacking. This is my impression and personal experience, but (at the risk of repeating myself) I would really like someone who knows more about Palestinian society to fill us in.
Third, diaspora Jews who have wanted to participate fully in Israeli life have had ample opportunity to do so over the past 63 years
Which Palestinians have been prevented by force from doing. Of course they must have a vote on the matter – it is their future at stake, their rights at risk.
How they would vote is none of mine to say.
Thanks, Potsherd. That was my drift.
The refugees are the “present absentees” of the peace process, regularly excluded, for example, from public opinion polls that are supposed to reflect Palestinian views. They are invisible because Israel wants them to be and the PA seems only too happy to oblige. It is another aspect of the liberal-Israeli pretence (with Palestinian collusion) that the only issues at stake are the post-’67 occupation and Palestinian statehood – and once those are resolved all will be fine.
How can the refugees possibly be excluded (summarily dismissed as “not a difficult question”) from the ratification of a final deal, expected to include Palestinian acceptance of “end of conflict” (Barak) or “Israel as the state of the Jewish people” (Netanyahu)? How could such a deal possibly be a viable even in the short term?
Israel expects Palestinian negotiators to speak on behalf of all Palestinians, not just those resident in the OT. How can they do that without giving the refugees a voice in determining their own future (and relating to their own past)? There is no comparison whatsoever to the Jewish diaspora and what it has to gain or lose from the sort of agreement Jerry proposes. Such a superficial analogy (diaspora=diaspora) strikes me as the kind of “lawyer’s brief” demagoguery Jerry (unjustly, IMO) attributed to David Samel.
Shmuel:
I saw this charge of my demagoguery after I replied to your argument, and it is beneath you. You may disagree with my analogy, and you have a case.
But do not charge me with demogoguery. I was making a good-faith effort to continue a serious dialogue, and I can see that the analogy may not work. Demagoguery consists of making arguments you know to be untrue, but to an audience that may fall for them. If I had been writing for, say, Commentary, I can see how I might be suspected of demagoging. But to the Mondoweiss audience?
The difference is that Samel systematically distorted or ignored my argument, but to an audience he surely must have known would just love it, and would not be inclined to actually read what I wrote and compare it to how Samel characterized it. So you are defending him. I take it then that, assuming you read what I wrote, that you agree that my idea of an acceptable two-state settlement amounted to treating the Israeli Palestinians as “second class citizens?” Or that my idea of how true ethnic cleansing might have been averted amounts to no more than “a kinder and gentler Nakba?”
I’ll close my responses to you with this: The consequences of the kind of maximalism that your position represents is to make any kind of agreement impossible, meaning the continuation of the Israeli occupation–or worse. We both deplore this–the difference is that I’m trying to think of ways the Palestinians can get the best possible (POSSIBLE, I said) deal, whereas you aren’t.
Jerry,
Your analogy between the Jewish and Palestinian diasporas was superficial and offensive. Either you were aware of that and used it anyway, or had not thought it through (why?). Many here have criticised your approach for accepting the Israeli perspective a little too readily and then trying to justify it a posteriori. This struck me as one of those cases – and I expected better. Normally, I try to avoid such characterisations, but I guess I was upset by the way in which you had dismissed Samel’s arguments – substantive arguments from a person I have come to respect for his honesty and fair-mindedness.
In previous comments I have explained why I believe your argument does amount to relegating Palestinian Israelis to second-class citizenship – regardless of your good intentions or wishful thinking. Jewish and democratic doesn’t work, and there is no reason to believe it will within a smaller Jewish state with a Palestinian state next door (‘if you don’t like it, you can go to Palestine’, they will say). I am also puzzled by your alternative history, which I do see as a “kinder gentler Nakba”. You obviously disagree, but these positions cannot simply be dismissed as “lawyer-talk”.
As I have also argued in previous comments, I would like nothing better than an agreement – a truly viable one, based on solid principles such as equality and respect (including respect for the rights and legitimate sensibilities of Jewish Israelis). Tragically, I don’t think there is any “possible” agreement at this point – let alone one that will not be worse than no agreement at all. You call it maximalism. I call it pragmatism. That is why I choose to focus on rights, regardless of the current feasibility of a negotiated solution. With all due respect, I don’t think you are any more realistic or less maximalistic than I am. In fact, you share my pessimism and live with a contradiction that allows you to act. I do no less.
I hope to continue this discussion, because I think it is important, and because I do appreciate your perspective. If it gets rough at times, it is because it hurts so much. Overly-negative characterisations of each other’s arguments are unhelpful, but if dialogue on such a sensitive topic is to be productive, thicker skins are essential.
Shmuel, thank you very much for your lawyer-like defense. I had been trying to avoid defending my interpretations of Jerry’s essay for various reasons, but he seemed to be misinterpreting my silence as an inability to answer him. I was preparing a reply on the kinder gentler nakhba and 2d class citizenship points when I had to run to the dentist. I just came back to find it done by you. I was only going to add that if Jerry wanted an example of misinterpreting an adversary’s position, how about this from his own essay:
if you reject two-states but can’t refute the argument against one-state, by default what you are left with, to use Samel’s language, is a kinder and gentler occupation and colonialism.
That may be good enough for Samel (as well as a number of others who have made similarly vague proposals), but it isn’t good enough for me—and, of infinitely greater importance, to the Palestinians.
Shmuel,
Your evaluation and understanding are quite sober and realistic.
My experience has been the same. In fact, in describing Palestinian feelings and consciousness of the Nakbah, the best any non-palestinain can do is put himself or herself in the Palestinians’ shoes and then ask oneself, “How would I feel after 64 years of living in a refugee camp? What emotional, historical, sentimental consciousness might I have if I saw my parents wither away in a refugee camp, while photo after photo still in my family’s possession shows that my parents were proud, healthy confident adults living in a nice — even luxurious — home in Jaffa (for example)?
I have lived in 4 different countries so far, and my experience has been that humans are all the same. Once you strip away the veneer of norms or customs (i.e. culture) and language, we all have the same thoughts, feelings, daily struggles and experiences (as human beings on planet Earth).
Shmuel (and Tree)
Well, you’ll be relieved to know that it will be the Palestinians, not me, that will be making the choices.
Jerry–
This is a relevant link. If you’re not familiar with the work of Scott Atran, I suggest you click on it. (If you are familiar with it then it obviously has had no effect on your thinking.) Scott says research shows (and common sense agrees) that when you offer people money to give up something they see as sacred, it tends to enrage them. I suspect that your thought experiment on what should have been done in 1948 would not have worked for that reason.
link
Scott says research shows (and common sense agrees) that when you offer people money to give up something they see as sacred, it tends to enrage them.
maybe that’s why slater went postal when i ask him to put a price on jewish compensation for leaving israel.
Palestinians will not make choices they want. they will make choices Israel and the US want
the game is rigged in your favor
it will be the Palestinians, not me, that will be making the choices.
Within the very limited parameters of what Israelis are willing to accept (in the marked absence of a truly “honest broker”), according to your best possible case scenario. Since Israelis are unlikely to accept the rights of the refugees to return or even to have a say in the matter, the choice that Palestinians will be offered will be of the take it or leave it “most generous offer” variety.
I do not understand this discussion about giving up a “right” to return.
The details of exercising the right may be negotiated, but the right itself cannot be given up.
Nor is it even reasonable for an opposing partner in any negotiation to first demand that the other party gives up their “rights” in a negotiation.
We may have a civil “right” to a trial, for example. We may choose not to exercise our rights or modify our rights, when making a negotiation, but we do not ever give up our rights.
To demand that a negotiating partner give up their rights are not the rules of civil societies.
“Since Israelis are unlikely to accept the rights of the refugees to return or even to have a say in the matter, the choice that Palestinians will be offered will be of the take it or leave it “most generous offer” variety.”
I’m not sure we are talking about quite the same thing. We have already agreed that the Israelis won’t accept ROR, what I am referring to is whether the Palestinian people as a whole would accept an otherwise best case scenario two-state settlement that did not include ROR.
Suppose Israeli and Palestinian negotiators agree on such a settlement, and the Palestinians decided to put it to a referendum? Most of the refugees, I think (I don’t know the numbers) are already in the West Bank or Gaza, so of course they would vote. The Palestinian leadership would then have to decide whether the refugees elsewhere would also get to vote, and who was considered to be a refugee (grandchildren of 1948 refugees, now living in the US or Europe?), and the like.)
Are you arguing that the Israelis would veto even such a process? That seems improbable to me. It is more likely that if a referendum didn’t pass they would simply shrug their shoulders and say, in effect, you got our best offer, you turned it down, come back to us when you’re ready to try again.
Try that again when you do know the numbers, instead of making shit up.
Most of the refugees, I think (I don’t know the numbers) are already in the West Bank or Gaza
According to UNRWA, less than half of registered refugees live in the WB and Gaza.
As for an Israeli veto, beyond the fact that Israel has shown little respect for Palestinian elections in the past (E. Jerusalem, Hamas victory), it has been adamant about excluding the refugees and their concerns from the entire process, and would be unlikely to just let the Palestinians make their own referendum arrangements. A mere shrug of the shoulders and a ‘we’re in the book’ strike me as very inconsistent with Israeli behaviour thus far (then again, a reasonable agreement on everything except the ROR would also be very much out of character).
It is depressing that even the most serious critics of my argument seem unable to keep in mind what I wrote. Now Shmuel explains to me that Israel’s behavior makes it unlikely that they would agree to a fair two-state settlement. Here’s what I wrote:
“Revisiting the Two-State Settlement”
“There can be no doubt that the prospects for a two-state settlement are increasingly dim, as Israeli attitudes become increasingly rigid, the settlements in the West Bank and the Jewish “neighborhoods” in East Jerusalem continue to expand, and the Obama administration abandons any effort to pressure Israel into policy changes.”
“Nonetheless, since the one-state solution–binationalism–is all but inconceivable, a two-state settlement is the only game in town.”
And this: “None of this is to deny the possibility–however slim–that over time Israeli attitudes might change, but any such change would result in Israeli acceptance of a two-state solution long before its acceptance of a binational state.”
And this: “In the last few years, however, as a result of Israeli blindness, rigidity, and the continuing expansion of Jewish “settlements,” urban areas, and neighborhoods in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, it has become common to say that the two-state settlement is now dead.”
I provided a long list of what a fair two-state settlement must include: it is perfectly reasonable to add to that list that the Palestinians have the right to insist on a referendum among their people–however they define their people–on the ROR and, for that matter, all other components of an agreement.
Is it unlikely that–as things stand now–that the Israelis would agree to this? Of course–my argument was that there was no alternative to keeping the two-state possibility alive, since there was a far, far less possibility of a one-state agreement.
Shmuel and others don’t actually challenge this assessment–rather, they say that neither a 1ss or a 2ss are possible, so the focus should be on the rights of the Palestinian people. As I’ve said repeatedly–with no response–just what does that mean? If neither a 2ss nor a 1ss solution are possible, then by default what is left is the status quo. Those who argue along these lines need to explain why this doesn’t amount to, in effect, as a kinder and gentler occupation.
It is depressing that even the most serious critics of my argument seem unable to keep in mind what I wrote.
I have most certainly kept in mind what you wrote in your article, posts and comments. I simply disagree with your thesis. You believe that a viable 2ss is just barely possible and a 1ss “all but inconceivable”, and I believe that the possibility of any viable solution is all but inconceivable. I suggested that as long as we are envisaging the virtually impossible, we might as well strive to draw more equitable parameters – parameters you have excluded because you believe they would be totally unacceptable to Israel, as opposed to just nearly totally unacceptable. Although I find the distinction somewhat artificial (as I have explained), I believe that a stipulation that “the Palestinians have the right to insist on a referendum among their people–however they define their people”, would fall into the totally unacceptable category, and so run counter to your thesis.
Regarding a rights-based approach, yes, in the short term, it would mean (hopefully) a “kinder and gentler occupation”, but without conceding rights and principles simply because they are currently unobtainable. There is nothing in a rights-based struggle that precludes actually ending the occupation at some point. On the contrary, it provides interim goals along the path to justice. I believe a 2ss is impossible in the foreseeable future (as is a 1ss), and reject the distinction between degrees of impossibility. Furthermore, I believe that the parameters you have outlined are insufficient for viability, even if some Palestinian leaders may be persuaded to sign on the dotted line. I follow your arguments and keep them in mind. I just happen to disagree with some of them.
Those who argue along these lines need to explain why this doesn’t amount to, in effect, as a kinder and gentler occupation.
Of course it does. But as long as no one is willing or able to apply sufficient force to Israel, that’s the best anyone is going to get.
I would not, however, characterize any such arrangement, including the sort of 2ss that Slater advocates, as “fair.” It is not fair. It is profoundly unfair and a violation of all the principles of justice. Perhaps “least unfair practical” might be a better terminology.
You don’t make the argument you claim to make. There is no such thing as a fair two-state settlement. It isn’t fair to Palestinians, Palestinian-Jews, nor Jews.
It’s actually rather disgusting. It isn’t very hard to see that it is not fair. When we divide people up into something equivalent to races – the Jewish race here, the Palestinian race there – it is never fair. Separate but equal is never equal.
The question of whether a two-state solution is the way to go is an interesting question and a good argument, while stomach churning, would be worth talking about. Frankly, though, if you aren’t willing to make such an argument, and no one else is either, then why pretend that it is on the table?
Tell me why Jews aren’t ready for democracy or secularism, and why Jews are incapable of living with others, and must be shunted off in a Jewish ghetto. Tell me how you think that they can be transformed into something new and better by the experience. Make the argument instead of telling me that black is white and up is down.
As far as I am concerned, the two state argument is an argument for slow motion genocide against the Palestinians, exactly as it has been for the history of Israel. That you are unable to produce an honest argument for a two state solution only reinforces my view.
I don’t have a whole lot of hope and very many alternatives, but then again, I didn’t set up this mess, and in terms of supporting it, I effectively stopped when I was 12, and formally stopped before I was 20. It isn’t my fault.
While I oppose a two state solution, I support the right of the Palestinian people to define their own strategy, even if I don’t like it. They are the ones directly living with the consequences.
Shmuel:
Nicely and pleasantly put. We are not all that far apart, and I’m sure you will agree that we’ve taken this discussion as far as it should go.
Jerome Slater,
It should be obvious by now that a critical mass of the Zionist power elite has never had the slightest intention of permitting a two-state or one-state solution to materialize. They have intended all along to continue to expand Israel’s borders and to crush, expel or kill any Palestinians who get in their way.
Those Zionists on the “left” or “center” who have been promoting the two-state solution (like Dennis Ross and his posse, who have run American Mideast policy under both Republican and Democratic administrations for decades) never really believed in their own program. In fact, in retrospect most of us now understand that they did everything in their power to undermine the policy that they claimed to support and promote.
So: what being a supporter of Israel these days means is being a supporter of an expansionist and racist state and messianic ethno-religious cult that relies heavily on religious extremists, racists and Islamophobes in the United States (Christian Zionists primarily) for its continuing existence.
Really: what do your good intentions have to do with anything that is going on in the real world with regard to Israel? No one of importance in the Israeli government or the Israel lobby is listening to you or takes you seriously.
I am looking forward to your persuasive response to the points above.
I’m sure you will agree that we’ve taken this discussion as far as it should go.
Agreed.
Jerome Slater,
Here is my main point: if a two-state or one-state solution is realistically impossible, and if the power of militant ethnocentrism (racism) and religious fundamentalism is going to continue to grow in Israel and the Zionist world, isn’t one left with only one option? To drop all support for Israel and Zionism at a minimum. It is not a supportable enterprise.
Your counterargument?
The response of Israel and the Israel lobby to this dire situation has been to work furiously to mainstream racism, religious extremism and Islamophobia in American political culture, thus further alienating everyone in the world who cares about basic democratic values and simple decency.
Don’t you know a losing cause when you see it? Or do you think that Judeo-Christian fascism is the wave of the future?
Not agreed.
til the last chain is broken
who will be free?
not you
not me
nobody
and that last chain?
what’s it got to do with me?
Israel’s RoR argument is just so much bullsh*te it’s amazing any intelligent person swallows it.
There is no valid reason for denying the Palestine refugees RoR to the territory over which Israel actually holds legal sovereignty. There has never been any any valid reason.
Even if the Palestinians did claim RoR for all lineal descendants, basic RoR quite simply does not require the country of return to accept all lineal descendants.
Under basic RoR a person must have lived in the region. Those who actually qualify have been dying off by natural attrition since 1948.
They were never a threat. They were a minority when they either left or were driven out. Their numbers have never increased, only decreased.
Basic RoR is on an individual basis. Palestinian representatives can only argue that the right be recognized. It is the individual who chooses to return or be compensated.
Basic RoR gives the country of return the right of veto on all those who do not agree to live in peace. An individual assessment carried out.
Finally the most obvious, idiotic, stupid, mindless bullsh*te imaginable, fit only for brainwashed and complete and utterly brain dead morons.
The notion of a peace agreement with Palestine.
Think about it…..
Say peace agreement is reached between Palestine and Israel….the returnees would be citizens of I S R A E L!!! Not Palestinian.
—–
RoR to the territory over which Israel does not actually hold legal Sovereignty is another matter entirely. That is Israel’s fear, that is Israel’s 62 year ‘fact on the ground’ , illegally created problem.
Israel has never legally annexed ANY of the territory it has acquired by war outside of it’s declared sovereign boundaries. Not the territory it controlled after the 1948 war, not the territory it acquired after the 1967 war.
When and if there is a peace agreement. Israel will be required to legally annex territory. It must include all territories it has not yet annexed outside of it’s declared sovereign boundaries.
There will be a lot of people suddenly realize just what a ghastly, headslapping, monumental scam has been pulled on them.
With all due respect to the giants of this debate: Jerry, Shmuel, David, Potshard2, and others, you are doing a grave disservice to the Palestinian victims of this conflict by describing it as an “occupation”. Occupation is a term of art that describes a post conflict situation where the victorious army continues in place in the conquered territory for a limited time until stability is restored and the government function can be returned to the lawful inhabitants. After World War II, the US was the victorious occupying power in Italy, Germany and Japan but took only four to six years to restore the government function to the lawful inhabitants of those countries.
Israel effectively lost its legal status as an occupying power soon after its conquest of the West Bank in 1967 when it began making permanent its hold on that territory by permanently transferring its civilians to the occupied territories, by displacing the lawful inhabitants, by annexations of occupied territories, etc. As demonstrated by the famous Meron memo, Israel knew its actions were unlawful in 1967.
Israel not only seized and annexed this territory for its own “Greater Israel” but did so solely for the benefit of its Jewish Israeli citizens, and has consistently used oppressive and brutal means to gain those benefits and insure Palestinian compliance. That policy is apartheid, pure and simple, and it has been in place since 1967 and has only grown progressively worse in the ensuing 44 years.
Your frequent references to “ending the occupation” and “a kinder and gentler occupation” frames the issue dishonestly and in a manner suggesting that Israel has no criminal responsibility for its actions as its “occupation” is temporary, only of a limited duration and that its extended duration is jointly the fault of both parties. That is simply not the truth of the matter. The truth is stark and should not be avoided: Israel has created an apartheid state of Greater Israel that has been in existence for 44 years.
I discussed this at great length in another Mondoweiss thread, “The current ‘one state’ reality in Israel/Palestine”:
link to mondoweiss.net
Admitting and describing the reality of Israel’s status as an apartheid state for 44 years will raise at least three disturbing questions:
1. Are Jews truly entitled to an apartheid state of their own to protect them from perceived future dangers of anti-Semitism, or do past crimes against Jews provide sufficient justification alone for a Jewish apartheid state?
2. If Jews are entitled under international law to an apartheid state of their own for either or both of the above reasons, shall this be a generally applicable international legal precedent for oppressed peoples or is it exclusive only to peoples specifically chosen, such as Jews?
3. If Jews are indeed entitled to their own apartheid state, is it possible to modify the current single apartheid state of Greater Israel such that the former Palestinian possessors/owners can gain either a separate state of their own, or a modicum of basic and essential human rights that would allow them to share equally in the benefits of Greater Israel?
Asking these questions may seem unduly harsh if you truly feel Israel is only a temporary “occupying power” in the West Bank, but once you admit the reality that Israel is instead an apartheid state and has been for 44 years, these questions and similar ones will become an essential part of this dialogue as they should be.
Using truthful, accurate language to describe the reality of Israel’s long-time status as an apartheid state may well be the most effective initial step we can take to effect the change most of us have long desired.
Gil Maguire
http://www.irishmoses.com
Gil, I understand where you’re coming from with this, however using the term “occupation” in the context of international law is extremely important in that the designation of Israel as the occupying power subjects its conduct to legal restraint. As the occupying power, Israel has specific responsibilities and limitations. Israel’s “occupation” of Palestine is what makes the Geneva conventions apply to this situation, thus prohibiting the forceful expulsion of East Jerusalem residents and the transfer of Jewish settlers into the region, for example
From “The Rights and Responsibilities of Occupying Powers” [Pertaining to the US and UK in Iraq]:
As Occupying Powers, the UK and USA were bound by the rules of international law on belligerent occupation, which are set out in the 1907 Hague Regulations (articles 42 to 56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 (articles 27 to 34 and 47 to 78) (GCIV) 6.
The rules are complex, but the following indicates in general terms the limitations on the authority of an Occupying Power:
o Article 43 of the Hague Regulations provides that the Occupying Power “shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety [‘l’ordre et la vie publics’], while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country’. While some changes to the legislative and administrative structure may be permissible if they are necessary for public order and safety, more wide-reaching reforms of governmental and administrative structures are not lawful. That includes the imposition of major economic reforms.
o GCIV prohibits, subject to limited exceptions, any alteration in the status of public officials.
o GCIV requires that the penal laws of the occupied territory must remain in force except where they constitute a threat to security or an obstacle to the application of GCIV. In addition, again with limited exceptions, the courts in the occupied territory must be allowed to continue to operate.
link to iraqinquiry.org.uk
Maggielorraine,
While I take your point about the legal requirements of being an occupying power, and am well aware of the GCIV requirements, two of which you fail to mention: Article 47 which prohibits an occupying power from annexing any part of the territory occupied, and Article 49 which prohibits the occupying power from transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it has occupied, I think it is more useful to focus on two question:
1. Which of the various provisions has Israel violated and when did those violations occur?
2. What is a reasonable maximum time limit beyond which occupying power status becomes a legal absurdity?
In the case of the first, Israel violated virtually all provisions from the beginning of its occupation of the Palestinian territories in 1967. In the case of the second, 10 years would appear the absolute outside limit of the reasonable length of occupying power status when compared to the US’ 4-6 year occupation of Italy, Germany and Japan after World War II. Israel is now into its 44th year of “occupation” with no end it sight and in violation of virtually all legal requirements for an occupying power.
So, while you may be technically correct that Israel had/has obligations as an occupying power, in reality it never intended temporary occupation as evidenced by the fact that it began immediately in 1967 a program of illegal permanent transfer of its civilian Jewish population into the conquered territories, illegal annexed conquered territories, etc. More significantly, it did so with full knowledge that its actions were illegal under GCIV, to which it is a signatory power, and did so with the intent to restrict the civil rights of the lawful Arab Palestinian occupiers and owners of the conquered lands in favor of its own Jewish Israeli population.
It is accurate and truthful to say that Israel is an apartheid state and has been for 44 years. That it is also a failed and illegal occupying power is also true. However, to refer to Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territories as an “occupation” which implies it is legal, temporary and the result of equal fault between the two parties, is not accurate. It is a semantic falsity that is intended to mask the truth of the matter that Israel is indeed an apartheid state and has been for 44 years. We need to quit beating around the bush and start speaking the truth.
Thank you for the Wood Statement link which is a useful document for this discussion.
Gil Maguire
http://www.irishmoses.com
You forget the impact of the 73 war.
Ah, that would be the one when we went to Defcon 5(twice in 4 days) when the IDF didn’t have any tanks left. Finito. Israel’s major cities were wide open to heavy shelling and surrender. Masada time, nuke the Soviet Mediterranean fleet and a world- wide full nuclear exchange comes next. You see Golda,Moshe and Henry knew they could manage Nixon and so they did. We were within minutes of a full exchange(I was in the air seemingly immune).
The next time around, they will have those 5 German Dolphin-class subs launching 20 megaton cruise missiles at whom? Save us or perish.
Hej!
There are multiple truthful accurate descriptions of the reality of Israel’s occupation/presence/settlement/apartheid/residence.
The term apartheid has no application to within green-line Israel for example.
Language is never only descriptive, it is also always proscriptive. That is also cutting through to the reality.
Richard,
I responded patiently and repeatedly at length to you on this subject on the other thread:
“The current ‘one state’ reality in Israel/Palestine”:
link to mondoweiss.net
As you apparently have not seen nor responded to my final post to you there on this matter, I will repeat it here, adding to it a brief paragraph on why a prominent Israeli military commentator says withdrawal from the West Bank would not pose a security threat to Israel:
Gil Maguire
http://www.irishmoses.com
I’m sure you’ll recognize “apartheid” if it ever bites you on the ***. Not likely though. Be thankful.
Hej!
‘the history of the Jews, ancient but especially modern history–not limited to the Holocaust– makes the Zionist case “essentially irrefutable.” ‘
—–Refutation is that the bible is essentially not history. There were no ancient Hebrews( apiru is search term) Mesopotamian , Egyptian don’t reveal existence of “hebrews” or Israel. Zionists influenced Nazis to only allow Jews to immigrate to Palestine. Please explain your use of –essential.
“True, the Palestinians didn’t think so, for perfectly understandable reasons, but almost all of the Western and Christian world did. Of course, that doesn’t prove my argument, but it certainly shifts the burden of proof—morally, as well as factually– to those who say, in effect, forget about history and the problem of murderous anti-Semitism.”
Arabs aren’t semites? Sephardic jews aren’t 2nd class in Jerusalem? Please consider using term anti-zionist instead of a-S….
Because christians like the words Israel, zion doesn’t change moral burdens.
“if somehow a one state solution were forced on the Israelis, it would be far more likely to be a disaster for both peoples than a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
Why, because “Israeli” Palestinians couldn’t get along with non-Israeli Palestinians?
Einstein was a cultural zionist; he thought Jews were a good influence in any land. He repeated many times that immigrants to Palestine must get along with Palestinians. Note the US press ignored him after ’48
Please consider answering annie; how much should US pay for Israeli’s to give back the lands?
If we as a country can somehow cut ourselves loose from the Jewish project in Palestine, we don’t have to debate this endlessly, anymore. Then if you feel strongly about either side, you can join a militia(Witty?). In Palestine, of course, as we have laws about launching private unauthorized wars from our shores. Not that they have been respected. Then the rest of us can get on with our lives without being further compromised.
Hej!