Next week Ethan Bronner, a NY Times reporter who till recently was the Jerusalem bureau chief for the newspaper, is speaking about “My Israel” and his transformative experience with respect to the country, and the $75 donation goes to the New Israel Fund.
The New Israel Fund invites you to hear from master storytellers about a transformative moment in their relationships to Israel. Join us for an afternoon celebration of thought-provoking and engaging stories that will inspire hope and action.
Featuring Ethan Bronner, former Jerusalem bureau chief for The New York Times, and an exciting line-up of storytellers, including Shira Ben-Sasson Furstenberg, Yohannes Bayu, Vanessa Hidary, and Lynn Harris.
I’m all for the New Israel Fund’s work on minority rights inside Israel, and they support some great dissident orgs in Israel; but it must be pointed out that it’s a Zionist organization:
The New Israel Fund is dedicated to the vision of the State of Israel as the sovereign expression of the right of self-determination of the Jewish people and as a democracy dedicated to the full equality of all its citizens and communities.
So now he tells us! I always sensed that Bronner was a Zionist, dedicated to religious nationalism. His son went into the Israeli army even as he was covering international efforts to hold Israel accountable for war crimes, and Bronner seemed to look at things from the Israeli point of view. A friend who’d met him told me that Bronner was an earnest liberal Zionist, who thought the settlements were bad but looked on Israel as a great achievement.
Like Bronner and myself too, Jodi Rudoren, the new Times bureau chief in Jerusalem, comes out of the American Jewish community, which is strongly Zionist, but she told the Free Beacon that she is not a Zionist.
“I don’t know that I’ve ever described myself as a Zionist in the past. I certainly think that right now in my job, and where Zionism is a subject of discussion, I don’t have any interest in being one or not being one. I’m not a Zionist or anti-Zionist.”
Bronner is a ZIONIST!??!!?!! Wow.
I haven’t been this suprised since Clay Aiken came out of the closet.
Did Jodi Rudoren express any views on Israeli or Mideast politics before she was appointed to her current position at the New York Times? Are we to presume that she was a blank slate on this issue, with no opinions expressed to anyone during her lifetime to date?
It’s good to see that Ethan Bronner is fully out of the closet — he is an emotional ethnic nationalist, which was obvious all along.
I think we need to drop the terms “liberal Zionist,” “Likud Zionist,” “secular Zionist,” “religious Zionist,” etc. — either you are a Zionist or you are not a Zionist. If you are a Zionist, you support the Israeli government and its policies, which include building an ethnocentric Eretz Yisrael over the backs of Palestinians. In for a penny, in for a pound. You own the entire mess.
I don’t think that follows logically. It’s quite possible to be a Zionist, yet support a two-state solution based 1967 borders and so on, and oppose certain Likudist policies.
Sibiriak wrote: “It’s quite possible to be a Zionist, yet support a two-state solution based 1967 borders and so on, and oppose certain Likudist policies.”
At the point at which it becomes obvious that there is no chance of pursuing a reasonable two-state solution, and that Greater Israelists (Revisionist Zionists, Einstein’s and Arendt’s “Nazis”) have acquired dominating control of the Israeli political and cultural system, then one is left with two choices: stop being a Zionist (and supporting the Israeli government) or continue being a Zionist and accept full responsibility for its policies.
Israel is using “liberal Zionists” as a fig leaf for its anti-liberal and increasingly fascist and racist policies. Look — some Zionists hold noble ideals! We’re ok! Continue to support us! Pay no attention to what the Zionist establishment is actually doing!
Well, that simply won’t wash any longer — not with Zionists like Sheldon Adelson promising to spend $100 million on the Republican Party to push Americans into a disastrous war against Iran, on top of the disastrous wars with Iraq and Afghanistan that Israel-centric neoconservatives foisted on the American people on the basis of tawdry propaganda and lies.
This Zionism thing — it’s crossed a red line; it’s become much too problematic for business as usual. Its attitudes and actions have become a major threat to too many people — including Americans.
Sibiriak says:
August 31, 2012 at 2:51 pm
If you are a Zionist, you support the Israeli government and its policies…
I don’t think that follows logically. It’s quite possible to be a Zionist, yet support a two-state solution based 1967 borders and so on, and oppose certain Likudist policies”>>>>>>
The most liberal of zionist still support the existence of Israel on land stolen from the inhabitants, run off with violence, and refuse them the right to return to their homes and regain their property.
All the rest of it, 1967 borders and the rest of the yada,yada is just what came afterward.
Absolutely, I agree. Nevertheless, there is still a distinction to made between Zionists who want to continue the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, and those who are content to keep only what stolen up until 1967 (approx), and are willing to make a deal, financially compensating their victims to some extent.
I’m just pointing this out as a fact, which it is.
It’s also true that some of those who support a two-state settlement, leaving Zionism and religio- ethnic supremacism still reigning in Israel, are not themselves Zionists, but see, rightly or wrongly, that as the best practical way to end the conflict.
Exactly. Liberal Zionists have long tried to convince the world this all started in 1967…
Sibirak, you make several mistakes.
First, you assume that the settlement policies are in their nature ‘Likudist’.
However, if you know anything at all, which must now be cast into doubt, about the conflict, you’d know that the biggest increases, both percentage wise as well as in absolute number came under Labor.
The party responsible for both of the major ethnic cleansing campaigns Israel undertook, in 1948 and in 1967, was also Labor.
Second, Labor today openly courts settlers – but even beyond that, it’s leader is now aggressively supporting the official recognition of Ariel University. This is significant because Ariel is one of the biggest colonies – and it cuts miles deep into the West Bank. It’s not a ‘border colony’.
By working to establish a official university, the colony’s prescence gets cemented.
Your comment is typical of either a hasbarist or a self-deluded ‘liberal’ Zionist.
There is no substantive difference between Likud and Labor on the settlements. In fact, as many Likudniks are quick to point out, correctly, Likud has historically been more cautious with both settlement growth and with wars.
Under Likud, Israel has been far less eager to make war than under left-wing governments. And, of course, under Likud, settlement growth has been smaller.
So your argument is either a typical display of a ‘liberal’ Zionists self-delusion or it’s a bald-faced lie. I’m leaning towards the former.
Since you do not seem to know the basic facts, and confuse the general Israeli concensus since decades back with a single party – a party, I should remind you, that did not start the settlement enterprise to begin with, nor is responsible for most of it’s growth – Sean’s earlier point is correct.
The basic premise, the underlying motivations, are beyond party.
Labor has been most active in implementing them, but has also been a better propagandist, often more willing to enter negotiations while they frenzied up the building in the background(this is what happened in the 1990s).
Yet even Rabin, the famed ‘hero’, who was shot to death for allegedly wanting ‘peance’, was in fact never even supportive of the 2SS. In his last speech he explicitly said that he was in favour of ‘something less than a state’ for the the Palestininas, disconnected enclaves with some autonomy. This is not much different from Apartheid South Africa’s bantustans.
The true opposition towards the settlement enterprise can be summed up into ‘Meretz’ and the few Arab parties. But the Arab parties can never join any government because they have the wrong race.
And that leaves Meretz, with less than 5 % of the electoral votes. That’s your real opposition.
So no, your rambling about ‘Likudist’ policies is delusional and hilarious in their ignorance.
Sean’s point stands.
Krauss
I did NOT assume settlement policies are necessarily “Likudist”, nor did I say there was a big difference between the Likud and Labor on the settlements.
One can be a Zionist and oppose the occupation. There is small minority that DO support a two-state solution based on 1967 borders etc. I’m not saying that’s good or bad, I’m just saying that distinguishes them from Zionists who want to take the practically whole West Bank.
I’m not a zionist at all. I’m just making an analytical distinction, so no need for personal attacks on me.
My point stands.
@ Sibiriak
There is a reason I said there is no point to a discussion about both sides of I/P or liberal zionism.
THE POINT IS…..Israel has had the same POLICY of occupation and theft of Palestine land and resources for 67 YEARS thru every administration.
THAT is the point that stands.
Sibiriak,
It is a matter of degree rather than difference. Most iterations of the two state solution rely on ethnosupremacism, that is, the idea of a “Jewish” state, the same idea that Eretz Yisrael relies on. The fact that “liberal” zionists believe in the legitimacy of only partial ethnic cleansing (1948) rather than full ethnic cleansing shouldn’t satisfy anyone, especially when their rationale for doing so has to do with ensuring a Jewish majority without having to worry about the “demographic threat” constituted by human beings of the wrong religion. The original sin was the creation of the refugee problem in the first place, and it must be atoned for just like everything else.
maggielorraine,
I agree. Still the difference between accepting partial ethnic cleansing (1948) and a promoting continued onslaught is quite significant.
the difference between accepting partial ethnic cleansing (1948) and a promoting continued onslaught is quite significant.
i agree with you sibiriak.
american says:The most liberal of zionist still support the existence of Israel on land stolen from the inhabitants, run off with violence, and refuse them the right to return to their homes and regain their property. and i think the framing of that makes it sound as tho people who support the continuation of israel also support ethnic cleansing and all the sins of the past and present and i don’t think that is necessarily the case. i don’t support the genocide of native americans in our history because i support the existence of the US nor would anyone think to say liberals support the existence of the US on land stolen from the inhabitants, genocided with violence.
one could look at it from a viewpoint of starting from today how best to resolve the situation and think two states is more viable. i wouldn’t agree with them, but i would not assume their complicity in actions taken prior to their birth. especially if a person does not support settlements, thinks israel should be rolled back to 48 lines (or even 67) and thinks the chances of a resolution are more likely by 2 states then it doesn’t necessarily follow they are even a zionist. i also do not agree with sean a person must either be a zionist or an anti zionist. i want no part of zionism in my self identification the same way i do not define myself as a non jew.
@ annie, see my comment above..
“@ Sibiriak
There is a reason I said there is no point to a discussion about both sides of I/P or liberal zionism.
THE REASON IS…..Israel has had the same POLICY of occupation and theft of Palestine land and resources for 67 YEARS thru every Israeli administration……and thru every US administration.
That a few zionist might be content with what the UN gave them is good for chit chat on how all Israelis may not be ‘that bad’ and that’s all it’s good for. Johnson ended Vietnam (see his presidential library papers) ONLY when he saw that public support for it had turned and it was against him politically. That’s never happened in Israel.
So Sibiriak’s effort to showcase or make some kind of case on rare bird liberal zio Israelis as a reason for ‘accepting zionism’ ( and the 1967 borders) is just blowing smoke.
Sorry, I never put forward the “rare bird liberal zio” as any reason for accepting zionism and 1967 borders. That’s a figment of your imagination.
A very large number of non-Zionist Palestinians and Palestinian organizations and non-Zionists in solidarity with them support a two-state settlement based on 1967 borders (with adjustments etc.). Why? To end the conflict; to obtain some partial justice; to relieve Palestinian suffering; to provide movement forward toward an even better situation in the future.
Of course, there are good a strong arguments against that non-Zionist position. Your strawman about “rare bird liberal zios” is not one of them, though.
The official spokesperson for the Ochs and Sulzbergers.
Dear seanmcbride:
You are advocating total opposition to Zionism.
Your position has real problems: Suppose that some group of Israeli Jews advocates peace and equality with the Palestinians. It is overwhelmingly likely that some of the of these Israeli Jews will consider themselves to be Zionists. The problem with your position is that it gives Israeli Jews little alternative to fighting against you to the death.
As it happens, there has always been a small number of Israeli Jews who rejected Israel’s racist policies. They have the right values, they just have no clout.
Supporters of the oppressed Palestinians (I include myself as a supporter) ought to be looking for openings that may make it possible to win some support among Israeli Jews. Realistically there is not going to be a positive response from the majority of Israeli Jews, at least not in the short run. Whether or not there is a positive response in the long run depends – in part -on the policies advocated by supporters of the Palestinians.
I don’t think total opposition to Zionism is likely to win much support among Israeli Jews, either in the short run or long run. On the other hand, I think that advocating “equal rights for Palestinians” may have a future.
Nevada Ned,
“Liberal Zionists” have had several decades now in which to demonstrate their ability to influence Israeli policy, without any success whatever. Even talking with them at this point is a total waste of time. Many of the leading “liberal Zionists” who pretended to support the Mideast peace process and the two-state solution (like Dennis Ross, Aaron David Miller and Martin Indyk) were obviously Likud Zionists all along. As soon as Barack Obama attempted to challenge Benjamin Netanyahu over Israeli settlements, he came under heavy attack from “liberal Zionists” within his own party.
All the key demographic trends for Israel predict that it will slide into even worse radicalism, racism and religious fanaticism in the coming years. This is a lost cause.
I don’t so much “oppose” Zionism as wish to see the United States entirely disengage from Zionism before it does any more damage to American values and interests. If you want to be a Jewish ethnic or religious nationalist, go right ahead and best of luck to you — just don’t bother me about it and don’t do it on my dime.
I don’t “oppose” Irish nationalists — but I don’t want to involve myself in their politics. I have no interest in getting involved in ethnic nationalist politics of any kind. Most Americans and Europeans feel the same way. Americans have invested a huge amount of energy in moving beyond ethnic and religious nationalist politics.
No, they were not “Likud Zionists” all along. You are making the very same mistake that Krauss so passionately and accurately attacked above.
There is nothing uniquely “Likudist” about supporting continual expansion of the Israel Jewish-supremacist state with the aim taking as much of “Eretz Israel” as possible.
The only reason I mentioned “Likudist policies” was because you had written:
and the Israeli government right now happens to headed by Netanyahu and the Likud party. It’s quite possible to be a Zionist and oppose some of that present government’s policies. That’s just a simple fact.
Nevada Ned says:
Dear seanmcbride:
You are advocating total opposition to Zionism.
Your position has real problems: Suppose that some group of Israeli Jews advocates peace and equality with the Palestinians. It is overwhelmingly likely that some of the of these Israeli Jews will consider themselves to be Zionists. The problem with your position is that it gives Israeli Jews little alternative to fighting against you to the death.”>>>>>>>
Total opposition is all that is left.
That there are ‘a few Israelis’ who “might’ want to rectify their original sin of going beyond the borders the UN originally gave them is not a realistic strategy to defeat zionism in Israel..
And if they are living in Israel they have already bought into zionism.
Trite saying—-> ”stupid is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.
65 years is long enough.
What about the great number of Palestinians and Palestinian organizations that support a two-state settlement?
Are you saying that their aspirations are to be utterly rejected and de-legitimized?
“”Are you saying that their (Palestines) aspirations are to be utterly rejected and de-legitimized?”…Sibiriak
That question doesn’t make sense.
I guess you’re trying to say…” what about the zionist ‘aspirations”
The zionist need to carry out their ‘apsirations’ on land that doesn’t belong to someone else and is supported by resources that are aren’t stolen from someone else.
Why should anyone give a rat’s ass about the’ aspirations’ of bunch of criminals who aspire to kill and oppress to get what they want.
Get serious.
No. Don’t try to guess. Read what I wrote.
I’m talking about *Palestinian* aspirations for a Palestinian state and Palestinian self-determination.
I’m talking about the aspirations of the overwhelming number of Palestinian organizations backing BDS that support a two-state settlement.
Are you saying that these *Palestinian* aspirations are to be utterly rejected and de-legitimized?
Sibiriak says:
I’m talking about the aspirations of the overwhelming number of Palestinian organizations backing BDS that support a two-state settlement.
Are you saying that these *Palestinian* aspirations are to be utterly rejected and de-legitimized?”>>>>>>>
So you are calling the Palestine movement for their own state a * Two State Aspiration* of the Palestines.
Implying that Palestine wants Israel existing as a state beside their state.
so why would I be against the Palestines wanting Israel to remain as in ‘ Two States.’
Are you just typing out this stuff for word games practice or what? Dumb.
No. I’m talking about overwhelming Palestinian support for a two-state settlement. What don’t you understand about that?
>> Suppose that some group of Israeli Jews advocates peace and equality with the Palestinians. It is overwhelmingly likely that some of the of these Israeli Jews will consider themselves to be Zionists.
Zionists – even the “liberal” ones like RW and Peter Beinart – advocate for Israel as a supremacist “Jewish State”.
So, if some group of Israeli Jews advocates for peace and equality with non-Jews within Israel – if they sincerely advocate for Israel as a secular, democratic and egalitarian state of and for all Israelis, equally – they are not Zionists. Or they’re liars.
I agree with seanmcbride: You’re either a Zionist…or you’re not.
A logical truism.
Still, it’s an empirical fact that there are different kinds of Zionists, even though they all share a fundamental support for a Jewish (supremacist) state.
“Still, it’s an empirical fact that there are different kinds of Zionists, even though they all share a fundamental support for a Jewish (supremacist) state.”
There are Zionists who like their meat raw and bloody, and there are Zionists who prefer it properly prepared with a delicate sauce.
And some are vegetarians.
Sibiriak wrote:
“And some are vegetarians.”
Like Hitler, if we are talking about German, not Jewish, nationalists.
Being a little bit ethnic or religious nationalist is like being a little bit pregnant. You are either all in or all out. And once you are all in you are often at the mercy of the worst extremists in the movement — which is the case in contemporary Israel. Fanatical settlers are the locomotive dragging along the entire train — the Israeli government, the Israel lobby, the American government, the American people, ME (goddammit), etc.
I don’t think so. Sharon wasn’t “dragged along”, for example.
No, humans are quite a bit more complex than that, as are the politics of ethnic/religious identity.
Is the Dalai Lama 100% a “religious or ethnic nationalist”?
Is Luis Shatiwe Yanomami, a leader of the Yanomami organization Horonami, 100% a “religious or ethnic nationalist”?
Sibiriak,
I think at some point one has to decide if one owes one’s strongest loyalty to an ethnic or religious nationalist entity or to something higher and broader. Certainly most Americans have chosen the “higher and broader” route — that is the Enlightenment way.
If you are an ethnic or religious nationalist you will eventually find yourself in conflict — often violent conflict — with the rest of the human race. There are simple social laws and well-established patterns of human behavior in play here.
If one *does* choose the ethnic and/or religious nationalist route, good luck — you’ve lost the right to complain about the strident nationalism of any other ethnic or religious group. Every tribe for itself, and may the most vicious tribe prevail.
Regarding Ariel Sharon: Sharon aroused the wrath of the settlers when he showed signs of pursuing the peace process and the two-state solution. Some of those settlers believe that Sharon was struck down by an angry God, who administered him a stroke. Similarly, “God” punished Yitzhak Rabin by siccing Yigal Amir on Rabin. And Ehud Olmert ran into a few problems of his own, no doubt stage-managed by “God.”
seanmcbride,
I personally am not an ethnic, religious or any sort of nationalist. I do recognize, though, that a huge portion of humanity does have various group identities, including ethnic and/or religous nationalist ones. I’m not prepared at this point to condemn all these various group identifications. I’m also wary of the kind of atomized individualism (individuals rationally maximizing their individual “preferences”) that underpins neoliberal and rational choice ideology (which has deep roots in Western rationalism and Enlightement thought.) I know that’s not the kind of Enlightenment identification with something “higher and broader” that you are talking about–but I do see the issue being a bit more complex than you portray it.
I also believe people can have overlapping identities with various degrees of loyalty, not always clear-cut even to the person embracing them. E.g., loyalty to family, a particular culture, an ethnic group (a “people”), a religious group, a city, a region, a nation, an ideology, a civilization, a set of values, an absolute Spirit.
And I don’t think all forms of nationalism are necessarily the same–in terms of “stridency”, acceptance of other nationalisms, militarism, supremacism, racism etc. It’s not impossible to embrace a form of tolerant “multi-nationalism” similar to contemporary “multiculturalism”.
Going back to Tibet. Many Tibetans are concerned about the influx of Han Chinese. Is opposition to such an influx unacceptable according to your Enlightement ideology? Could such an influx threaten Tibet with “cultural genocide”?
Or what about indigenous tribes in South America. Are their tribal identifications to be flatly condemned on the basis of Enlightenment ideology?
And what about “self-determination” for “peoples” (or “nations”)? What does the concept of “self-determination” mean to you, and does it have any validity?
Do the Palestinian people have a right to self-determination? What does that phrase really mean?
Sibiriak,
One needs to draw a clear conceptional distinction between *ETHNOCENTRISM* and *ETHNIC NATIONALISM*. All ethnic nationalists are ethnocentric. Most ethnocentric people are not ethnic nationalists.
Ethnic nationalism is a major escalation of emotional excitement and intellectual commitment over mere ethnocentrism — it necessarily involves a deep entanglement with a political agenda, a specific nation and a specific government.
People (including Americans) can express varying degrees of ethnocentrism in positive, healthy and creative ways (cuisine, music, literature, etc.) without crossing the line into ethnic nationalism.
Really, there is no room for ethnic nationalism in American politics, European politics, or in any modern Western democratic polity. This is why Zionists, increasingly, are radically out of step with the core values of Americanism and of contemporary Europe. There are no significant differences between Jewish nationalists and white nationalists like David Duke, with this possible exception: Duke’s language is probably more moderate than that of quite a few Israeli leaders and pro-Israel activists in the United States (like Pamela Geller).
there is no room for ethnic nationalism in American politics, European politics, or in any modern Western democratic polity. This is why Zionists, increasingly, are radically out of step with the core values of Americanism and of contemporary Europe
yep
That’s true by definition.
The world is a much bigger place, though, than the U.S. + Europe, and the “modern Western democratic polity” [capitalist-militarist elite-managed democracy] isn’t necessarily a feasible (or even desirable in all cases) model for the rest of humanity.
With all due respect, you didn’t answer any of my questions.
(And no, I’m in no way justifying Israeli Jewish ethno-religious nationalism.)
Sibiriak,
To cut to the heart of all those questions: why would anyone who opposes the expression of ethnic nationalism for his or her own ethnic group support the expression of ethnic nationalism by any other ethnic group in the world?
Most of us, if we *were* going to indulge in ethnic nationalism, would be ethnic nationalists for our own respective ethnic groups. That is basic human nature.
Ethnic nationalism is intrinsically divisive and self-ghettoizing, no matter where it appears in the world. I think the human race in general needs to be thinking at a higher level at this stage of its development. I am much more concerned, for instance, about global environmental issues that I am about any group’s ethnic nationalist agenda.
But all three stole the restaurant!
Sibriak,
Why are you concerned with abstract (and academic) perspectives on Palestinian self-determination when they – whatever you may wish to call them now or yesterday – were the majority in the past and were only reduced from being the majority, through war?
The Zionist project is on-going. Manifest Destiny is taking place as we speak so there is no need to pretend the Palestinians share equal moral footing as the Israelis.
Siberia said:
What does the concept of “self-determination” mean to you, and does it have any validity
—————
Why don’t you stick these lame questions to the Israelis? You know, the people whose colonial project started this conflict and is fueling it and perpetuating it.
The Palestinians could have ZERO national identity and they’d still have a goddamn right to come home and to be treated as human beings.
Unless you’re going to next ask us some lame abstract, academic, pretentious question about what it MEANS to be human and whether the Palestinians, qualify.
Because political and social situations are not uniform throughout the world.
Take Tibet. Religious-ethnic nationalism is an expression of the desire to preserve Tibetan culture. That culture is something *worth preserving*, imo.
I personally don’t believe in “stages of development”. That kind of higher/lower thinking is very close to the “civilization/savage” dichotomy, imo. Yes, it has its appeal and there is something to it, but it also has its very dangerous side. (There is a reason Enlightenment thought meshed quite well with colonialism and imperialism, and the War on Terror is fought in the name of “Western Civilization”).
Well, of course, but the problem I see is you are drawing hard and fast lines between “ethnocentrism” and “culture-centrism,” and “ethnic nationalism”, condemning the latter while vaguely (almost begrudingly) accepting the former. I don’t see things in quite such a clear-cut fashion.
As it is, the sociopolitical forces behind global environmental destruction ride atop universalist ideologies of “development” , “rationalism”, “progress”, and “civilization”.
.
I don’t consider the question of Palestinian self-determination to be abstract or academic, and I dare say, most Palestinians do not either. For many, it’s a life or death situation. You can’t get less abstract than that.
That’s really cute, Siberia, but I was quoting your rhetorical question:
‘What does Palestinian self-determination even mean?’
‘Do they have a right to self-determination?’
I wasn’t saying that Palestinian self-determination was in and of itself, academic at best.
I was saying that your lame ‘liberal Zionist’ posturings while parading as a non-Zionist from Timbuktu (no offense to Timbuktu, I just mean to use it in the phrase here since I’m American and so is this fraud) was instead.
Palestinians are the people of the land and are not immigrating from Brooklyn based on a religious law of return. They are not connected to the land based on mythology and warm and gushy feelings.
They were driven off physically and are still being driven off in the present so the colonial project isn’t over. So any discussion about their self-determination in that lame academic/abstract tone of yours is insulting and places them on the same moral footing as the colonists who usurped them.
Even if they had no national identity in the present, ‘the Palestinians’, or whoever LIVED THERE would still have a right to be treated fairly and justly and to return to their homes and lands.
I suggest you move to warmer climates or thaw out your common sense, Siberia.
I have no idea why you think I would disagree with that–I don’t–or why you feel you must state such obvious things. For some reason, you think I must be a “liberal zionist”. I’m not. I have no interest in zionism, and couldn’t care less if it disappeared for all time.
What it comes down to, apparently, is this: anyone who supports a two-state settlement is labeled a zionist of some sort by you (followed by various insults), and then you go on lecturing about Palestinian oppression from your high moral horse.
I don’t doubt that is a fine rhetorical strategy for you here in this forum. Whatever…
What you can’t seem to deal with, understandably, is that the majority of Palestinians, Palestinian organizations, and Palestinian representatives support a settlement based on two states, as do many folks in solidarity with those Palestinians.
I doesn’t do to call all these folks “liberal zionists”–but if you wish to keep up that name-calling, that’s your business.
Sibiriak,
1. If you want to choose a particular ethnic nationalist movement to support, be my guest. But no one else is under any obligation to join you. There is nothing intrinsically elevating about ethnic nationalism — it tends to be a selfish and grubby business. And, as I mentioned before, those inclined to ethnic nationalism are usually focused on promoting the best interests of their own ethnic groups.
2. “stages of development” sometimes matter — I prefer science and reason over religious superstition. I prefer civic nationalism over ethnic or religious nationalism.
3. Ethnocentrism and ethnic nationalism are in fact distinctly different phenomenon. For instance, I love Italian American culture (without being Italian myself) and am glad that Italian Americans keep it alive. But few Italian Americans are Italian nationalists — they are 100% American.
4. The Enlightenment is not responsible for the mindless pursuit of technological progress at the expense of the environment. The authentic Enlightenment spirit is highly self-critical and skeptical about itself — it doesn’t believe in blind progress. Anti-Enlightenment forces within the GOP (Tea Partiers, religious fundamentalists and ethnic nationalists) are, for instance, most responsible for the failure of American society to address the problem of climate change.
“Multiculturalism” works in America and elsewhere. And I share your approval of that model, by and large. However, I recognize that in other parts of the world, that model is not currently always feasible.
Again, back to Tibet. Ethno-religio-cultural nationalsim there grows out of and is inseparable from ethno-religio-cultural-centrism. (Sorry for the awkward words, but it really is a fusion of those three elements.) Chinese absorption of Tibet, and Han Chinese immigration there, threatens Tibetan cultural existence. This requires that Tibetan ethno-religio-cultural-centrism be translated into some form of nationalism, in the broader sense of the term, i.e., it requires a *politicization* of that ethno-religio-cultural centrism.
That’s true in other places as well. Indigenous peoples’ rights–i.e.,group ethno-cultural rights, not liberal-style individual rights–are also a form of (arguably) necessary politicization of ethno-cultural-centrism.
I share to a large extent your “authentic Enlightenment” values, but I’m wary of “the West” assuming the right to impose those values on all the peoples of the world, or worse, using those values to justify various forms of imperialism and exploitation.
I never said that the Enlightenment was “responsible” for the “mindless pursuit of technological progress”, but I think the connection between the two is a closer one than you think–evidenced by the fact that you felt the need to distinguish between “authentic” and “non-authentic” Enlightenment values.
Western Christianity had a world-dominating Spirit (fusing with the Roman world-empire) and when those religious values were gradually transmuted, first through the Protestant revolution, then through the a secular revolution, Western Rationalism did not negate that world-dominating Spirit, but rather brought it to an even higher form of universalism.
Again, let me repeat that none of the above is meant as a justification for Jewish zionism as it has played out in Palestine. I realize people are very battle-hardened in this forum, and jump on any whiff of “liberal zionism”, but that’s not what I am about. (And yes, I agree “liberal zionism” is an oxymoron.)
@ Nevada Ned:
Suppose that some group of Israeli Jews advocates peace and equality with the Palestinians. It is overwhelmingly likely that some of the of these Israeli Jews will consider themselves to be Zionists.
Equality and Zionism are a contradiction in terms. Ethnic nationalism is inherently unjust. Besides, the preservation of the “Jewish State” requires constant ethnic cleansing and the denial of the right of return.
Exactly. To fight to the death, deportation, or departure. This is what ending Zionism (Jewish self-determination in a Jewish supremacist state) *actually* would entail.
The most logical and candid anti-Zionists at this site make no bones about that.
For example, ColinWright says:
This, of course, is music to the ears of Israel’s extreme right-wing, justifying the mantra that “there is no solution to the conflict”, and justifying all manner of further ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
Siberiak says: ‘This, of course, is music to the ears of Israel’s extreme right-wing, justifying the mantra that “there is no solution to the conflict”, and justifying all manner of further ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.’
That’s one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that the commission of evil is required to permit Israel’s survival, and therefore Israel shouldn’t be permitted to survive.
Hitler’s notions of ‘Lebensraum,’ a racially pure community, etc weren’t particularly evil in and of themselves. Canada has ample ‘Lebensraum,’ and Korea is close to ethnically pure: in neither case is evil implicit in these facts. Had Germany been ethically pure to start with, and Eastern Europe uninhabited, he could have had at it.
However, as matters stood great evils were implicit in the concepts — and similarly with Israel. That Israel’s realization renders the commission of evil necessary is not an argument for the commission of these evils, but an argument against Israel. In fact, and to my mind, it is THE argument against Israel, and an entirely sufficient one.
It is not an evil thing if as a matter of fact a small population exists in a large territory or if most members of that population have the same ancestry. It is an evil thing if as a matter of principle a group claims that just because it wishes to maintain or expand its population levels it has a right to obtain more territory or if it places prohibitions on intermarriage or child-bearing relationships in order to maintain homogeneity of ancestry, or if painful and economically unjustified restrictions on immigration are imposed for the same reason.
Yes, that is the point, and a very important one.
Sibiriak: “To fight to the death, deportation, or departure. This is what ending Zionism (Jewish self-determination in a Jewish supremacist state) *actually* would entail.”
Wrong. Worse; distorted. The mainstream consensus among Palestinians has always been to recognize the right of citizenship by birth even if the parents were illegally immigrated. This, of course, is not carved in stone, considering the Israeli-driven, desperation-driven desecularization of what once was the Middle East’s most secular society.
As for the foreign-born illegal invaders, comfortable with their various other (and real) citizenship claims or automatic US and European hospitality, there is no reason for not at least discussing their status.
As for fighting to the death, that’s what the Zionist think they will do anyway, and that’s what the South African Whites were convinced they would be doing. When push comes to shove, however, things do change a lot.
None of these considerations are a reason for giving up any legitimate claim.
sardelapasti: You conveniently left out my critical
With that included, I believe my statement is correct. Many agree. Others disagree.
I don’t think Israeli zionists can or will change–not in the foreseeable future at least. Nor do I think the South African analogy holds in every aspect. There are major differences, as well as similarities, between the two situations. In the very long thing, of course, anything is possible. But in the meantime Palestinians continue to endure incredible oppression.
What, btw, does the “shove” you are referring to consist of? How will this “shove” materialize, and how will it force Israeli zionists to abandon the Israeli zionist dream in its entirety (not just in part). Please explain in detail.
.
Political realism is certainly a good reason to moderate one’s claims.
Many Palestinians think so. The overwhelming majority of Palestinians, Palestinian organizations, and Palestinian representatives support two-states and a settlement that will involve substantial moderation or abandonment of legitimate claims.
“or departure” is of course the essential part of it, by definition.
As for insisting on the rightful claims, that is always the program of anyone not playing cover for the Zionists. Whatever compromises some Palestinian persons or organizations feel that they may have to accept, whatever offers they put out to the only-refusing counterpart (so that all offers remain theoretical), there is no accepted or established leadership and the war is still raging on without absolutely any compromise from the enemy. Therefore, accepting these compromises as a given is the Zionists’ tactics. No one else’s.
As for asking for a definition of the exact form of what will happen in the future, excuse me for being impolite but you are ridiculous. The only thing that is increasingly certain now is that there will be a huge amount of unstoppable violence.
You have it assbackwards, I’m afraid. It is the zionists’ tactics to refuse compromise, not the Palestinians. A two-state settlement based on 1967 borders (roughly) etc. has never been “a given” by Zionist Israel. Never. Israel will never willingly accept such compromises–they will have to be *forced* into them, and that will not be easy at all–but a lot easier than trying to force Israel to abandon the zionist dream entirely via a 1SS.
What a colossal cop out. I never asked for a “definition of the exact form of what will happen in the future”! That’s a total strawman.
YOU claimed that Israel could be forced into abandoning the zionist dream in its entirety and I simply asked how.
I see you have absolutely no idea at all.
That certainly lends credence to the view that forcing a two-state settlement on Israel is far more realistic than simply hoping that zionism will just somehow disappear in the future without being able to describe ANY imaginable scenario by which that will happen.
No, not “some”. The overwhelming majority. And it is their right to propose compromises, don’t you think?
Distorting and confusing everything. Compromises can only be made by a Palestinian leadership when there will be one. The offers made until now have not been met, so they are invalid until a new round of talks is forced by major changes. The rightful claims, mind you, are still pre-1948. Any amount of in-between compromises can only be discussed by the Palestinian leadership at the time of negotiating depending on the strength of their position at that time, and even then the leadership will generally not have the right to forswear any claims when making compromises at that time. It is certainly not up to some Americans, Russians, or Zionists or “non-Zionist” other strangers to start recommending to cancel rightful claims, when no situation is there yet to lend compelling strength to the negotiating positions. In fact, they are only reinforcing Zionist occupation.
If by Zionism we mean a large (pre-existing) Jewish presence in Green Line Israel, I think it’s doable. If we mean encouraging more people to make “aliyah”, and attempts to change the country’s demographics, I don’t think that’s viable. I don’t see how it would help Israel either, frankly, given the generally low quality of people who make aliyah, and the fact that the country is already crowded and expensive.
@Sibiriak As has been noted before on this forum, most “liberal zionists” give lip service to a 2 state solution to make themselves look good, but don’t actually work towards achieving one. They spend the majority of their time doing hasbara and Israel advocacy.
Chinese box: “As has been noted before on this forum, most “liberal zionists” give lip service to a 2 state solution to make themselves look good, but don’t actually work towards achieving one..”
Hold it there. Why shouldn’t zionists work for a 2-state solution? It is the only way to really keep alive Zionism; gives them the opportunity of having their cake (occupation and theft of another’s land) and eating it too (official recognition so they get away with the crime and get to keep bith the stolen land AND their racist supremacist monster.) True, most Zionists ask for more but that’s just a divergence among different levels of crazy.
Excellent point.
Hold it there. Why shouldn’t zionists work for a 2-state solution?
I never said they shouldn’t work for it, I said most of them give lip service to it while doing absolutely nothing to bring it about.
My point is that the so-called “2-state solution” is a Zionist solution and the only Zionist solution that would allow them to get away with their crimes. The fact that some religious or nationalists on the Palestinian side agree to it doesn’t change its nature.
A two-state settlement is supported by both Zionists and non-Zionists. You have to look at both sides of the equation.
No, further ethnic cleansing and the maintenance of the Israeli Zionist state will also allow them to get away with their crimes.
You are assuming there is no worse possibility than a two state settlement (which , by the way, does not have to be the end of the story.)
You also are assuming that all crimes can be punished, and that anything short of full punishment is always unacceptable. The world rarely works that way, unfortunately.
The overwhelming majority–not “some”–are nationalists and do agree to it.
And letting that majority decide what they want to agree to is what Palestinian self-determination is all about.
The two state solution was a good idea — 30 or 40 years ago.
Other people on this forum have made the point (which I happen agree with) that Zionists only started claiming support for a two state solution in the past few years because they know there’s almost zero chance of it being implemented at this point. They were against it back when it was an actual possibility.
sardelapasti says: ‘Hold it there. Why shouldn’t zionists work for a 2-state solution? It is the only way to really keep alive Zionism..’
Indeed. Fortunately, most Zionists don’t recognize that.
But because it is in the objective interests of Zionists qua Zionists to support a two-state solution, it follows that it is quite possible that they could be brought (forced) to recognize that fact– which draws into question the notion that a two-state settlement has become “impossible”.
Something depends on how we understand ‘Zionism’ and the various ‘solutions’. I keep saying, perhaps too often, that I take Zio to mean the belief that Jewish people, and they only, have an inherent right to a share in sovereignty over the Holy Land or such subset that they may choose – others having a share only by the grace and generosity of the true heirs. At the moment Zio has triumphed to the point where the Jewish minority is completely dominant from river to sea.
1ss would mean that generosity had been exercised to the point where all residents were enfranchised, 2ss would mean that certain areas had excluded from the chosen subset of the Holy Land. In evaluating Zio we must not forget the ‘generosity clause’: Jewish people are expected to be humane and generous and the Zio project is for everyone’s good (a point strongly made in Judenstaat.)
Still, 1ss seems to negate Zio, to envisage a generosity that would kill the ideology: a claim to exclusive rights is negated if rights are spread so generously that nobody relevant really gets excluded.
2ss looks better if we are searching for compromise and seems to tie in with the extreme reluctance, pervasive in Zio, to define the borders of the Land. But this is all a deceptive appearance. Zio does permit Jewish people to decide, in generosity or in self-interest, not to take some of the Land, that is to share. But a mere decision to share, made in the circumstances of a time, cannot outweigh the rights of Jewish people to the whole Land, which cannot be shared and are eternal. Thus while Zio is in force any Palestinian polity could exist only precariously, on sufferance – and therefore could never be a fellow sovereign state.
I’m sure most Zionists wish that they, nice guys that they are, could finish the dispute by drawing a 2ss line somewhere, but they can’t. Their real policy has, whatever their wishes, to envisage a set of Palestinian enclaves which will in good time – we’re talking centuries – and as humanely as possible – of course! – be cleared, beginning with the smallest and moving on. That’s why the negotiations have always been a sham. There are parallel reasons why the Palestinians too must find it very difficult to negotiate in good faith.
So I don’t think that the 2ss is particularly practical or realistic while the power of Zionism is so overwhelming and irresistible, which it will continue to be for the foreseeable future. What a shame that such a powerful idea is so mistaken.
Sibiriak says: ‘But because it is in the objective interests of Zionists qua Zionists to support a two-state solution, it follows that it is quite possible that they could be brought (forced) to recognize that fact– which draws into question the notion that a two-state settlement has become “impossible”.’
Well, one has to distinguish between what is physically possible and what is psychologically possible.
Of course with enough mental rewiring there’s no reason Israel and Palestine couldn’t exist side by side. Norway and Sweden exist side by side just fine. So do Portugal and Spain. The Czech Republic and Slovakia. Etc.
But nations are all in people’s heads to begin with. Ultimately, the psychological reality is the only relevant reality. And given the psychological reality in Palestine, I don’t think there’s much likelihood of the equivalent happening there.
I agree completely regarding the primacy of psychological reality in regards to Israel/Palestine.
However, what I don’t get is the notion that the same psychological reality which makes a two-state settlement unlikely, doesn’t also make a 1SS even less likely by a huge margin.
If that psychological reality is so deep-rooted as to be fundamentally inalterable in the foreseeable future, it follows that Israel will have to be pressured or forced into making any concessions to Palestinian nationalism or any moderation (let alone abandonment) of its Jewish supremacism and territorial expansionism.
It further follows, that if Israel must be pressured or forced into making political/territorial changes, it will be substantially easier to force Israel to abandon a portion of the Zionist dream–by permitting the creation of some kind of Palestinian state or quasi -state in the West Bank/Gaza–than to force Israel to abandon the the entirety of the Zionist dream.
You have written:
My response:
1) It would be more feasible to force Israel into abandoning a portion of the settlements in the West Bank than to force Israel to make political changes that effectively would mean the end of zioinism in Israel, the end of the Israeli state (it’s name; its flag; its political, economic, social, cultural and demographic structure; etc.), and the creation of a Palestinian state in its place.
2) Of course, it can be argued that the more difficult course is the morally superior one and therefore should be taken over any easier course that leaves any portion of Zionism intact.
The problem is: I still haven’t seen any convincing description of how exactly (apart from military defeat and occupation) Israel can be forced “to make political changes” which would be suicidal for Zionism, given the intractable psychological reality you describe above.
Writes Phil: I’m all for the New Israel Fund’s work on minority rights inside Israel
How great. Still I expect a “but” …
… and yes, here it is: but it must be pointed out that it’s a Zionist organization:
Phil, stop trusting Zionists. Even up only halfway. Exactly there is where you get lost – or worse.
I am more optimistic about transformational potential of Israel. I think that in a nutshell, Israel has a mentality of a small nation, hence it does not have any global or long-term vision, instead the idea is to push as far as it can get away with it.
Copy the sanctions imposed on Iran, and then see if Israel can abandon all settlements created after 1967 etc.
As long as USA is an enthusiastic enabler and EU follows the enabling because they do not care, no solution is possible. And if USA becomes enforcer for some modicum of justice, everything is possible.
I tend to agree. In any case, by whatever means massive pressure on Israel can be achieved, it still stands to reason that it will be vastly easier to force Israel to abandon post-1967 settlements than it will be to force Israel to abandon Zionism in its entirety.
RE: “Next week Ethan Bronner, a NY Times reporter who till recently was the Jerusalem bureau chief for the newspaper, is speaking about ‘My Israel’ and his transformative experience with respect to the country, and the $75 donation goes to the New Israel Fund.” ~ Weiss
MY COMMENT: I suppose NIF is a fairly worthwhile cause despite Richard Silverstein’s commentary below*.
I wonder if Ethan Bronner’s ‘My Israel’ presentation will include his feelings about having lived for several years in a house in West Jerusalem that was “abandoned” during the Nabka by a Palestinian family that had to flee their “big house” for the “outhouse” (a reverse Jesse Jackson-ism) as Zionist militias occupied western Jerusalem’s Arab neighborhoods in 1948.
Enquiring mimes want to know. Really, we do! Honestly.
SEE: “Tom Friedman oversaw NYT’s purchase of J’lem house with Nakba legacy”, by Philip Weiss, Mondoweiss, 3/02/10
SOURCE – link to mondoweiss.net
* ALSO SEE: “New Israel Fund Honors ‘New Generation’ of Israeli Social Justice Activists, No Arabs Need Apply”, by Richard Silverstein, Tikun Olam, 10/24/11
ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to richardsilverstein.com
“I’m not a Zionist or anti-Zionist.”
So I take it that means she would view with indifference the continuation or the termination of Israel as a Jewish state.
Why do I suspect she’d object to this formulation?
So I take it that means she would view with indifference the continuation or the termination of Israel as a Jewish state.
Yes, that would be the only logical conclusion. However, indifference doesn’t exactly make a good journalist. If she doesn’t care, why is she there?
Why do I suspect she’d object to this formulation?
I agree. She must have an opinion on this and should inform her readers. This would contribute to her credibility.
Neither here nor there, but worth mentioning…I guess I’ll stick it here.
Haaretz just demonstrated that people in glass houses can throw stones.
“Football fan verbally assaults Vienna rabbi while police look on.”
There are certain countries where people are beaten and left for dead while the police look on.
Very interesting, Colin.
link to haaretz.com
A fan insulted him and greeted him with “Heil Hitler,” his arm raised in a Nazi salute, he charge. The rabbi said he asked police officers who were watching from a few meters away to intervene, but they just said: “Come on, it’s a football night.”
The salute was clearly not okay. However, I wonder whether the other insults were actually anti-Semitic or merely anti-Zionist. Besides, if the rabbi is a Zionist, then why is he offended by an ethnic nationalist salute?
GL,
Do you think it more likely that the football fans accompanied their “Sieg Heil” to someone they would seem to have identified as a Jew, with anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist “insults”? And just for the sake of argument, let’s say they shouted “Heil Hitler. Get the hell out of Palestine!” Would the context of the Nazi salute, their identification of the rabbi (merely as a Jew), not make even an anti-Zionist remark anti-Semitic, at least in intent?
As for the rabbi being a Zionist, that may or may not be the case, but that would not appear to be the reason he was assaulted or the nature of the assault. Again, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that he is a Zionist, even an extreme, settler-Zionist. It would be perfectly natural for him to object to other ethnic nationalisms – especially those that target his own ethno-religious group. There is probably a good reason no one has ever managed to create an ethnic-nationalist “International”.
@ Shmuel:
Do you think it more likely that the football fans accompanied their “Sieg Heil” to someone they would seem to have identified as a Jew, with anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist “insults”?
I think that anti-Semitic insults are certainly more likely. However, as it is not reported what exactly was said, I can only speculate.
Would the context of the Nazi salute, their identification of the rabbi (merely as a Jew), not make even an anti-Zionist remark anti-Semitic, at least in intent?
No. Zionist Jews constantly associate Jews with Israel and this is considered perfectly fine. As long as that’s the case, there is no reason to label non-Jews “anti-Semites” when they make exactly the same association. I can’t stand double standards.
Let’s assume that he is a Zionist. It would be perfectly natural for him to object to other ethnic nationalisms – especially those that target his own ethno-religious group.
Nope. It’s all or nothing. Either you approve of ethnic nationalism or you don’t. You need to make up your mind. No double standards. Besides, it is a really bad idea to support an ideology that could be used against you.
As long as that’s the case, there is no reason to label non-Jews “anti-Semites” when they make exactly the same association.
Unless of course they’re reaching for the sky with outstretched palms and shouting “Heil Hitler” at the same time. That’s a bit of a giveaway.
Either you approve of ethnic nationalism or you don’t. You need to make up your mind. No double standards.
Ethnic nationalists, by definition, harbour double standards.
@ Shmuel:
Unless of course they’re reaching for the sky with outstretched palms and shouting “Heil Hitler” at the same time. That’s a bit of a giveaway.
Not necessarily. Just because someone does a Nazi salute doesn’t mean that he follows this ideology. Perhaps the guy was just mocking ethnic nationalism in general and trying to express that Jews are doing now what Aryans did in the past. As I stated previously, I wasn’t there and therefore don’t know what was said and how the salute was meant. Anyway, the salute is illegal and that’s why there’s no justification for doing it.
Ethnic nationalists, by definition, harbour double standards.
Ha, ha. That’s undoubtedly true.
Perhaps the guy was just mocking ethnic nationalism in general and trying to express that Jews are doing now what Aryans did in the past.
Do you really think so? We’re not talking existential philosophers here. We’re talking football thugs.
@ Shmuel:
Do you really think so?
No, of course not. I just try to consider all possibilities.
“Verbally assaults?
Who but a Jew could said to be VERBALLY assaulted and have the story make the newspaper? With the headline noting that the police looked on? Imagine that. Someone arguing with a Jew and not being immediately arrested. Now that is anti-semitism
@ Boston:
I think that the main problem here is the Nazi salute. It is illegal in Germany and Austria. Therefore, it would have been the duty of the police officers to do something.
link to en.wikipedia.org
link to en.wikipedia.org
You can think of the ban whatever you want, but law is law and the police officers are paid to enforce it. The fact that they didn’t do their job is indeed a scandal. Perhaps they thought something along the lines of: “Jews don’t bother about Palestinians. So, why should we bother about Jews?”
Perhaps they thought something along the lines of: “Jews don’t bother about Palestinians. So, why should we bother about Jews?”
I think you’re projecting. More likely they thought “Come on, it’s a football night.” (as they actually said) and (to themselves) “is this really worth the paperwork?”
@ Shmuel:
I think you’re projecting.
No, no. I am not projecting. I am not the kind of person who lumps all Jews together. As I have already stated several times on MW, I don’t believe in collective guilt or collective punishment, because that’s unfair.
The police officers must have had either a negative attitude towards Jews or must have been indifferent to Jews. Otherwise, they would NEVER have ignored this incident. A football match or additional paperwork alone doesn’t explain such a behaviour, at least not in Germany or Austria.
You have to consider that our police is not the US police. Police officers here are better trained and usually act more responsibly.
GL,
I meant projecting your concern for Palestinians. I really doubt that Palestine was on the minds of the policemen in question.
As well-trained as Austrian policemen may be, policemen all over the world make judgement calls about what to deal with and how to deal with it. The likeliest explanation for their behaviour is that they did not believe this incident was worth pursuing. It was a football night (as they said) – fans drinking and letting off steam, with the possibility of things deteriorating beyond a Nazi salute and some insults. Of course they might have been neo-Nazis, chests swelling with pride, wanting to see the little Jew get what he deserved, but I doubt it. As you say, they are professionals.
I would also bet that (like in Italy – despite the obvious differences between the countries), fascist/nazi salutes and racist insults are an integral part of football fandom, and are almost always ignored, because the police and courts have bigger fish to fry. The difference this time was that someone protested. Should they have done something after having received a complaint? Of course, but they were probably just trying to let it slide, as they do after every match.
@ Shmuel:
I meant projecting your concern for Palestinians.
Oh, I see.
Of course they might have been neo-Nazis, chests swelling with pride, wanting to see the little Jew get what he deserved, but I doubt it. As you say, they are professionals.
Apparently, we are totally misunderstanding each other. I wasn’t trying to say that the police officers might have been neo-Nazis. I wanted to express that their dislike for or indifference to “Jews” could have been caused by the actions of the “Jewish State”.
I would also bet that fascist/nazi salutes and racist insults are an integral part of football fandom
Yes, they are. When the topic of anti-Semitism is discussed on TV, then football matches are ALWAYS given as example. Why that? Probably because except for football matches you hardly find examples of anti-Semitism in Germany.
“You can think of the ban whatever you want, but law is law and the police… . Perhaps they thought something along the lines of: “Jews don’t bother about Palestinians. So, why should we bother about Jews?””…lefty
That is the growing attitude….. and it’s understandable if not commendable.
GL
We all know that anything forbidden is more enticing and stays in memory longer. The german law forbidding the nazi salute, the swastica and other symbols will not prevent people from following that route, if they are inclined to be nazis.
I can understand the reason, however we are 67 years and two full generations later, it is time to be more relaxed on the subject.
@ Theo:
We all know that anything forbidden is more enticing and stays in memory longer. The german law forbidding the nazi salute, the swastica and other symbols will not prevent people from following that route, if they are inclined to be nazis.
Right.
I can understand the reason, however we are 67 years and two full generations later, it is time to be more relaxed on the subject.
Um, no. Actually, I like the fact that hate speech and symbols of hatred are forbidden in Germany. However, I wish the law would be applied consistenly to all forms of ethnic nationalism. I find the flag of Zionist Israel almost as offensive as the flag of Nazi Germany.
Classic slippery slope situation. Freedom of expression means nothing unless it means freedom to express something offensive to others.
@ Sibiriak:
Freedom of expression means nothing unless it means freedom to express something offensive to others.
Right. I didn’t express myself properly. Whether I am personally offended or not is actually irrelevant. Speech or symbols are only considered hate speech or symbols of hatred if they are objectively hateful, e.g. if they represent oppression, persecution or a lack of equal rights.
The concept “objectively hateful” is very problematic, imo.
Many people are of the opinion, for example, that all forms of socialism (not to mention communism) are hateful and represent persecution, oppression and a lack of equal rights. Should the hammer and sickle symbol be outlawed, for example? What about images of Che? Mao?
I still think all “hate speech” and similar laws are a very slippery slope.
Surely the characteristic of hate speech is not that it is hateful but that it expresses hatred, presumably undeserved hatred, of someone or something. But the presupposition here is that some ideas, those expressing undeserved hatred, thoroughly deserve to be hated, and that those who stand for these ideas deserve at least some very harsh and to them offensive language. So everything depends on whether the hatred is deserved in the particular case. So we aren’t talking about keeping all discourse civilised and reasonable but about giving the good guys an advantage in discourse, since they are permitted to use much more extreme words, than is permitted to the baddies. Rather analogous to Just War theory.
“…Speech or symbols are only considered hate speech or symbols of hatred if they are objectively hateful, e.g. if they represent oppression, persecution or a lack of equal rights.”
Now what if I find it oppressive to be denied the right to express myself as I see fit? Why should anyone else have the right to decide what opinions I may or may not express and how I may express them?
This continues, too. Should I insist on expressing opinions that others have decided I may not express, I will shortly find myself being persecuted.
Once I am persecuted for expressing opinions that others have decided are unacceptable, whilst others are permitted to express opinions which happen to be considered acceptable, then I am being denied rights equal to others. They have opinions which are considered acceptable, and so they can express them. My opinions are considered unacceptable, and so I may not express them.
So it seems to me that laws designed to prevent the expression of views that can be construed to advocate ‘oppression, persecution, or a lack of equal rights’ are themselves likely to lead to ‘oppression, persecution, and a lack of equal rights.’
Let us, for example, consider eating dogs. This is done in many parts of the world: you can see baskets of puppies being carried to market in Viet Nam.
Happily, Vietnamese immigrants here in the US have the good taste to not insist on a right to publicly slaughter and eat puppies — but let’s suppose they did insist on such a right. Would it not then be ‘hate speech’ to insist that they be denied this right? After all, many of us eat all kinds of often rather cute animals as a matter of course — why shouldn’t they? And even if you are prepared to grant them the right to do this, is it really right to deny others the right to inveigh against it? After all, even if the opponents of eating puppies use the most moderate of language, they are unquestionably seeking to deny Vietnamese the right to eat or not eat the animals of their choice just like the rest of us. Should they not therefore be silenced?
In point of fact, the sort of rationale you use to circumscribe free speech has been employed. Free speech was always guaranteed in the Soviet Union — as long as it wasn’t ‘counter-revolutionary.’ And that seems like a perfectly reasonable limitation on the face of it — but we all know where that went.
In fact, limitations on free speech have always been imposed for what those imposing the limitations considered good and sufficient reason. You oppose ‘oppression, injustice, and the denial of equal rights’ — so it seems right and proper to you to deny people the right to advocate such things. The revolutionary Communists were sure that it was right to deny people the right to advocate counter-revolution. In medieval Europe, it was heresy to deny the Trinity. The Romans punished those who would deny that Caesar was a god. What’s the difference? That their views were erroneous but yours are correct?
I don’t think it’s a good idea to curb free speech in any way at all. I’d rather put up with the loonie yelling in the supermarket parking lot and be assured that I can do the same if I feel so inclined than have the situation be the reverse. In fact, most notions that have improved the human condition started out as heresy of one kind or another. Once you start banning whatever you find unacceptable, you are well on your way to attempting to ban change.
Colin
“Free speech was always guaranteed in the SU”……
Really, where did you get this wise information?
Just for your info if you just voiced a joke about the party or one of the big shots you could expect a midnight visit from the secret police and you would end up in a gulag or its counterpart in eastern european countries!!
Usually the family had no information of the whereabout that funny person and if they insisted they were told “if you don´t keep your mouth shut you will end up where he is!”
The quotation is from an actual report from a person who had the pleasure to live in such a paradise and whose brother just vanished after being arrested.
So you don´t feel too smug:
HS already has several internation camps all over the country, able to take tens of thousands of persons, in case someone tells a joke about a party or politician. Although we are not yet there, however the stage is ready.
This comes from the common values with the zionists, in Israel such camps exist since decades.
I second Sibiriak,
either you have a freedom of speech or you don´t have it. If you start selecting what may or may not be said or shown, then who will do the selection?
@ Sibiriak, MHughes976, ColinWright, Theo:
Sigh. I am in the minority again. You people just don’t understand the German mindset and our desire for regulation…
Your arguments remind me of something a conservative politician recently said. Currently, we have a discussion about equal rights for LGB people in Germany, i.e. marriage equality and full adoption rights. A Christian Democratic politician made some really outrageous statements about LGB people and spoke out against equality.
link to thelocal.de
When the LGB community and other equal rights supporters fired back at the politician, she replied: “Apparently, those who demand tolerance from others are the least tolerant of all.”
link to queer.de
Now, that’s a total distortion of the meaning of the word “tolerance”. I once read this great comment regarding tolerance: “Toleranz endet bei mir dort, wo ich mit Toleranz Intoleranz fördere.” (My tolerance ends at the point where my being tolerant would promote intolerance.) I mean, you can’t expect me to tolerate the fact that conservative people want to deny me equal rights. This would be like calling slaves in the former Southern States intolerant for not agreeing to their inferior status.
What I am trying to say is that there is a difference between ordinary opinion and hate speech. I find it hard to explain the difference, but it’s there. There’s a limit to freedom of speech, just like tolerance has its limit.
However, what actually bothers me is that hate speech laws are not applied equally. A few days ago, I watched a political talk show about LGB rights. It was very painful to watch. Just the fact that such a discussion is considered necessary makes me want to puke. Should LGB people have equal rights? Imagine that someone in Germany questioned whether Jews deserve equal rights. Such a person would immediately be called an anti-Semite, slammed by the media, charged with hate speech, and possibly fired from his job. Why is there such a double standard? Jews as well as gay people were victims of the Holocaust.
The problem is: who decides in particular cases? Once the mechanism is set up to punish “hate speech”, that mechanism can easily be abused.
For example:
link to electronicintifada.net
Theo says: ““Free speech was always guaranteed in the SU”……
Really, where did you get this wise information?
Just for your info if you just voiced a joke about the party or one of the big shots…”
That was exactly my point. Free speech was always guaranteed — except for counter-revolutionary speech, of course.
And I see laws against ‘hate speech’ as just another riff on this. Free speech has always been legal in all societies — except for (blank). It’s ultimately secondary whether the (blank) is heresy, criticism of the royal family, counter-revolutionary propaganda, or ‘hate speech.’
The enforcers are always with us. And they’re always quite sure they’re right. Some things never change.
German Lefty says: “@ Sibiriak, MHughes976, ColinWright, Theo:
Sigh. I am in the minority again. You people just don’t understand the German mindset and our desire for regulation…”
From the point of an American sensibility, it’s really more of a general Northern European thing. I find the British, French, Dutch, and Scandanavian definition of ‘freedom’ all something entirely different from what I would prefer here.
Here, building codes are seen as something of an unwarranted imposition.
Speech or symbols are only considered hate speech or symbols of hatred if they are objectively hateful, e.g. if they represent oppression, persecution or a lack of equal rights.
There is no such thing as an “objectively hateful” symbol. Symbols, by their very nature, are subjective. You can have wide, near-universal agreement as to a meaning of a symbol (as with language, which is simply a complex suite of symbols), but that is different than an objective determination as to meaning.
A perfect example would be the Confederate Battle Flag. It is clearly a symbol of hate to many, many, many, many people. But I am told that it is also a sign of regional pride free of hate.
I’m with you, Colin, on the free speech thing, but I can’t get on board for this fetish in the US about sensible regulations. It’s such a pervasively bad and harmful thing and it is preventing us from progressing. It really makes me sick to recognize that American’s biggest problem is this sense of entitlement.
@ Sibiriak, Colin & Woody:
I know that hate speech laws can be misinterpreted and misused. However, I still consider proper hate speech laws useful.
Another example that comes to my mind are laws against sexual harassment. I have already heard several times that in the USA the laws against sexual harassment at work are so strict that men don’t even dare to flirt with a female co-worker they like, because they are afraid of sexual harassment charges. So, does that mean that laws against sexual harassment should be abolished entirely or just that they need to be improved? There are grey areas with most things that are banned by law. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the entire law is useless.
The difference beween the two are that sexual harrassment laws are designed to address actions taken against a specific person. Hate speech laws aren’t. They merely address “wrongful” thinking. I would rather not give anyone the power to decide which of my thoughts are permitted to be spoken.
the question isn’t whether or not one is a jewish or any other sort of nationalist but on whose side, the slave or the slaveowner, the oppressed or the oppressor, the occupied or the occupier.
@ yourstruly:
Huh? A Jewish nationalist would never side with the Palestinian citizens of Israel.
which shows on which side of the great and deciding divide the jewish nationalist lies
There they are together again “liberal” and “zionist” like trying to mix oil with water.
“liberal” and “zionist” like trying to mix oil with water
Great analogy, Kathleen.
“always sensed that Bronner was a zionist” “sensed” obvious in everything he wrote about the middle east
Kathleen says ““always sensed that Bronner was a zionist” “sensed” obvious in everything he wrote about the middle east.”
Hear hear. I quickly learned never to read one of his articles immediately after eating.