The late sociologist Daniel Bell
Gil Troy has an appalling piece up at Open Zion attacking Mahmoud Abbas for his UN speech last week: Abbas “plunged Palestinians and Israelis into round after round of the delegitimization derby.”
There is no question that many critics of Israel have sought to delegitimize it. And the US has pledged again and again to fight that delegitimization.
But why does Troy assume and assert that delegitimization is wrong? What if the delegitimization discourse is actually a reflection of a society’s loss of legitimacy? Maybe honest intellectuals should delegitimize Israel.
I defer to the late and renowned sociologist Daniel Bell, whose book The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism was a meditation on the domestic upheavals in the U.S. during the 1970s– and the ability of the American society to withstand these crises. Bell said that the U.S. was “unstable” because the combination of the Vietnam war and lousy conditions for blacks had “led to rising domestic violence, the alienation of youth, and the growing challenge to the legitimacy of the system among the intelligentsia and the leadership cadres of the young.”
This loss of legitimacy could “precipitate… revolution.”
Bell offers an explicit guide to delegitimization in his book; and I think Israel clearly fails his legitimacy test. So let me quote and interpolate some Israel/Palestine analogies.
“The key question for any political system… is the legitimacy of the system. As S.M. Lipset has written, ‘Legitimacy involves the capacity of the system to engender and maintain the belief that the existing political institutions are the most appropriate ones for the society….[L]egitimacy is evaluative. Groups regard a political system as legitimate or illegitimate according to the way in which its values fit with theirs.’”
Does anyone think that a political hierarchy that only includes Jews but that governs the lives of more than 4 million Palestinians is appropriate in this day and age? Can you blame Palestinians and young American lib-lefters for seeing no legitimacy in such an arrangement? Back to Bell:
“If one looks at Western political society in the twentieth century, one can identify at least seven factors which, in varying combinations, have resulted in the social instability of the society and the consequent loss of legitimacy for the political system
(1) The existence of an ‘insoluble problem’
The first thing you hear when you get to Israel is about the “matsav,” the neverending conflict. It’s insoluble.
(2) The existence of a parliamentary impasse
This could well apply to the all-Jewish coalition that Israeli leaders govern with, and which the ultrareligious have such power in. And meantime, Palestinian voting rates– those who can vote, anyway– drop below 50 percent.
(3) The growth of private violence. In Germany, and in other countries, the creation of private ‘armies’ and the growth of open street violence, uncontrolled by the government, led to the breakdown of authority.
The settler militias, to start with. And I guess Palestinian armed factions too.
(4) The disjunction of sectors. Rapid industrialization in some areas and a larg-scale agricultural lag in others have led to continuing instability.
Drive from the West Bank into Israel and you see two completely different economies. And Gaza is flat on its tailbone, and almost entirely agricultural.
(5) Multi-racial or multi-tribal conflicts.
Do I really need to interpolate?
(6) The alienation of the intelligentsia. The cultural elites carry the integrative symbols of the society, and the disenchantment of these groups has been a feature of almost every revolutionary situation…
Gideon Levy and Noam Sheizaf aren’t buying their own government’s lies, and they’re the best Israeli society has to offer. Many privileged people are getting passports. The leadership cadres and the intelligentsia– hundreds of thousands of educated Israelis are working in the US and Europe.
(7) Humiliation in war.
Well I don’t think that applies here…. But the point stands. Israel has deep structural problems involving the fact that half the people it governs don’t consent to their government. Young Israelis and the intelligentsia are aware of that. To survive, Israel can’t demand legitimacy from Gil Troy and Barack Obama; it must obtain legitimacy in the eyes of a bright young leader like Abir Kopty, the Nazareth politician who is now a coordinator of the popular struggle committee. Kopty isn’t buying. Just look at the adage at the top of her site: “You will never be free until you respect the freedom of others.” No one can shut out that message. Israel really must look to her (and not Zionists in the U.S.) to preserve its future.
P.S. Troy’s piece is being roundly mocked by Scott Roth, deservedly.
Gil Troy and other Zionists don’t seem to understand that it is their actions and their actions alone which de-legitimize the Zionist entity. If Israel was a real democracy with the rule of law and true equality for all its citizens and subjects(including all the displaced subjects) then nobody could successfully argue that Israel was illegitimate.
“then nobody could successfully argue that Israel was illegitimate.”
Nonsense. Most people do. Apart from being a racial supremacist state it is a state proclaimed by colonial conqueror-settlers on other people’s land, and thus void and illegitimate by definition. As for the “recognition”of that statehood of the thieves by the colonial powers, they can shove it.
Of course it is illegitimate, and there is absolutely no need to “delegitimize”, which as a propaganda word used by the Zionist riff-raff is designed to try and suggest that there was anything legitimate about the shitty little pirate kingdom in the first place.
braciole October 5, 2012 at 9:59 am
“If Israel was a real democracy with the rule of law and true equality for all its citizens and subjects(including all the displaced subjects) then nobody could successfully argue that Israel was illegitimate.”
Perhaps few ‘would’ be arguing against the notion. Alas, Israel hasn’t adhered to its obligations under International Law per the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel for 64 years. Even lying its way into the UN and now, with the US veto protecting it, Israel continues to break the UN Charter and Law. While there is a veto vote preventing Israel from facing the consequences of the Law and UN Charter, it can’t even be booted out of the UN. However, Israel’s illegal, fragile shelled, eggs are all in the one basket.
Phil writes about an intrinsic measure of illegitimacy in a society, the society’s internal troubles (contradictions?).
But it takes a long times for a society (here, Israel’s) to see its own society as illegitimate. I won’t hold my breath. Israel is not falling on its own sword, is not hoist on its own petard. (Sadly.)
And anyway, the announcement of Israel’s illegitimacy comes from outside, on the whole.
One’s view of what is legitimate or illegitimate depend on whose ox is being gored. The “haves” and “have-nots” will naturally tend to see things differently. Israel (or USA) may seem legitimate to those who perceive themselves as prospering under their systems, but illegitimate to those who perceive themselves as losers or who sympathize with losers.
To a criminal, his own practice of robbery is legitimate because he gains. Israel, on this view, probably seems legitimate to Israelis (and to the USA politicians under AIPAC’s thumb and supported, or not opposed, by AIPAC). The Palestinians who suffer the brunt of the robbery naturally see Israel as Illegitimate, as do their friends and friends of international law, human rights, etc.
But rather than talk legitimacy, why not talk remedies? The judge does not tell the robber he is illegitimate. No, he says, “You violated these laws and deserve ten years in jail”.
So, too, we should not say that Israel is illegitimate, but describe what Israel has done that violates law or morals and demand change. We might, just possibly, describe lawlessness as immoral and – gasp – illegitimate.
In other words, the discussion of legitimacy or not is nothing other than a diversion from the crimes of a State(s).
Is losing legitimacy?….I think Israel already lost it.
I think the assumption upon gaining statehood is that legitimacy is eternal. Israel thought that justified everything. Very wrong.
@seafoid
Legitimacy may not be eternal with statehood, but it has a rather good track record. Germany is almost whole again, ruling over Europe to an extent it could never achieve previously.
What nonsense are you talking BRUCE, about unified Germany’s legitimacy – compared to Israel’s?
—————————-
- Unified Germany wasn’t establised by diaspora Germans who claimed a ‘biblical and historical right’ to the territory. – Israel is unique in doing so.
Did the Gypsies (or any other diaspora people) ever claim a ‘right of return’ to India and uproot the local people there? That’s unique Zionist nonsense.
@Klaus Bloemker
I’m talking about the remarks in the thread, Klaus.
seafoid wrote, “I think the assumption upon gaining statehood is that legitimacy is eternal. Israel thought that justified everything. Very wrong.”
I replied “Legitimacy may not be eternal with statehood, but it has a rather good track record.” I.e., that very few, if any, states have had their statehood declared illegitimate and hence null and void once granted statehood, especially in the modern era in which the concept of the “granting of statehood” has meaning.
In the case of Israeli statehood, the UN GA approved partition. The Arab states declared that the UN by its own rules did not have the right to approve “partition against the wishes of the majority of its inhabitants.” I happen to agree with the Arab position, but at the time, the UN GA defeated an Arab proposal to refer the GA’s competency in the matter to the ICJ. After the Israeli Declaration of Independence, numerous states recognized the state of Israel. That is what is needed for legitimation of one’s declaration of statehood, recognition.
In the Declaration of Independence, a “biblical and historical right” to the territory was not proclaimed. The justification for the state was more carefully couched and included, “The catastrophe which recently befell the Jewish people—the massacre of millions of Jews in Europe—was another clear demonstration of the urgency of solving the problem of its homelessness by re-establishing in Israel the Jewish State, which would open the gates of the homeland wide to every Jew and confer upon the Jewish people the status of a fully privileged member of the community of nations. Survivors of the Nazi Holocaust in Europe, as well as Jews from other parts of the world, continued to migrate to Israel, undaunted by difficulties, restrictions and dangers, and never ceased to assert their right to a life of dignity, freedom and honest toil in their national homeland.”
I’m not sure whether seafroid meant in his original comment that “Israel is mistaken if it thinks that all its actions would be considered legitimate once it had statehood” or whether he meant “Once it gained statehood, Israel believed it would have it forever.” I’m not sure Israel believed the first assertion, but if this is what seafood meant I agree. If seafroid meant the latter, I would say Israel made a reasonable assumption. Even if many states disagree with current Israeli actions and/or the occupation, they are very far from deciding that the state is illegitimate and that they should withdraw recognition.
My reference to Germany was that even though Germany had caused two world wars and tremendous mass murder, its actions were not considered so illegitimate that it lost its statehood. It was even able to reunite within half a decade.
Bruce -
1.
No good Zionist sees the Holocaust as the rationale for the legitimacy of Israel. It speeded its establishment up but it isn’t its raison d’etre. (A good Zionist comes up with a positive rationale, ‘our ancient homeland’ not a negative one, ‘because of Hitler’.)
2.
Once a state is established it can disappear again. Take the example of communist East Germay It was established in 1949 and dissolved in 1989.
It no longer exists.
@Klaus
You are now the arbiter of whom is a good Zionist and whom is a bad Zionist? Good luck! And besides being German, your background for this?
I didn’t write that a state could not disappear. I wrote they don’t get delegitimized. East and West Germany voluntarily merged with the consent of majorities from both states.
Bruce –
1.
I know that to draw a parallel between communist East Germany and Israel is nonsense. East Germany (and the other communist East European countries) had not much legitimacy with its population to begin with. And I don’t see the *internal* legitimacy of Israel at stake. But its *external* legitimacy – in the eyes of the rest of the world – is at stake.
2.
But besides joking about me being a German, what do you think is the best rationale for Israel’s legitimacy, its raison d’etre? Is it ‘because of Hitler’? (Hitler is long gone but people keep coming to Israel.)
@Klaus
I’m still confused what you mean by “legitimacy”. The legitimacy of the state or the legitimacy of the state’s actions?
To answer your question in (2), I don’t see why a state needs a rationale for its “raison d’être” after it has been recognized. Do other recognized countries still have to justify their statehood? That’s why I believe the Israel campaign against “delegitimization” is such a red herring. If Israel wants to justify the foundation of the state in 1948, it’s strongest case is based on the UN process at the time.
States in general are reluctant to see past cases of recognition unwound, even if they were not just, as negations might set precedents that could call into question their own foundations. That Israel has existed as a widely-recognized state for 64 years is its own best reason for legitimacy. Basing its legitimacy on the Bible or a historic attachment may be politically effective in Western countries, but is not persuasive to others.
Israel’s reluctance to mainly rely on the UN argument is due to its unwillingness to declare its boundaries. A UN defense implies 1967-borders at best. The Israeli government and its right-wing supporters were annoyed when President Obama emphasized the Holocaust as the basis for the establishment of the state of Israel rather than Biblical or historical claims, as only the latter can be used to justify a right to Eretz Israel. Even Liberal Zionists are uncomfortable with abandoning completely the historical claim, as their favorite narrative is that Israel-Palestine is a clash of two long-standing legitimate nationalisms.
Let me also state that if the Palestinians and the Arab states want the decision to recognize Israel reconsidered – even though some of them have already recognized Israel or have offered to recognize Israel under certain conditions – their best argument is to raise the flaws in the 1948 UN process, especially the fact that the UN violated its own Charter by not properly consulting with the majority population and taking their wants into consideration.
Many commenters at MW believe that the dispossession of the native population is sufficient reason to negate Israeli statehood. While I am sympathetic to the morality underlying this view, I hardly observe such moral reasoning driving current events. Ethnic cleansing and native dispossession continue apace in numerous places throughout the globe.
@ Bruce
Your comment seems realistically accurate to me re Israel’s “legitimacy.” The fact that Israel’s boundaries remains ambiguous makes that state unique, yes?
As to Israel’s conduct as a factor of concern, how does Israel honor the Nuremberg Trials’ international consensus on the limits of any sovereign state’s power?
“I’m still confused what you mean by “legitimacy”. The legitimacy of the state or the legitimacy of the state’s actions?”
———-
Bruce -
Actually, there are three things
1.
A state (government, people ,territory) – It has a right to exist, is legitimate.
Usually, the right of a state to exist has nothing to do with whether the people like their political system and government or the rest of the world likes that state. – The case of Israel is unique in that its legitimacy to exist (the way it came into being and expanded irs borders) is called into question.
2.
The political, social system of a state. – “Jewish state” …
This can be considered illegitimate by either its population or the world or both. In the case of Israel I think it is highly legitimate in the eyes of its Jewish population/voters and partly (for economic reasons) also by its Arab citizens. – This is what I meant by internal legitimacy.
3.
A state’s actions. In the case of Israel its wars and expulsions, its occupation of ‘Judea and Samaria’ and annexation of East Jerusalem.
Again, I think this has high internal legitimacy, accepted by most Jewish-Israeli voters (but not by its Arab citizens). – But this has next no external legitimacy in the eyes of the world.
Honestly, if I had gotten to Israel as a Jewish child or were born there, I don’t know how I would see things. But I would not have gone there as an adult with a citizenship and a job somewhere in the West or even Russia.
– But look, all the Jews that went to Israel on the Zionist/biblical-historical ideology ‘to return’. How about you?
@ Citizen
What is unusual but not unique is Israel’s willingness to keep its boundaries ambiguous. This is clearly due to its belief that it can maximize territorial control by prolonging its well-known strategy of “putting facts on the ground.” I expect that if this Israeli government was forced to declare its boundaries, it would go for the lines of Eretz Israel and then negotiate from there.
Ambiguous boundaries are hardly unique, however. They are found between many states. Usually the claims overlap, but there is no perceived value in fighting over the issue. Find oil or natural gas in the territory, and then suddenly the disputes heat up. (Witness the Arctic or South China Sea.)
Take Kashmir. To an outsider it seems ridiculous that the territory has been in dispute between India and Pakistan for as long as Israel’s existence. Kashmir clearly has an overwhelming Muslim majority, yet remains divided with India unwilling to give up its claims and with no agreement on boundaries between the parties. At least 5,000 civilians have died, probably more. Both side have ignored UN resolutions. Yet, there is no international will to force a resolution of the conflict.
As for Israel and the international consensus resulting from the Nuremberg Trial’s, I would have to know more exactly which limits – codified into international law – to which you are referring. I will say Israel honors the Nuremberg Trial results by organizing to have some of the resulting laws nullified or amended in its favor. The United States on the other hand just ignores the judgements of Nuremberg and does whatever it pleases.
@ Klaus
On your (1) I agree with your premise, but take issue with your conclusion. International relations are state-to-state. As far as I know, no state other than some of the Arab and Muslim ones call into question Israel’s right to exist, and no state has rescinded a previous acceptance. There are non-state cross-border movements which question Israel’s legitimacy, but so far none of these efforts have changed any state’s position on existence. Until they do, I would argue it is a stretch to infer that Israel’s existence is in question. What is in dispute is the expansion of Israel’s borders. States have taken different positions on this, but the clear majority have not recognized Israel beyond the 1967 lines. Israel, however, is hardly unique in having its expansionary border claims called into question.
With respect to (2) I mostly agree, but do not consider it useful to talk about “the world.” It sounds too similar to the “international community,” which we all know means the United States and any other country it can find to agree with its position. There is no “world view.” States take different positions concerning the right to pass judgement on the internal affairs of other nations, and sometimes they ally themselves with other states in their views. The United States believes it can interfere in any other state’s internal affairs, but that no other country can interfere in its affairs. Germany has a similar attitude towards Europe. Other states have their own criteria.
As for (3), again I have a problem with “in the eyes of the world.” The world has no eyes and the aggregation is not a useful concept. Without justifying any of the Israel actions you mention, I will only say that so far the United States and Europe have shown no willingness to use their power to brake or undo any of those Israeli actions. Instead these states continue to reward Israel with more and more special concessions and aid. Germany is one of the worst offenders besides the United States.
“The Israeli government and its right-wing supporters were annoyed when President Obama [in his Cairo speech] emphasized the HOLOCAUST as the basis for the establishment of the state of Israel rather than Biblical or historical claims, as only the latter can be used to justify a right to Eretz Israel.”
——————–
Bruce -
This is what I said about a “good Zionist” in my first comment. He doesn’t rely on the Holocaust (and refugees) as the rationale for the establishment of Israel and its claim to the land. – After all, 90% of today’s Jewish population of Israel are not WWII camp or Ghetto survivors and their descendents.
The continuous stress on the Holocaust in Israel must have a different function. – It’s the social, emotional glue in a heterogenous society.
@ Bruce
I agree with the first paragraph of your comment.
Your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs ignore that the US funds and diplomatically covers Israel, but not do so as to either side in the other situations you sample.
As to your 4th paragraph, both Israel and the US ignore principles of international law for which state officials were hung at Nuremberg. Otherwise, ethnic cleansing and “preemptive” or “preventative” war are endlessly elastic rubber bands covering any aggressive war with the mask of defense.
@ Klaus
Re: “What is in dispute is the expansion of Israel’s borders. States have taken different positions on this, but the clear majority have not recognized Israel beyond the 1967 lines. Israel, however, is hardly unique in having its expansionary border claims called into question.”
How many of such states does the US regularly fund with the most foreign aid in US history, and regularly immunize with so many UN SC vetos?
RE: “The United States believes it can interfere in any other state’s internal affairs, but that no other country can interfere in its affairs. Germany has a similar attitude towards Europe.”
Yes, I agree. Israel too, re the ME.
RE: ” I will only say that so far the United States and Europe have shown no willingness to use their power to brake or undo any of those Israeli actions. Instead these states continue to reward Israel with more and more special concessions and aid. Germany is one of the worst offenders besides the United States.”
Yes. I agree.
@ Citizen
I believe the case for Kashmir being integrated with Pakistan or independent is overwhelming. Yet the United States ignores the principles of self-determination and insists upon the status quo, and hence tilts towards India. India’s suppression of the Kashmir population is well-documented.
US aid to Pakistan is conditioned on it not supporting armed conflict by Kashmir secessionist or independence groups. The Pakistans don’t completely meet this condition, hence there is constant tension in the relationship.
In my opinion, the principles of Nuremberg are dead. The Bush and Obama administrations buried those ideas, something Israel was not able to achieve.
@ Bruce
“In my opinion, the principles of Nuremberg are dead. The Bush and Obama administrations buried those ideas, something Israel was not able to achieve.”
I agree. Israel needed the Israel Lobby to help those two US regimes with that achievement.
@ Citizen
It’s time to man up and let the United States be accountable for its own actions. America and its citizens are big boys (and girls) now and should be responsible for their own actions.
The United States buried the Nuremberg principles. Israel only broke them.
I think Israel is too unique, abnormal for Bell’s criteria to be applied.
There is no real category (Western democracy, settler colonialism, apartheid state, theocracy etc.?) Israel fits in. It’s too out of the ordinary and to explain and predict the behavior of a singular social phenomenon is next to impossible.
I know, I am relapsing, but, shouldn’t it somehow be considered, at least partially, a birth out of circumstances?
Do you have a developed political theory (that’s your expertise, isn’t it?) that Zionism somehow triggered the Nazi’s idea that “the Jew” had to be fought since it was earlier than the Nazis? Or alternatively that it was an “exceptional idea” created by “a people” considering themselves “exceptional” in it’s time and place. While others didn’t? What exactly is the colonialism discourse about then?
Short question, what is the “abnormality of Israel” apart from outside context? Can it all be reduced to Jewish exceptionalism and how, I am curious?
Yes, exactly LeaNder, it was a “birth out of circumstances,” i.e. the Nazi era, the Holocaust and then the tail-end of colonialism. Without the Holocaust or a seven year timeout after the war and there would have been no Israel. The Holocaust was fairly exceptional, I hope. The establishment of the state was unique, but the “abnormality of Israel” is unfortunately not nearly as abnormal in the contemporary world as MW commenters try to make out.
So many of these discussions read like a mirror image of Bernard Lewis and the Orientalist crowd. Bad anthropology, bad history, bad political science and bad sociology. Mooser use to effectively call these out, but maybe he is exhausted.
@ Bruce
“The establishment of the state was unique, but the “abnormality of Israel” is unfortunately not nearly as abnormal in the contemporary world as MW commenters try to make out.”
How so? Examples other than Israel?
@ Citizen
Do I really have to list all the states in which the minority that control state power abuse or suppress the rights of the majority? Or those states in which the majority discriminate or suppress a minority?
@ Bruce
RE: “Do I really have to list all the states in which the minority that control state power abuse or suppress the rights of the majority? Or those states in which the majority discriminate or suppress a minority?”
No, just list those the US most substantially funds and diplomatically covers with its UN SC veto power.
Daniel Bell deals with the *internal* legitimacy of a state. Most comments, and partly Phil also, address Israel’s legitimacy in the eyes of outsiders, foreign critics.
I could probably come up with 7 criteria why Israel must be highly legitimate in the eyes of its Jewish population and to some degree even its Arab citizens.
But my point was more methodological. Bell derived his criteria from the observation of a category of countries: Western capitalist democracies.
You got to have a category to look for patterns.
But what category does Israel belong to?
@ Klaus
Good question. Let’s see the response?
“too unique” “next to impossible” to judge Israel. BS. Sophistry. Excuses to avoid accountability. History will judge Israel. And us for enabling its excesses. As Garrison Keiller said, American Jews need to atone for Israel’s mistreatment of the Palestinians. Not build fantastic sophistries to avoid responsibility. Nor start new, broader wars – the famous clash of civilizations – in order to justify further savagery and land grabbery.
@David Doppler
And how will History judge the United States? For its excesses that have nothing to do with Israel? No “fantastic sophistries to avoid responsibility” here. Is the “famous clash of civilizations” an Israeli invention?
@ Bruce
The US will be judged harshly by history, especially if it adds an attack on Iran as Bush Jr did on Iraq. No action in the ME on part of US is unrelated to its “special relationship” with Israel, beginning with Truman in 1948.
No action in the ME on part of US is unrelated to its “special relationship” with Israel, beginning with Truman in 1948.
Citizen, your obsessions have the best of you. Here is a non-exhaustive list of US actions in the Middle East unrelated to its “special relationship” with Israel:
1. The 1949 Syrian coup engineered by the CIA.
2. The CIA organized overthrow of the democratically-elected Mogadishu government in Iran in 1953.
3. The 1958 intervention in Lebanon to save the Christian-led government.
4. The Reagan administration support for Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988.
5. The Bush I Iraq War I to return the Royal family to rule in Kuwait.
I would also argue that Eisenhower’s actions to counter the 1956 War against Egypt were directed against British and French imperialistic overreach rather than Israel’s opportunistic participation.
@ Bruce
1. By 1949, U.S. officials were concerned about Syria’s stance on Israel, but also about border disputes with Turkey, and oil pipelines; the US had begun to worry that the left was growing in power and that the government was growing friendlier to the Soviet Union. If you think the CIA coup was not significantly related to the Syrian regime’s stance (and the Syrian people’s) against Israel, you really are deluded. Unlike you, I will furnish some support for what I say: link to docs.google.com
2. Zionist/Israeli undercurrents were definitely present in the 1953 CIA coup in democraticIran at the height of US-USSR mutual fear and the attempt by US/England to control Iranian oil. Again, I will give some source support for what I say, unlike you: link to ghandchi.com
3. You must be kidding: Lebanon, 1958 and 1982-84: U.S. Marines briefly entered Lebanon in 1958 to block an attempt by Arab nationalist forces to topple the confessional representation system imposed by departing French colonialists fifteen years earlier. This system effectively kept elites of rival clans in control of the country, particularly those of the pro-Western Maronite Christian minority. Tensions grew in subsequent years as rival factions began forming heavily-armed militias. A full-scale civil war broke out in 1975, which included militias made up of Palestinian refugees expelled from their country during Israels war for independence in 1948. The United States provided military, financial and diplomatic support for Israels June 1982 invasion of Lebanon targeted at the Palestinians and their leftist Lebanese allies. Despite tens of thousands of civilian casualties from the Israeli onslaught, the United States blocked efforts by the United Nations to force an Israeli withdrawal or even a cease fire. The United States brokered an agreement that September which led to a withdrawal of Palestinian forces from the country and the appointment of a new Lebanese government led by the neo-fascist Phalangist Party, representing part of the countrys Maronite Christian community. After Israeli occupation forces led by General Ariel Sharon facilitated a Phalangist massacre of thousands of Palestinian refugees just south of Beirut, U.S. troops moved into areas around the capital and Navy ships were stationed off the coast. When a popular uprising commenced against the minority Phalangist government, U.S. forces began bombing villages in the Shouf Mountains and other opposition strongholds while U.S. Marines exchanged gunfire with Muslim militias in nearby Beirut suburbs. There were also a series of armed engagements with Syrian forces in eastern Lebanon, resulting in the killing and capture of American pilots. In 1983, suicide bombers struck the U.S. embassy in April and a Marine barracks in October, killing nearly 300 Americans, which led to a U.S. withdrawal in early 1984. Meanwhile, the United States continued its military and financial support for Israeli occupation forces in southern Lebanon, blocking the UN Security Council from enforcing a series of resolutions demanding Israels unconditional withdrawal. Periodic attacks by U.S.-armed Israeli forces against Lebanese civilian population centers resulted in hundreds of thousands of internal refugees, many of whom joined radical Islamic groups like Hizbollah, which were responsible for a series of kidnapping and assassinations of Americans in Lebanon. The collapse of leftist and nationalist Lebanese forces as a result of the U.S. intervention and the U.S.-backed Israeli invasion led to a power vacuum filled by extremist Islamic groups from below and an overbearing presence of the anti-American Syrian government from above. Combined with resentment at the enormous human costs of these interventions, Lebanon has turned from a staunchly pro-Western country to a center of anti-American sentiments.
4 & 5. Do you really think Israel did not grossly benefit from Reagan’s support of Saddam Hussein’s 8 yr war with Iran? Do you think Madeleine Albright would otherwise feel “it was worth it” to massacre all those Iranian child soldiers armed with sticks? Remember the poison attacks The US helped to achieve?
Washington’s strong support for Saddam Hussein thought the period of his worst atrocities in the 1980s, when he was so admired in Washington that his most shocking crimes–the murderous slaughter of Kurds–were denied by the Reagan administration and congressional protests were blocked. The excuse offered is that Iran was more dangerous, but apart from the cynicism, such apologetics cannot be taken seriously. Well after Iraq’s war with Iran, the US continued to support Saddam, even to expedite his development of weapons of mass destruction.
In 1990, Pres. Bush I even sent a high-level congressional delegation, led by Sen. Bob Dole, to convey his personal greetings to his good friend Saddam Hussein and to assure him that he should disregard criticisms by “the haughty and pampered press,” who are out of control.
A few months later Saddam defied or misunderstood orders, and shifted from admired friend to the embodiment of evil. All such matters have been consigned to the usual repository of unwelcome fact. Actually, the US led Saddam on to believe he could attack Kwait (a former province of Iraq).
You really think if AIPAC would have been against US support of Iraq in the 1980s in its war with Iran, or if AIPAC was against Bush Sr or Jr ‘s attacks on Iraq, those wars would have been easy sells in the USA?
Finally, re Ike’s decision to counter the 1956 war against Egypt, please show us that Ike was mainly interested in stopping Brit & French continued colonialism/imperialism, but not equally concerned about Israel’s.
@ Citizen
Your assertion was: “No action in the ME on part of US is unrelated to its “special relationship” with Israel, beginning with Truman in 1948.” That is equivalent to asserting, “All action in the ME on the part of the US is related to its “special relationship” with Israel ….”
Related/Not…Unrelated are ambiguous. They could simply mean that one can play Six Degrees of Separation and relate every US action in the ME somehow to Israel (which is what you’ve basically done in your last comment). But you initially went further and stated that all US actions were related to the “special relationship,” which, if it means anything at all, implies that all US actions were done in the interest or on behalf of the “special relationship” or at the very least not against the interests of the “special relationship.” If you meant something different than this, please explain.
To show how contorted your arguments are:
1. CIA support for the 1949 Syrian coup was not driven by concern over Soviet influence and oil pipelines, but Syria’s attitude towards Israel.
2. The CIA overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran [excuse the name error in my previous comment] was not over the nationalization of Iranian oil and a neutral foreign policy, but the US-Israeli “special relationship.”
3. The intervention in Lebanon, 1958 [I specifically did not list 1982] was not an effort, and I am quoting your own reference, “to block an attempt by Arab nationalist forces to topple the confessional representation system imposed by departing French colonialists fifteen years earlier,” consistent with longstanding US support for the Lebanese status quo and the hegemony of the Christian-minority in the Government, but was decided instead due to the US-Israeli “special relationship.”
4. AIPAC is known for mirroring Israeli policies. Israel favored Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. It provided crucial arms support to Iran during that war, while the US gave intelligence and material support to Iraq. Israel considered Hussein to be a bigger threat than Iran at the time. The US had to take into account Saudi concerns about Iran. The US and Israel wanted to see both Iran and Iraq weakened, but they had different favorites. Yet you claim US decisions here were driven by the “special relationship” rather than the US having its own reasons for wanting to see the Iran Revolutionary regime wounded.
If Eisenhower acted against British, French and Israeli colonialism/imperialism in calling them back from their 1956 invasion of Egypt, and I agree he did act against them and all 3 were humiliated, how was that decision based on the “special relationship”? Besides the fact that there probably wasn’t a “special relationship” at that point, are you claiming that even a US President acting against the “special relationship” is motivated by the “special relationship”?
Even if AIPAC opposed Iraq II, Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld would not have been deterred. They would have found other ways to sell the war. (As an aside, Sharon was PM at the time, not Netanyahu and not Barak, and he was lukewarm towards a war with Iraq, as he knew Saddam was already a weak military power. But then Sharon was a tough son-of-a-bitch who didn’t like Arabs and had learned a few lessons, but never believed that neo-Con hokum.)
You made a silly remark and then decided to double down. I’ll let what I’ve written stand, and readers can make up their own mind.
@ Bruce
I will let what I said stand also and readers can make up their own mind. My silly remark was meant to convey that the US does very little in the ME without getting the OK from Israel first.
“I think Israel is too unique.”
Meh. More like: every state that ever was and/or will be is too unique.
Or – very much like every other state, each one with a foundation and history unlike any other state.
Or as common as some by virtue of some of its practices, whether those of South Africa, Soviet Union or that certain short-lived Third Republic.
Claims of uniqueness as best left to history, not politicians, especially those for whom the world outside their real or mental ghetto – does not exist.
Klaus says: “I think Israel is too unique, abnormal for Bell’s criteria to be applied.
There is no real category (Western democracy, settler colonialism, apartheid state, theocracy etc.?) Israel fits in. It’s too out of the ordinary and to explain and predict the behavior of a singular social phenomenon is next to impossible.”
How would you distinguish Israel from Nazi territorial annexations in Eastern Europe? It seems to me that the two share all essential elements.
“How would you distinguish Israel from Nazi territorial annexations in Eastern Europe? It seems to me that the two share all essential elements.”
——————-
Colin –
They differ very much in ideology. There was no claim of a ‘biblical and historical right of return’ to the territory. It was classical conquest. The same thing the Soviets did. – I think there is no historical precedent to the Israeli case.
Klaus Bloemker: “Colin –
They differ very much in ideology. There was no claim of a ‘biblical and historical right of return’ to the territory. “
Au contraire. The Zionists took the Old Testament as literal history and conceived themselves to have a ‘right’ to Palestine. The Nazis took various fashionable geopolitical theories and their own fantasy-as-history and concocted a claim to Eastern Europe out of it.
You suggest Nazi aggression was indiscriminate. Au contraire — it was very targeted. Their territorial ambitions to the north, west, and south were very limited, and generally aimed at merely establishing political and economic hegemony. It was to the east, and only to the east, that they intended to engage in wholesale population replacement and colonization — and they dressed that goal up in pseudo-historical claptrap and ideological cant just as the Zionists did.
@ Klaus
Not entirely; e.g., wasn’t the German claim to the German inhabited part of Checkoslovakia a claim with more recent German meat than the Jewish vaporous biblical claim to Palestine?
Critics do not delegitimize Israel, Israel delegitimizes itself. Critics merely turn the klieg lights on the facts which Israel wants to hide.
As for #7, Israelis consider themselves humiliated in the 2006 I/L conflict by Hezbollah.
Very interesting.
The answer to the matsav is, of course, a moral satnav.
Sorry but when was it ever legitimate?
And the prize goes to Blake.
Partition itself was illegitimate since it ignored the right of self-determination of the vast majority of the population in Palestine. The fact that international law re: two states is based on this and the territorial gains made by Jewish forces in 1947/8 just goes to show you how arbitrary the basis of that body of law is.
Blake says: “Sorry but when was it ever legitimate?”
In mainstream opinion, Israel had unquestioned legitimacy through the 1980′s or so.
You can pick up books primarily dealing with other topics from that era, and Israel’s legitimacy is just taken for granted. It’t not vociferously defended — it’s just assumed.
This has changed. It is morbidly comic to watch Israel endlessly seeking to bolster her military advantage. It’s like watching a man putting out sandbags when what’s coming is a forest fire.
@ Colin
Yeah, that’s the legacy of the little preChristian zionist/practical p0litician/bad hat seller partner with his fav Jew, Truman, coupled with Hollywood’s Paul Newman’s Exodus-greased soft lucrative agitprop.
Zionism, the belief that only Jewish people have inherent rights to a share in sovereignty over the Holy Land, and that others share that right only by the grace of the true heirs, was always a false and immensely destructive proposition. Patently and outrageously false – my moral satnav calls for giving it a very wide berth.
I agree with Klaus that the combination of religious and other ideologies at work here is entirely unique. It’s not just another apartheid or settler colonial state. When we are accused of singling Israel out we can reply that you can’t single out something that is already unique.
Zionism is centuries old and I agree with Leander that from time to time people have thought that there were good reasons for it. To restore religion to its rightful place, to dethrone religion in the name of rationality, to lead the world towards socialism, to make sure the world never succumbed to socialism, to pay back Nazi crimes. But none of these begin to imply the truth of the Zionist proposition.
Wasn’t the Zionist project referenced by those at the first Zionist congress as a “colonial” project?
link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org Jewish Colonial Trust
@ talknic
If memory serves it was also expressly called its “colonial project.” The Jewish Colonial Trust was the corporate entity label, probably under Brit corporate law. So we had a “colonial project” by a group of Jews who in fact had no national state entity, gearing up to create such a state, by pretending it already was one, when all it really was, was an internal parasite of the Brit entity and people, and recognized national state. And now, we have the self-declared (and nuclear armed) state of the Jewish people, always professing in the best interests of the Jewish ethnic people, which does whatever it wants in the world with no accountability to the UN that validated it’s existence, thanks to the replacement, the US, the X-colony, now only superpower, which now “rules the waves” of the world. There’s a dismal, lethal pattern here, yes? When U connect the dots, does it not say, “self-governance for the Jews, no matter the cost to non-Jews of any ilk?”
delegitimization will take place within a year or so of the severing of our government’s special relationship with the zionist entity. firstly, the already accelerating exodus of the educated and young (noted many times on mw) will turn into a veritable stampede, irreversibly destabilizing the entity. then it’ll be a matter of just how generous palestinians will be in negotiating whatever is to rise up from the collapse of the zionist enterprise. will the settlers (all jewish israelis except for those who sided with the palestinians) be harmed physically, as per what happened to the colonizers in algeria after its natives won their independence from france a half century ago? definitely not, especially if those nations eager for resolution of the i/p conflict agree to provide capital and resources towards ensuring a peaceful transition from colonialism to freedom and independence, aid that would be contingent upon both sides agreeing to nonviolence. remember, too, that only 20 years ago in south africa the switch from an apartheid to a democratic state was nonviolent.
how to sever the special relationship? the most practical way would be for those of us who support palestinian liberation to go after israel firsters for the traitors they are, steadily, methodically, visibly, loudly. after all, it’s not as if the public doesn’t already sense that they’re selling america out.
@ yourstruly
“after all, it’s not as if the public doesn’t already sense that they’re selling america out.”
Dick and Jane have no clue. You write as if the average American had ears for a “Zionist/Israel Firster 5th column as they did during the McCarthy Era for “reds” or “pinkos”. It’s exactly the contrary in mainstream America, that is, whereas in the ”50s, red-baiting was everybody’s pastime, in contemporary America, the Israel Lobby is immune and Dick n Jane think Zionism might be a heavy metal band nobody cares about. Arabs, Muslims, Islam are the current official and popular “commies.”
I’m not sure it’s that Ashekanazi higher IQ, it’s more like that singular ly focused monebags Shelly Adelson.
as previously noted here (not only by me) whenever a U.S. president (both president Bushes, for example) puts the squeeze on Israel vis-a-vis its west bank settlements, polls show the public emphatically backing the president. does this not suggest that public support for israel isn’t unshakeable? Few people may care about Arabs or Muslims, but they do care about our troops and don’t want any more of them wasted in wars promoted by Israel and its Israel firster friends here in America.
forgot to mention the voice vote on Jerusalem at last month’s Democratic convention. The one that sounded evenly split between the ayes & the nays but which the chairman said had the 2/3 ayes required to alter the party platform. Sure didn’t sound sound like the IL had those delegates solidly on Israel’s side. Do the delegates represent the masses? More than Sheldon Adelson does.
@ yourstruly
Short answer: no. US is a de facto plutocracy.
yourstruly
“remember, too, that only 20 years ago in south africa the switch from an apartheid to a democratic state was nonviolent”
wrong.
link to wnd.com
to prove that the transition from apartheid to democracy in s. africa wasn’t peaceful can’t you do better that an article in far rightist joseph farah’s wmd. farah, after all, teamed up with rush limbaugh in questioning whether barack obama was born in the u.s. of a. (wikipedia).
@ yourstruly
Have you ever talked to the whites who fled S Africa after it was was made free of racism, or to those who stayed?
yes, to a few here in the u.s. And i visited South Africa about five years after the end of apartheid.
@ yourstruly
And?
The claim of uniqueness presumes that normal history does not apply to you. This is ahistorical nonsense.
“The claim of uniqueness” – Les
—————————————–
This Jewish/Israeli claim means:
- you must not apply general moral standards to us
(we belong to a moral universe of our own).
- you must not apply general theories of sociology to us
(we are a society unlike any other the world has seen).
In a way, they are right – they live in their own moral universe
and Israel is a society the world hasn’t seen yet.
@Klaus Bloemker
If you are stating that these two assertions are being claimed by Jews, then you are talking bullshit. If you are claiming these two assertions are claimed by Israelis, is this any different than any other state in which nationalism has hegemony over political ideology? The USA, Germany for example?
@ Bruce
Difference is that significant American popular ken sees Germany (past n present) & US too, with all their warts, but the data to see Israel’s warts has been withheld from Dick n Jane, and both mainstream parties do not show it.
@Citizen
Oh really Citizen! How significant a part of the US or German populations see their countries with all their warts? or even some of their warts?
So let me get this straight, the US and German government and medias provide their citizens with the data to see US and German failings, but Dick n Jane and Herr and Frau Schmidt can’t find out about what is happening in Israel. Do you have any evidence/polling that comes close to showing this?
Are you serious?
@ Bruce
This web site, Monoweiss, has been factually showing how Dick n Jane never get the facts on the I-P conflict, or even the absurd US enabling foreign aid to rogue Israel, for years. Clearly, you are not serious. You don’t need to respond to this comment because I rely on the Mondoweiss archives. You really think you can convince regular Mondoweiss readers to the contrary?
i think you both have a point. the US government doesn’t advertise what we do, they cover it up. for example americans rarely hear about all the civilians we kill w/drones, thank you medea link to mondoweiss.net
note how the ambassador claims the death of civilians by drones is in the ‘double digits’ ..pleeease! so we are denied facts regarding the atrocities we support and empower and this includes israel’s ‘warts’.
@ Citizen
You avoided my criticism of your remark. I believe you intended to state that the difference is: significant parts of the US and German populations can see what is happening, warts and all, with respect to their own countries, “but the data to see Israel’s warts has been withheld”. [What you actually wrote came out as gibberish, so maybe my attempt to make sense of it is wrong.]
My objection is that you whitewash to what extent US and German mass media cover up their state’s failing and mistakes and their society’s problems. The publics are getting neither the data nor non-self-interested interpretations of that data to make informed judgements on any subject.
Are you or are you not claiming that Dick n Jane have the facts from the media to judge their government’s actions, not to mention the role of economic players such as Wall Street? The distortions of coverage concerning Israel are parallel to the distortions the mass media makes in all its coverage. With increasing media concentration, the popular media is beginning to resemble Soviet-era newspapers and broadcasting.
I would argue that Dick n Jane have more accurate information about the $3 billion plus in aid to Israel than they have about the actual issues related to the US fiscal deficit or the GWOT or the rescue of the banks and the stock market by the FED and ECB.
Moreover, Germans learn more about their aid to Israel than about the German role in the economic disfunction of Greece and the other southern European states.
Unfortunately, Dick n Jane show little interest in hearing the facts that Mondoweiss shows they are not receiving. When you can figure out how to get them the least bit interested, we can come up with a way to get them the data.
@ Bruce
RE: “The distortions of coverage concerning Israel are parallel to the distortions the mass media makes in all its coverage. With increasing media concentration, the popular media is beginning to resemble Soviet-era newspapers and broadcasting.”
I agree.
“I would argue that Dick n Jane have more accurate information about the $3 billion plus in aid to Israel than they have about the actual issues related to the US fiscal deficit or the GWOT or the rescue of the banks and the stock market by the FED and ECB.”
I don’t think you live in the US. The US mainstream media NEVER discusses foreign aid to Israel at all, let alone in detail. It does at least discuss the US economic/monetary/banking & Wall Street issues you mention, albeit only in contesting party line sound bites.
RE: “Moreover, Germans learn more about their aid to Israel than about the German role in the economic disfunction of Greece and the other southern European states.”
I don’t live in Germany, so I don’t know; maybe some of our very capable German regular commenters will respond to this blanket statement of yours.
@Citizen
I am resident in the United States, although I spend part of the year abroad.
You simply mistake the facts when you write, “The US mainstream media NEVER discusses foreign aid to Israel at all, let alone in detail.”
The US mass media frequently covers aid to Israel mainly because almost all Democratic and Republican politicians – not to mention all US administrations for more years than I can remember – want to take credit for the $3 billion plus aid and other goodies to Israel.
Rep. Paul was harshly taken to task by the media for daring to suggest that aid to Israel be cut.
You know this, so why the BS?
@ Bruce
“Moreover, Germans learn more about their aid to Israel than about the German role in the economic disfunction of Greece and the other southern European states.”
—————————————-
Most Germans were surprised to learn – by Günter Grass’ poem about
Israel-Iran – that
1. Israel has nuclear weapons
2. Germany supplied Israel with submarines for these weapons
But I must admit, I don’t know much about “the German role in the economic disfunction of Greece and the other southern European states.”
- Well, I have some Greek and Spanish government bonds myself. Did I contribute to their disfunctioning?
Bruce -
I forgot to tell you that ‘I am resident in Germany, although I spend part of the year abroad.’ – But I can’t tell you which country I’m a citizen of and where “abroad” is (it’s a secret that I’m not allowed to disclose).
@Klaus
That’s okay Klaus, you can keep your secrets. I’m not that sure anyone is interested.
Bruce -
Secrets aside – let’s get back to Israel’s legitimacy.
Phil’s article deals with the *internal* legitimacy of Israel’s political system with its citizens. He quotes Daniel Bell who quotes Seymor Lipset who said:
———–
“Groups [in a society] regard a political system as legitimate or illegitimate according to the way in which its values fit with theirs.”
———–
By this very reasonable definition, I think Israel’s political system as a
‘Jewish state’ is legitimate with its citizens because its values fit the values of most of its citizens, which are Jewish.
Same as the Nazi-values of an Aryan Volksgemeinschaft (community of a
people) fit the values of most Germans at the time. I agree, although I dislike it. – By the way, are you a citizen of that state?
@ Bruce
OK, I should not have said NEVER. Most Americans get their news from TV and foreign aid to Israel is seldom discussed there even these days when every politician is talking about cutting government and government spending. Since Rep Paul wanted to significantly cut all foreign aid and did not exclude Israel that did make the mass media. There’s been talk on TV suggesting US should cut aid to Egypt now that Egypt is not playing patsy for Israel–that explanation is not mentioned. Most Americans would be amazed to get the details on just how much their government gives Israel both directly and indirectly, details they could read on a few web sites, such as IfAmericanOnlyKnew. I’ve never seen or heard on TV news/infotainment a comparison of our aid to various countries, have you? The politicians do, as you say, publicly take credit for aid to Israel, but there’s never any broadcast contextual discussion given in the manner I’m suggesting. Rep Paul coverage was the rare exception that covers the general rule because he dared to suggest his no-exception rule.
@ Klaus Bloemker
My comments are written as Bruce, but I have contributed to Mondoweiss under my full name, Bruce Wolman. For some reason, Phil is unable to correct this disparity.
If you read my past postings, I am sure you will get sufficient understanding of my background for your purposes. I am a US citizen, born and raised in US, educated in US and then in Norway. I have spent approximately half of my life in Europe, a good part of that in Norway. For the last twelve years, I have been resident in the US again, but return to Norway twice a year for up to 3 months.
Whereas you want to discuss the “legitimacy” of a state from the angle of its citizens and residents, this is not what is commonly being discussed these days. I don’t find it useful to confuse the two discussions. At MW, I have made clear my views on the events of 1948 and who is responsible for fixing it.
anyone know anything about this person
ROGER FREDINBURG
Is Israel about to wreck Obama’s re-election?
I predict an Israeli attack on Iran – October surprise!
I have watched with great interest over the past several days, absorbing the potential impact of recent developments in Israel and Iran. Unfolding before my eyes is the fact that war is on the immediate horizon.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu really does walk softly and carry a big stick. He very kindly and succinctly explained to the UN and the world that Iran’s days are numbered. And evidence is mounting that he meant it!
I think he is determined to deny President Obama 4 more years. An attack on Iran would be a recipe for political disaster for Obama’s campaign, so I expect an October surprise that could literally destroy any re-election dreams Obama might have.
I received this email today; you read it and decide if I am right!
Roger,
My brother and his family live in Jerusalem – he is a minister – and a former Navy SEAL – his office is close to one of Israel’s largest underground military bases.
He called me last night which is very unusual – usually it is email.
He called to tell me that he is sending his family back to the US immediately due to what he is seeing happen within the last week and what he is being told by his military contacts in both the Israel and US military.
He said he is seeing with his own eyes military movements the likes of which he has never seen in his 20+ years in Israel.
What he called a massive redeployment and protective tactics of forces is underway.
Over the last two days he has seen anti-aircraft missile deployments throughout the Jerusalem area including 3 mobile units that he can see from his office windows.
In addition, he has seen very large Israeli armored columns moving fast toward the Sinai where Egypt has now moved in Armor.
There are reports of the top military leaders meeting with Israel’s Sr. Rabbi which is something that has happened preceding every prior military campaign.
His admonition is to watch carefully and pray for Israel and its people.
He is convinced that barring something extraordinary Israel will attack Iran – with or without the US – and very soon.
It is the belief in Israel that Obama does not stand with Israel but with the Arab countries.
He has told me before that Israel will saber rattle from time to time but that this time is very different from what he is seeing and hearing.
He was at the Wailing Wall 2 days ago and there were hundreds of IDF soldiers there. As he was leaving he passed at least 20 military buses full of soldiers in route to the wall.
He has never seen this before either.
Just thought I would pass this along.
My brother is not an alarmist by any means.
When he talks like this it gets my attention for sure and usually I find he knows more than he shares.
There are reports that Israel is asking Obama to come to Israel immediately but they are being answered with silence.
My opinion is that I see the making of the perfect storm.
Tags: Barak Obama, Columnists, Economy, Elections, Government, Military, Politics, Roger Fredinburg
Friday, October 5th, 2012 – 12:50 PM
Category: Barak Obama, Elections/Politics, Government, Military, News/Crime/Media
This part sounds more like a Christian Zionist GOTV e-mail blast accidentally got forwarded to an anti-Zionist blogger:
Jimmy the entire email is a phony ignorant fear mongering plant. The transparency of disingenuous blather is ugly.
Why are you posting it here?
I think you answered the question already :)
Ah, but who shall legitimise the ‘de-legimisers’? Cue the ‘but no anti-semites allowed’, and Norman Finkelstein is good until he is bad, and Gilad Atzmon and Israel Shamir should themselves be de-legitimised for the company they keep brigade. A true circle jerk, ultimately sterile.
The jerk in all this is the guy who requests a Kosher stamp on the solidarity movement (which would be much better off without any of these residually Zionist guys who show their… racism by calling themselves “Jewish” when they are not even religious) and badmouths three people who have risen to the quality of people instead of remaining tribe members. You should be ashamed of yourself (that is, if you are not working knowingly for the Zionist Propaganda-Abteilung.)
If Daniel Bell says that Israel is losing legitimacy , that’s great news, so the issue is closed.
we don’t have to worry no more, Israel is not Legitimate .
Young Jewish and Proud said it loud and clear the illegal settlements delegitimize Israel. The wall partially built on Palestinian land delegitmizes Israel. Bulldozing Palestinian homes, humiliating Palestinians at check points etc etc. Israel has become it’s own worse enemy. Sad
I was working on a piece a while ago, but never got around to completing it. I wanted to speak about Peter Beinart’s “Crisis of Zionism” and David Harvey’s lecture, “Capitalism in Crisis,” focusing on the insufficiency of the two political economies. Both privilege a particular class (ethnic Jews and the wealthy, respectively), creating subaltern classes which are not cared for and recognized, the non-privileged classes.
So for Capitalism, the evidence of inadequacy comes in the form of two statistics. First: the 2010 US Census. According to the 2010 census, the median wealth of whites in the United States is $110,000. The median wealth of blacks in the US is $4,990 -http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/21/news/economy/wealth-gap-race/index.htm.
Take these statistics, combined with evidence from research done by Lawrence Summers in the 1980′s which finds that approximately 80% of wealth is accumulated by inter-generational transfers – link to ideas.repec.org, and we find that capitalism has never produced equality, and without reparations (not only for blacks, but also for women, Latinos, and many others who have been historically denied access to capital) and strict modifications of laws governing intergenerational transfers, a capitalist economy cannot provide an equitable distribution of essential resources.
Thus, the seeds of their undoing originate in the very idea of the two political economies. It is not just a contemporary perspective, but a historical perspective that provides significant evidence of the illegitimacy of capitalism and Zionism. So to say that they are failing today is to ignore the fact that, for millions or billions of people around the world, they have never been successful.
“According to the 2010 census, the median wealth of whites in the United States is $110,000.”
Check out how much of this white wealth resides in the top 1-5%. Then check out how much of it is “white” Jewish wealth, and then compare the fact Jews are 3% of the total population. Can you say, Sheldon Adelson?
If a serious percentage of the total wealth owned by the top 1-5% were in the hands of Jews, that would matter — even then, it assumes such Jews pool their wealth. As it is, there is no evidence that the Jewish share of that pot of gold is so great as to give them financial super power.
Gives them control of Congress, and Foreign Policy, no?
@ Phil Weiss
Under Bell’s explicit guide to delegitimization in his book, does the United States today fail his legitimacy test? What about Europe, particularly the Eurozone?
How unique is Israel currently in this respect?
Money. Publicize the ‘aid’. Rub it in so it hurts.
@ NickJOCW
Whenever foreign aid is discussed in US mainstream media it is done to say one of two things: The total is very tiny in comparison to over all federal government spending annually, so let’s move on, or (recently) we should cut off aid to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Aid to Israel, whether as the largest chunk of US foreign aid and for what–this is NOT discussed.
@Citizen.
Thanks. I really had in mind the public at large. Great work has been done and is being done drawing attention to Israel’s negative behaviour but ordinary people are ever more prepared to support noble causes in harmony with self-interest. I’m not good at sums but if one showed the US aid to Israel which I understand is 2.77 billion divided by some aspect of the labour force, 12.69 million unemployed, for instance, or 142.55 million in employment, and presumably tax payers, one might arrive at a simple and memorable figure that would stick in the mind. Did you know every working man pays $xxx a year to Israel? Put it up in the metros etc. I realise it’s dubious, meaningless and irrational, but why play by the rules in a pub brawl; one is not trying to get to Heaven, after all, only free the Palestinians and make Israel internationally coherent.