Total number of comments: 188 (since 2009-12-30 17:01:29)
Shmuel Sermoneta-Gertel
Shmuel Sermoneta-Gertel is a Canadian-Israeli translator living in Italy.
Showing comments 188 - 101
Page: 2 1
Showing comments 188 - 101
Page: 2 1
-
-
- Informant’s text messages shed new light on NYPD spy program … 0
- Why did ‘NYT’ serve as platform for ‘military propaganda’? 0
- Reluctantly taking down monstrous orientalist video, college union in Israel … 6
- George Orwell would hate Israel 27
- First photographs of ‘Arabs with Altitude’ and Palestinian flag … 0
- Exile and the Prophetic: Freeing the president 0
- Why Palestine is different 7
- PLO: Israel has built 16,000 settlement units over the past … 1
-
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 1709
- Palestinian-American Raed Zidan plants flag on top of Everest, dedicates … 1362
- Christians denounce Israel’s manhandling of worshipers at Holy Sepulcher on … 952
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 810
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 438
- Israeli report on al-Dura case is vengeful and ‘surreal,’ says … 401
- There’s been a sea change in US opinion on the … 314
- Video: Soldiers aim guns at fallen boy’s head outside West … 302
-
- Kennedy’s insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite … 106
- Abulhawa declines to ‘balance out’ several Israelis in ‘Al Jazeera’ … 94
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 93
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 73
- Biden says Jewish ‘influence’ behind American cultural politics is ‘immense… … 57
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 54
- Israel cracks down on American travel to West Bank by … 50
- Both Massad, and ‘Open Zion’, ignore the experience of Middle … 49
-
- Informant’s text messages shed new light on NYPD spy program targeting Muslims http://t.co/J7dbBLZZXl, 5 hours ago
- Exile and the Prophetic: Freeing the president http://t.co/FXU8YRToQS, 6 hours ago
- First photographs of ‘Arabs with Altitude’ and Palestinian flag atop Everest http://t.co/jQQ6xcFAWw, 6 hours ago
- George Orwell would hate Israel http://t.co/pXjc9SBxNL, 6 hours ago
- Reluctantly taking down orientalist video, college union in Israel protests that it got '1000s of positive reactions' http://t.co/uCZ0r5CDey, 6 hours ago
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Glenn Greenwald on the Woolwich attack and blowback from the ‘war on terror’ (49)
- Annie Robbins: ckg, that’s very interesting.
- SF officials describe ‘apartheid’ label as ‘intolerance alienating the Jewish community’ (33)
- Annie Robbins: I wonder if there will be an internal jewish coup in the US led by the younger generation or it will...
- George Orwell would hate Israel (27)
- eljay: >> Every country has the right to control its borders. But no country has a right to be an oppressive,...
- Sumud: Jeepers Norman, you’re still peddling entry-level hasbara? At least entertain us with some more...
- Stephen Shenfield: I just read the article you refer to (originally from Ha-Aretz) and “an admitted...
- Reluctantly taking down monstrous orientalist video, college union in Israel protests that it got ’1000s of positive reactions’ (6)
- DICKERSON3870: RE: “They ["The Union" - J.L.D.] honestly don’t know what they did wrong. They’re genuinely...
- DICKERSON3870: RE: “The clip is meant for comedic purposes only . . . In less than one day, the video received...
- Kerry goes for the Hail Mary, but Obama is punting (48)
- Both Massad, and ‘Open Zion’, ignore the experience of Middle Eastern Jews (50)
- Hostage: Actually Joseph Massad recognizes this and points this out in his piece Zionism’s Internal Others, where he...
- Glenn Greenwald on the Woolwich attack and blowback from the ‘war on terror’ (49)
Our Writers
More WritersBlogroll
A form of messianism deriving ultimately, I suppose, from those biblical passages where the kings and nations flow joyously to Jerusalem and many nations are added to Yahweh.
That's certainly part of it, but there is also a humanistic aspect to Radler-Feldman's faith that necessarily understands redemption in a universal sense. Below, I linked to Jerry Haber's post "Progressive and Religious Zionist", in which he cites passages from the writings of Radler-Feldman and Shereshevsky that reflect a religious outlook governed first and foremost by universal ethical principles, or "a platform for truth, love, and peace".
I suspected that the whole thing is a Jewish joke when I read the last sentence:
“This is the great and incomparable messianic idea.”
Um, no. That part is serious.
Thanks, gamal. I love your thoughts on religion :-)
I don't think it is a coincidence that many of the leading members of Brit Shalom/Ihud were religious (Radler-Feldman, Shereshevsky, Magnes) or religiously-inspired (Buber, Bermann).
Yonah,
You might also find this post by Jerry Haber (Magnes Zionist) interesting: link to jeremiahhaber.com
I find these words, spoken by a Rabbi, indeed very strange ...
It's called a sense of irony. Even some rabbis have it (although I don't think Radler-Feldman was actually a rabbi). I can't vouch for sociologists and retired school teachers.
BTW, a more literal translation would have been "his royal highness Satan", if that helps.
Andrew,
As I wrote, Radler-Feldman considered himself a "Herzlian Zionist". He broke with Brit Shalom over the issue of free Jewish immigration. Yet, he and others associated with the group truly espoused principles of humanism and equality, and rejected the idea of an ethnocratic, exclusively Jewish state. After the establishment of the State of Israel, the former members of Brit Shalom formed the Ihud Association, which focused on Palestinian rights within Israel (e.g. strongly opposing the expropriation of Palestinian property), the return of the refugees, and opposing war with Israel's Arab neighbours. The respective positions and actions of Magnes, Buber, Bergman, Shereshevsky, Radler-Feldman and others are not above critcism, but they cannot simply be dismissed as mere hypocrisy or opportunism either. (Ruppin is a somewhat different story).
Orr and Machover (Peace, Peace, and No Peace, p. 443) describe Ihud as follows:
Furthermore, the ostensible inconsistencies in Radler-Feldman's worldview do not detract from the power of his words (and the convictions behind them) or the inspiration they offer.
Written only eight months before Israel invaded Egypt
The Ihud Association (publisher of Ner) also opposed the war with Egypt. See A. Orr, M. Machover, Peace, Peace, and No Peace, pp. 443-444 (Hebrew).
I wonder what else of interest they were publishing in the Ner journal in the 1950′s. Is it available online?
I was wondering the same thing, but haven't been able to find anything. Please let me know if you have better luck.
Taxi,
I wasn't resentful of anything in your comment, least of all the word "sahyooniyeh". Thanks for the perspective from Lebanon and Egypt.
Do you think that the status quo can go on for another 50 years?
Do you think the Gaza situation is sustainable ?
No, I don't think the situation in Gaza is sustainable, although the status quo or something very similar to it it is likely to go on for quite some time. What I don't see at this point is the possibility of a military solution, of the kind Taxi is suggesting. It's hard to say what the next stage in Gaza will look like, but a military defeat of the "sahyooniyeh" that will allow Palestinians in particular and Arabs in general to dictate the future political structure of the region does not seem very likely - despite the "tribal instincts" of people like Taxi's friends.
Taxi,
War may be inevitable (whether initiated by Israel or otherwise), but a solution brought about by war is not. Like Norman Finkelstein, you are suggesting that we are at a crossroads - a point at which a solution (whether military or negotiated) may be possible. I just don't see it.
Don’t count on a peaceful solution, people – it ain’t never coming no more.
I thought that was my point. A military solution seems at least as unlikely however. From your description, your friends don't seem particularly convinced of the feasibility of a military solution either, but feel that fighting your way to failure is better than talking your way there.
Do Palestinians actually have “specific national aspirations”, or is this just a Zionist fantasy?
I don't think there is any doubt at this point that Palestinians do have specific national aspirations (see e.g. the Palestine National Charter, considering the historical role of the PLO). Zionism was certainly a catalyst in its development (again, see the Charter), and has a conflicted relationship with it - sometimes clinging to it and sometimes denying its existence.
I have mentioned Danny Rubenstein's The Fig Tree Embrace before. Rubenstein compares Palestinian and Zionist nationalism and the ways in which the two have influenced each other.
the Palestinians themselves hold the greatest weapon in mass, non-violent resistance. In this, BDS would surely have a major supporting role but it does not relegate the Palestinians to being passive actors to their own fate. I find this preferable to Schmuel Sermoneta-Gertel’s alternative which seems to put more emphasis on BDS.
The primary actors will always be the Palestinians themselves, and whatever legitimacy and power BDS may have stems from the fact that it is the kind of support that the Palestinians themselves have asked for. The Palestinian struggle needs international support, but such support would be pointless without Palestinian resistance and "sumud".
Think about northern Ireland in the 1970s or South Africa in the 1980s.
Not fair choosing your examples with the benefit of hindsight, seafoid.
What does “Palestinian Arab State” mean? A state where Palestinian Arabs are the Israeli Jews? Im not sure I follow.
It means a state in which the linguistic, cultural, religious, historical, national ethos is Palestinian and Arab - as opposed to a binational state. It means a place in which Palestinians can express their specific national aspirations.
W.Jones,
It's not a "terror incident". It's a burglary that went wrong when the burgled tried to be a hero. In the Zionist narrative promoted by the Israeli MoD, however, if an Arab killed a Jew, it's martyrdom and an entry in the ledger of bad blood (two entries actually - credit us, debit them). I agree with David's analysis: the perspective reflected in the account of Hirschler's death is very disturbing.
And what is the point the author is trying to make in the last paragraph?
It's an observation on changing mores and contradictory values in Israeli society. Personally, I reject both hero- and victim-worship.
I found this image by Vauro, in yesterday's Il Manifesto, very moving: link to ilmanifesto.it
I just threw that in because I was sure it was a devastating clincher for my argument.
It was.
After some reflection, I concluded it would be best for you spell it any way you want, as long as it’s right.
You're not just saying that out of a sense of "ethnic solidarity", I hope.
you are spelling your name wrong
Damn. The one thing I was pretty sure I got right. How should I be spelling it?
tree,
Beinart has not been embraced by parts of the Palestinian solidarity movement as a spokesman and representative of Palestinian rights. To the extent that Beinart is given (thus far indirect) platforms by any part of the movement, it is clear that he is an outsider, who espouses a racist ideology. He is praised for the steps that he has taken in the right direction and criticised for his inconsistencies and unacceptable positions.
Palestinian leaders of the movement have made it clear that Atzmon does not represent their values and goals, and that they find his views harmful to the Palestinian cause. I don't think any such clarification is required where Beinart is concerned.
Mooser,
Since you've never had the "privilege" of being a Zionist, I'll fill you in on some of the things I got up to while still a Z: protests against the theft of Palestinian land and settler harassment, rebuilding demolished Palestinian homes, advocacy for full equality within Israel, opposition to Israeli state violence in the OT and Lebanon, and so forth. Fortunately, there were some anti-Zionists (including Michael Warschawski of the AIC and a number of Palestinian activists - including Marwan Barghouti) who thought it was better to cooperate (and argue) with Zionists like me than shun us. I'm sure that "cooperating with Zionists" wasn't their sole strategy, but they obviously didn't consider it a waste of time either.
Danaa,
I agree about the desperateness of the situation and the woeful inadequacy of playing nice (or nearly nice) and hoping Israelis and their supporters will come around, but I don't think across the board shunning is the answer either. A combination of the two perhaps? Full BDS, while trying to build coalitions against Israel's more egregious violations of human rights and international law - even within its natural support base? Just getting the cheerleaders to step aside from time to time could be helpful.
Thanks, David. I've defended and praised Beinart a few times on MW, but felt that this op-ed was a step backward, an attempt to establish a comfort zone. You're right of course about the journey, but challenges and criticism are no less important (and often more important) to the process than encouragement and support.
Thanks. I'll do my best :-)
N49,
Diogenes ("looking for an honest man") had a point, but a rather demoralising one, not worth dwelling on. Now about that luau-smörgåsbord ...
When you have a colony you got to have a mother-country like Britain and her American colonies.
There is "metropole colonialism" and there is "settler colonialism". Zionism falls into the latter category. See e.g. link to settlercolonialstudies.org
Newclench,
I was not referring to the 2ss per se, but to the Meretz-PN point of view. As for being a 1ss-supporter, I tend to agree with Michael Warschawski (see link below), although the principles behind the 1ss seem more conducive to a solution of any kind than what has passed for a 2ss thus far.
link to alternativenews.org
Straw man x2, benedict. I'm well aware of Jericho's Jewish past, and was "taken" to Hisham's Palace because that's where I asked to go.
As for your broader argument, in their shoes, would you emphasise the very history and artefacts that continue to be used - illogically and illegitimately - to assert a "superior" claim to your land (see eg. asherpat's comment below) or would you try to emphasise your own historical ties? Admittedly, it's a silly and dangerous game. The only legitimate claim to Jericho is that of people like Yousef Aljamal (see below).
Yousef,
Although I did not go to Jericho as an occupier, but as a guest, I was keenly aware of the fact that I was very privileged, and that Palestinians are unable to move freely in their own land. I hope that you get to see your family and your mother's city very soon.
Walid,
If I recall correctly, the casino had a few other problems - not least, attracting Israeli gamblers, in the wake of the intifada.
Alcohol on the other hand is sold freely and openly by Christians, on the main square. I saw two liquor stores, with large beer ads and cases of beer, whisky and vodka piled high, practically on the street. In Jericho - as in Nablus and the densely-populated E. Jerusalem neighbourhood we stayed in - virtually all of the women wore hijab, although we saw only one woman (in Jericho) in full niqab.
Appropriately, they served Taybeh (Palestinian) beer at the restaurant on the Mount of Temptation, but I opted for coffee out of respect for my Muslim friend.
Sorry. Longer answer:
It's something we'd been meaning to do for a long time, but had never quite managed to extricate ourselves from the family obligations that bring us to Israel in the first place. The Israeli restrictions were also a deterrent, and we'd made the mistake, in the past, of consulting with Israeli activist friends who go to the OT to protest against the occupation (as we used to do, when we lived in Israel), but know very little about Palestinian life beyond the struggle.
A couple of months ago, a Palestinian friend came to stay with us for a few days and we discussed the matter with him. He offered his home (within Jerusalem, but beyond the wall) as a base, his contacts and, most importantly, his company. It was also a great opportunity to get to know his kids, whom we hadn't seen since they were very small (and the ones born since), and to practice a little Arabic. Kids are the best teachers.
LeaNder,
Apart from East Jerusalem and a brief glimpse of Ramallah - Jericho and Nablus were the only Palestinian cities we visited. Impressions from the Israeli part of the trip may follow.
What prompted this sudden exploratory trip, if you don’t mind my asking?
A propitious alignment of the stars and an invitation by a Palestinian friend.
If you meet another loudly lecturing German tourist, ask the kids to take a photo for us. But if I may be curious, how old was s/he?
With all due respect to German tourists, our little photographer was after far more interesting subjects, like knafeh and animals :-)
I would say he was in his late twenties or early thirties.
Thanks, Annie. Next installment: Jericho.
i was with a young feminist palestinian woman
I was with a middle-aged Muslim man and his kids :-) The kids really boosted the fun factor (the knafeh photo was taken by our friend's six-year-old, btw).
Beyond the Fatah celebrations, other reminders of history and politics were a couple of posters of armed fighters in the market, and a very loud German tourist at the sweets shop, lecturing two young Palestinian men in leather jackets on the evils of Zionism.
@Elliot - Thanks for spelling out the Israeli associations with the Casbah. That is exactly what I had in mind.
Your pose that all people who oppose this statement are engaging in “alternate history” ...
No pose, WJ. What I wrote is: "That is my opinion, but there is little point in arguing alternate histories." I never suggested that my view is History and everything else is "alternate". Nor was I the one to assert that things would have been different if only. I merely pointed out that there is no way of knowing, and that if we are going to play if only, there are other equally possible scenarios that do not include the existence of a Jewish state.
Which "alternate history" statement is weaker? a) The establishment of a Jewish state during or prior to the Holocaust would have saved many lives, therefore there was a need for a Jewish state; or b) A Jewish state may or may not have saved lives, but other solutions (such as freer immigration, post-WWII-style international law, earlier US participation in the European arena, etc.) could have accomplished the same or more, therefore there was no need for a Jewish state.
The latter seems far stronger to me (if only because it questions the validity of reaching a certain conclusion on the basis of a vast range of uncertain and unknowable premises, and thus seeks to disprove a positive rather than a negative), but this really is a pointless argument.
WJ,
Glad to have had your respect until now (despite those nasty leftist tendencies of mine). It was fun while it lasted.
Jewish immigration to Palestine '29-'39 was an accomplishment of the Zionist movement, rendered possible by the British Mandate, despite its belated attempts to restrict immigration. The lives of many Jews unable to obtain visas for their countries of choice (Palestine was plan B for my grandparents) were thus saved. There is no reason to "deny" this. It's hard to know how many more Jews would have immigrated, had the British lifted restrictions entirely (if you have data, please share). It's also hard to know how many the country could/would have absorbed, how it would have affected strained relations with the majority Arab population, and a whole bunch of other stuff. It is equally hard to know how a state (with what economic, political, demographic, ideological constraints) would have behaved - especially in light of the fact that such a state would have lacked our sense of retrospective urgency (as did the Jews of Europe - most of my relatives thought things weren't that bad and would only get better in Poland).
The idea of auto-emancipation in and of itself was not a particularly bad one at the time (although most Jews didn't seem to like it very much). It probably would have failed outside of Palestine, and would not necessarily have avoided the crimes committed in its name in Palestine (Birobidzhan is a somewhat different story, but it never really stood much of a chance either). The problems with Zionism obviously pertain to the harm it has done - to Palestinians and to Jews - not to the idea of "self help". That is a far cry however from seeing Jewish statehood (not a sine qua non for "self help" by the way) as a panacea for antisemitism and a (partial) cure for the Holocaust (before, during and after).
You are playing what if, WJ, and - directly or indirectly - using your what-if conclusions (which depend on innumerable premises about what would and would not have happened in the world) to find extenuating circumstances for Zionist wrongs. It is the official Zionist narrative (God knows I had it drummed into me), but that doesn't make it so.
Now you're playing semantic games with me :-)
First, viable doesn't mean perfect or terrific; it means that it can work (enough). The term "viable-enough" you have invented is thus superfluous. Second, you make an unnecessary jump from "state" to "nation-state". If you mean that the situation in "normal" states is far from perfect, you won't get any argument from me (I'm with VR there, but have to operate on at least two different levels, for the sake of my sanity). But I/P has that certain extra something that can and must be addressed all on its own. We can talk about the Revolution later.
No, I haven't read Kojeve (and little Hegel and no Strauss for that matter).
CKM,
Were there a "viable state concept", we wouldn't be having this discussion. So in the unfortunate absence of such a concept, we do the best we can: adopting an undeniably weaker strategy - the success (at least partial) of which is not entirely without hope or precedent (probably in conjunction with somewhat less noble forces than the idea of universal rights); and refusing to stand idly by in the face of oppression ("standing on the blood of our brothers"), regardless of our presumed chances of success.
Regarding identity, we have touched upon this before (you and I). The "room of one's own" approach has been catastrophic for Jewish identity and life. Debate and change are desperately required within Judaism (with some help from our friends), and I believe we are seeing the beginnings of such debate. I am not convinced that a comparable "room of one's own" approach exists among Palestinians.
Citizen,
Definitely classic colonial mentality. Seeing the irony however, would require an exceptional amount of self-awareness (whether the subjects happen to be Jews or Puritans or Huguenots - sharing the "enlightenment" of their suffering with others).
going much further on this subject would require religious-philosophical definition of nettlesome terms like “things,” “will,” “work out,” and “the end.”
Do you mean to say that you find the conjunctions self-explanatory? Lucky devil ;-)
Richard,
The idea of a single state is merely one logical conclusion of the human rights argument. There are other possible conclusions, but they are all equally onerous to most Israelis, because it is the principle of Palestinian equality that they reject, not the number of states (or "externally coerced regime change").
Why did you change the argument that you were addressing?
I didn't. The argument I have been addressing all along is the idea that a Jewish state is/was ever needed to ensure Jewish safety. I don't believe that it ever was. WJ has argued, here and elsewhere, that a Jewish state could have saved significant numbers of Jews from Hitler. That is the speculation I was referring to.
If you would like to address the "need" for a Jewish state after the Holocaust that is a different argument. I don't think there was a "need" for a Jewish homeland then either, but for swifter generosity on the part of countries that eventually absorbed hundreds of thousands of DPs, and less cynical exploitation and manipulation of the survivors on the part of the Jewish Agency and other Zionist bodies.
Ask the Roma
WJ,
Do you really believe that statehood (and consequently, some form of segregation) is the answer to all persecution and discrimination? A one-size-fits-all solution to racism and intolerance? The Roma are not discriminated against because they don't have a state, and a state would not resolve their problems - or the problems of intolerance in Europe in general, whether toward the Roma, immigrants, Jews, gays, women, or any one else.
Where were the Jews to escape to?
WJ,
Rafi's comment referred to '39-'45, but the same goes for the years before the war. Some of my relatives escaped to Canada, some to South America and some to Palestine (without a Jewish state). During the war, many Jews escaped to Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, Japan/China and elsewhere. Many others were given sufficient assistance to survive within occupied Europe - another kind of "escape". Many German Jews successfully left Germany during the years of persecution preceding the war.
It is pure speculation - speculation hyped up over the years to justify the injustices of Zionism - that the existence of a Jewish state could/would have saved any significant number of Jews - especially when one considers that it's a theoretical game that could just as easily postulate any number of other alternatives. "Somewhere to escape to" does not necessarily imply a Jewish state, and millions of Jews, in fact, left Eastern Europe for destinations other than Palestine beginning in the late 19th century, saving countless lives in ways that probably could not have been accomplished by a Jewish state anywhere - certainly not in Palestine.
The "cold reception" of news of the genocide of European Jews was, for the most part, shared by non-European - including Palestinian - Jews. There is no reason to believe that a Jewish state would have behaved any differently. States have interests, strategies and limitations - even Jewish states.
What is weak, in my opinion, is the argument that there is a need for a Jewish state (and so a moral justification for Zionist immorality), because had there been one during or before the Holocaust, countless Jewish lives would have been saved. There is no possible way of proving such an assertion.
Now you’re really pissing me off. ;)
My pleasure.
The Rabbinic dictum doesn't say things will work out in the end, just that one must do the right thing regardless of the fact that one knows full well that they might not. It is less about faith in others than about faith in oneself.
Thank you, ToivoS. I also heard Omar Barghouti last year - alone, in front of a pro-Palestinian audience. He made the same argument, but added that he personally (not the BDS movement) supported the idea of a single state, as the solution most in keeping with principles of justice, equality and democracy. The important thing is not to put Palestinian rights on hold until a "solution" is found, and to be open to any solution that will uphold those rights.
Otto,
The fact that many Zionist leaders believed that bringing "European civilisation" to the Levant was an incredible boon for the "natives" is all over the place in their writings, and there is no reason to doubt it. Some (e.g. Ben Gurion, Ben-Zvi) even believed, for a time, that Palestinian Arabs would be eager to join the Jewish nation. Ungrateful savages!
Jerry,
To the extent that such proposals may once have been viable (and they had many flaws - primarily unsatisfactory arrangements for refugees and access to Jerusalem), they are no longer so, due to the massive and irreversible construction of settlements and transfer of Israelis to the OT. Even with land exchanges and the dismantling of settlements outside "blocs", Palestinian territorial contiguity would be a nightmare and resource division would necessarily be unequal. Furthermore, Israel has insisted upon issues of border control, airspace, demilitarisation, etc. that would give Israel complete control, to be exercised whenever and wherever it likes. All of this seems to me to be a recipe for humiliation, resentment and disaster, even if a certain amount of Palestinian autonomy were to be achieved.
CKM,
Glad you liked it, sorry it came at an inopportune time ;-)
I'm afraid I don't have as much faith as you do in human nature. I think there is a basic difference in perception between oppressor and oppressed - exacerbated by the difference in power, voice, influence, freedom - that makes it very difficult to envisage a point of encounter. The two sides lack a basic common language - thinking and saying very different things when they use words such as "justice". Focusing on rights tries to create or utilise a more objective frame of reference, for those not directly involved - international arbiters - and maybe even for some of those involved. Until such a frame of reference is established, progress is highly unlikely.
In the past (before your time), I have used a Rabbinic dictum to explain how it is possible, and even necessary, to strive for goals that seem highly improbable, if not actually impossible: "The task is not yours to complete, nor are not free to avoid acting toward it."
David,
I tried to clarify my understanding of rights- vs. solution-based approaches in my answer to Jerry, above. Of course there are final goals, but 1) I think there are more likely (i.e. less unlikely) to be achieved if they are on the table from the very beginning, as a basis for interaction; and 2) that they allow far more leeway in the interim, as they do not depend on the results of negotiation or quid pro quo horse-trading. Palestinians can enjoy greater rights even without an agreement, whereas the current focus on a "solution" tends to avoid discussions of rights, because those issues will either be worked out in an agreement or become moot once an agreement is reached.
Jerry,
I disagree on two grounds. First, on practical grounds: if one says that the 2ss is dead, then the 1ss solution is even deader
Here our perceptions of reality differ. I don't see either solution as any more improbable than the other - certainly if we are speaking about a 2ss that even begins to approach viability (which is the kind you have described).
Given the disparities in power, as well as the history of conflict, a two-state solution, one that led to a genuinely viable and truly sovereign Palestinian state, would better ensure Palestinian self-determination, control over their own destiny, equality, and democracy–and it would have a far better chance of creating a lasting peace than a binational state
The distinction between principle and practice, utopia and pragmatism, gets a little blurry. The basic idea that Israeli Jews and Palestinians need a "time out" is certainly sound, but would an unequal partition (the only remotely "imaginable" kind), with continued Israeli control over Palestinian life, resources (primarily land and water), freedom of movement, etc. really have any less chance, "in principle", than a single state with equal rights for all? A 2ss or federation of some kind is not a bad idea, but some semblance of equality really is a sine qua non for stability and an end to conflict.
If one says that no solution will work, then you are also saying that Israel must continue to occupy and control the Palestinians. So what would a “rights-based” solution look like in that context?
I recognise the fact that Israel will continue to occupy and control the Palestinians, regardless of the solutions we may seek. A rights-based "solution" would look like a binational state or 2 states founded on principles of equality, human rights and international law, but that's not what I'm talking about. A rights-based approach insists on human rights and international law as the basis for negotiation (fertile or sterile as it may be), and refuses to accept the deferral of Palestinian rights to some vague future date, when all other issues have been resolved. In this way, I believe that significant gains can be made, for the mitigation of Palestinian suffering - particularly in terms of the most flagrant violations, in Gaza, the WB and East Jerusalem - and a trajectory for future recognition of these rights (primarily internationally, but also among a minority of Israelis) can be established.
It is often true that "the enemy of the good is the perfect", but it also goes without saying that there are many different kinds of imperfection, and not all possess even the bare minimum to achieve any good at all.
Rafi,
The Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe didn't need a Jewish state; they needed escape, assistance, safety and the eventual defeat of the Nazis. Many were fortunate enough to have benefited from these things without a Jewish state, and many more were not. There is no reason to believe that the mere existence of a Jewish state would have been sufficient to provide some or any of these things in any significant way. Furthermore, to the extent that these things could have been provided by a Jewish state (as long as we're playing the alternative history game), they could have been provided in equal or greater measure by other conjunctures or the anticipation of other historical developments.
Jerome,
Thank you very much for your response and your queries. I'll post my thoughts within the next couple of days.
Definitely a formative experience, growing up anglo-montréalais in the '70s. Arrived in Israel just in time for the Lebanon War, Israeli withdrawal from Sinai and the heyday of Gush Emunim and Peace Now.
Apart from the obvious "two wrongs don't make a right", we know that Israeli behaviour is immoral in the here and now. Are you suggesting that the hypothetical immoral behaviour of Egyptians can justify that in any way? I think you've just proved my point.
annie,
Maybe I was thinking of a more philosophical definition, but to my mind, feelings like outrage and frustration - natural and important emotions - are not compatible with the idea of stoicism. That is why I would use other words to express the immense respect I have for the Palestinian people as a whole and for the many individual Palestinians whose stories I have heard.
Hophmi,
The Israeli government has urged western governments to support Mubarak, and many Israelis would like to see Mubarak remain in power, regardless of the consequences for Egyptians. The reasons for this have to do with Israeli concerns - real or imagined, with or without other causes. What any of this means for Egyptians is totally irrelevant to most Israelis. Were it in fact a situation of having "to die for Egyptians to have democracy" you would have a point, but you know as well as I do that that is not the issue here. It's all about a "margin of safety" (whose safety), for the sake of which, Israelis are more than happy to sacrifice Egyptian freedom, livelihood, well-being - whatever it takes. When it comes to Palestinians, it gets much much worse.
annie,
It all depends on what you mean by stoic. Semantics aside, I think our impressions are the same.
Any resolution of the Israeli Palestinian conflict will involve a large dose of forgiveness and focusing on the blood spilled, in a way, moves the conversation in the wrong direction.
That's not what I meant, and we're not there yet.
As for stoicism, I agree that it's highly overrated, but I wouldn't confuse it with impotence or non-violence.
Stoicism was mentioned by Shmuel and was commented on by others.
I actually meant it as a figure of speech - inspired by the Egyptians, not the Palestinians. I don't know whether I would describe Palestinians as stoic. Restraint, steadfastness and dignity might be more apt. Israeli and western impressions of the Palestinian struggle are rather distorted (they are Arabs after all), seeing only violent resistance (where non-violence has been far more pervasive) and violence against civilians in particular - to the point of defining even military operations with military objectives as "terrorism". I therefore agree with andrew that your remark was superfluous and probably intended (subconsciously?) to restore "balance", lest we go too far in appreciating and identifying with the Palestinian struggle. Yes, there are parts of the Palestinian struggle that are indefensible, but must we really bring those up every single time we have anything positive to say about Palestinians - especially when it is Israeli (and western) brutality that we are preconditioned to excuse or accept as "decent" and "civilised"?
Other than that, a really great comment.
TGIA,
Thanks for the blessing! I was born in Canada (hence my "funny" spelling) and moved to Israel in my early teens (14).
There is a Hebrew equivalent of the Arabic ṡad (ṡadi) - pronounced in most modern Jewish traditions as "tz" - but the Hebrew cognate of hoṡn is written with the non-emphatic letter samekh - as is the name Hosni, so the play on words works much better in Hebrew. There's a good deal of "migration" between similar letters in Hebrew-Arabic cognates. The Hebrew ʼaḥ (brother), for example, is the equivalent of the Arabic ʼakh.
Thanks David. A simple glance, even at Haaretz, offers numerous examples of such "rhetorical acrobatics" (today's analysis by Zvi Barel is a case in point).
Sayed Kashua put it very well in his column this weekend:
Thanks, Annie. The root hsn in Hebrew has two meanings: treasure (something stored) or strength (cognate of the arabic hṡn). The context of the chapter in Proverbs has led most commentators and translators to favour the first meaning, although, as a popular saying - especially in modern Hebrew - the latter meaning is generally understood. The second half of the verse however, explicitly mentions political power ("the crown"), and the structure of "synonymous parallelism" (expressing the same idea, in different words, in both halves of a verse) is typical of Biblical poetry.
A someone said (me?): so many directions, so few compasses…
I'll be sure to quote you by username ;-)
Human nature makes us all want to feel a part of the group (blame the interminable hunter-gatherer phase in our evolution), and nothing says belonging like putting down outgroupers. We all do it - except that it is even more ridiculous than usual when we trash others (gratuitously and irrelevantly of course) because we are members of The Group that Doesn't Trash People and they are not. I say this as a member in good standing of The Group that Hates Looking/Feeling Ridiculous but Inevitably Does All Too Often.
The Zionist left is particularly prone to this kind of hypocrisy, in its desperate desire to be a part of "the nation" (all cozy-like). This offers a partial explanation (not justification!) of widespread lefty support in Israel for the Gaza massacre and the most recent Lebanon war ("excesses" excluded, naturally). A good old "just war" (milhemet ein breirah) really does wonders for the bitter isolation Israeli lefties experience under normal circumstances. Who can blame them for twisting the word "just" into a pretzel? It's evolution.
*Further disclaimer (seems to be necessary around here these days): It is not my intention to justify racism or racist actions in any way, even if the perps are or have ever been victims of racism themselves, or are influenced by evolutionary forces.
Avi,
I get the feeling that you are not really reading what I write, but grinding some other axe.
I have argued that those who approach I/P from an anti-racist perspective must be aware of the fact that there is a racist and self-serving element to liberal Israeli discourse (related to the detrimental '67 paradigm/delusion) which should be approached in a critical fashion. Zeh hakol. I have not justified the racism of those who are, in turn, discriminated against, and I do not believe that I have directly or indirectly held back "the struggle" in any way.
What "hityafyefut" are you talking about? By all means criticise Lieberman, but criticise him because he is a fascist, not because he is a Russian, and be careful of the chorus you join, which may be just as bad - if not worse - although at least one generation less Russian, with better Hebrew and better manners.
some of the most radical settlers from, say, Kiryat Arba, speak with a thick American accent
And most don’t. Israel has plenty of home-grown nutters, and some Americans manage to adopt a passable Israeli accent. Who is worse, the Israeli-accented Moshe Levinger or the Brooklyn-accented Eliezer Waldman?
I intend to use it
I'm sure there are situations in which it is apt. Can you think of an equivalent term for those of us raised in the shadow of US-dominated western capitalism? Oh I forgot, that's the system that was "proven" right ;-)
Ben Gurion, Abba Eban, Shimon Peres, Yithak Shamir, Menahem Begin, etc. all spoke with accents. So an actual immigrant lording it over an indigenous population ranks a little higher on the chutzpah scale than the child of immigrants doing the same thing. Big deal. Even the native Israeli accent is an invention dreamt up by Zionist immigrants/colonisers not so very long ago.
======================================
I first got involved with the Israeli peace movement in the late 80's, and you're barking up the wrong tree.
At least I'm consistent ;-)
The statistics about Soviet/post-Soviet immigrant views are what they are, but Israeli society as a whole has also moved to the right in recent years (for various reasons) and, what is more, things weren't so peachy before their arrival either. Is Lieberman any more racist or any more of a lout than the Israeli-born Raful? Was Rehavam Ze'evi's "transfer" any less abhorrent than Lieberman's (Lieberman's is actually less drastic)? So what is it about Lieberman? Why is his "Russian"-ness brought up so often? Is it really that relevant to his views (remember also that he came in '78, not with the more recent wave), and are his views really so different from those of "respectable" Israeli society that insists that Israel must be a Jewish state, continues to steal Palestinian land on both sides of the green line, refuses to recognise the rights of the Palestinian refugees, etc.? (I am not suggesting that Yossi shares these views, but they are a part of "liberal" Israeli discourse).
shielding victimizers from criticism
Victimisers should and must be criticised for their actions, not the origins they happen to share with heaps of other people - especially when the basis for that criticism is anti-racism.
Thanks, Danaa. That was very well put - so well put in fact, that my first instinct was to write "yeah, what she says".
My point was a little different however. It's really easy to blame racism and intransigence in Israel on certain "sectors" (migzarim), but that is both unfair (without ignoring any elephants) and often serves to hide abuses by the supposed good guys (who don't qualify as a "sector", because they are the establishment), that are at least as bad, if not worse. I believe that emphasising Lieberman's origins when not specifically relevant (Yossi contends that it was pertinent here; I disagree), feeds that tendency and is incongruous with the struggle against racism.
Yossi,
I appreciate your writing and your positions, but in this case, my impression (and I may of course be wrong) is that you fell into the Ahusal trap. Are native-born Israelis really more aware of "the history of their neighbours" than their Soviet counterparts?
The term “Homo Sovieticus” ... refers to someone who accepted basic Soviet thinking, including blind acceptance of claims made by authority and isolation from and hatred of the outside world
Couldn't the same be argued about the vast majority of native-born Israelis with regard to Zionist thinking?
And finally, there is something exceptionally loathsome in an émigré whose politics are based on the idea of expelling the native population.
I agree, but in the context of a state created by immigrants, who expelled a good part of the native population and continue to refuse to recognise that injustice or attempt to redress it, the loathsomeness becomes somewhat less exceptional.
It was not my intention to call you a racist, but to point out elements of liberal discourse that are racist. I think there is a difference.
For the Jews, it meant acculturating the Bani Yisrael into mainstream Jewry.
Don't you mean Beta Yisrael?
As for Jewish colonial meddling, it was not just Zionists. French and Italian Jews were instrumental in implementing the colonial strategy of divide and conquer in their respective countries' North African colonies - dividing Jews from Muslims, with disastrous results.
Elliot,
There is a lot of Sephardi antagonism toward immigrants from the FSU, both for socioeconomic reasons and for cultural/religious reasons - many are not Jewish, and most are culturally non-Jewish, including an insatiable taste for pork (the pork business is booming in Israel). Sephardi anti-Ashkenazi racism also comes into play, of course.
I think the point of the sketch is that everyone wants to feel like they belong, and one of the easiest ways of doing that is to put down someone who belongs even less than you. This is illustrated especially by the final scene, in which the Georgians [Gruzinim] start shouting at the next group of immigrants the second they hit the beach, and even before anyone else has arrived.
Indeed I did get a good chuckle. Thanks, Avi. I was just trying to play along with the formal third person thing. I knew I should have thrown in a smiley :-)
Yes, the author knows it well. And the commenter's point?
I assume these guys are a prominent comedy duo.
Legendary.
I'm studying spoken Arabic at the moment, and my teacher (a Palestinian) spoke a bit about the transliteration mess, and why he chose the system he did (which closely resembles the "scientific system" used for the transliteration of Hebrew). For my own use, I prefer to transliterate Arabic into Hebrew.
i will tell you more about the russians that used to sleep under my bed during the cold war
Oh my God! How do you duck and cover if they're under the bed?
Do you mean ‘calling other natives “foreigners” ‘?
That too, in the case of Palestinians, who are not actually called foreigners, but are treated as if they were. I was referring to a native calling an immigrant (who has the same funny accent as said native's dad) a "foreigner".
It always seems wrong to use the term “immigrant” in reference to someone who was born in the country.
I agree, but I think it's appropriate when said native-born citizen is going around calling others "foreigners".
TGIA,
In some ways, the '48 theft was more "understandable" than the '67 theft; in some ways the opposite is true. Shulamit Aloni calls it the difference between survival and greed. Oren Yiftachel mitigates his characterisation of Israel as an ethnocracy, by calling it an "ethnocracy of refugees". Settlers like to point out that the vast majority of WB settlements sit on previously uninhabited land (as opposed to actually living in or destroying other people's homes - as the "leftists" within the green line did and continue to do).
It is not enough to stop stealing in the present (although it would be a good first step), while refusing even to acknowledge your earlier (and far more devastating) theft. The hypocrisy is far greater when your group gets to keep its spoils, at the expense of a more recent and less privileged bunch of larcenists.
See the author's response to David Samel, above.