Trending Topics:

Sharon’s debris

Israel/Palestine
on 27 Comments
Sharon's funeral today, from the Facebook page of Netanyahu, center right, with wife Sara and VP Joe Biden

Sharon’s funeral today, from the Facebook page of Netanyahu, center right, with wife Sara and VP Joe Biden

This is part of Marc H. Ellis’s “Exile and the Prophetic” feature for Mondoweiss. To read the entire series visit the archives page.

Is there so much water over the dam that we have forgotten how progressive Jews loathed Sharon? How Sharon should be banished from Israeli politics? How Sharon didn’t belong in Israel’s public arena, certainly not in “our” dream of a Jewish state?

Not a word in that direction was heard at Sharon’s funeral today.

Sharon spent his adult life near the center of Israeli power and then, much to the surprise of many, reached its pinnacle as Prime Minister. Amid predictions once again of his failure, he was reelected as Prime Minister. Politically speaking, there was no end in sight to Sharon’s political might.

Sharon’s political career wasn’t ended at the ballot box. It was felled by a stroke.

At today’s funeral the silence on this issue, too, was deafening.

Sharon’s major critic and competitor in the last years of his life was the current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. What was Netanyahu’s focus in his funeral reflection? Sharon’s mistake in withdrawing from Gaza; Iran as a looming nuclear threat to Israel’s security.

So it goes. There’s no end in sight to Netanyahu’s political might either.

With his death some political observers look back on Sharon with nostalgia. Sharon, part of Israel’s founding generation, could ultimately make the tough decisions for peace. Unlike Netanyahu.

Wrong.

Even the various statesmen at Sharon’s funeral today reflected, albeit without detail, on his foibles. Between the accolades, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair commented:

Once decided he was unflinching. He carried all before him. And in this mode he didn’t move, he charged. Positions, parties, policies, he could leave considerable debris in his wake. But always his destination was clear. As was his motivation.

Considerable debris in his wake. Coming from Blair who enabled George Bush’s Iraq policy, that’s quite a statement.

Commenting on the funeral accolades for Sharon, Avi Shlaim, the Israeli historian, fills out the content of the debris Sharon left in his wake, at the Guardian:

Sharon was the unilateralist par excellence. His ultimate aim was to redraw unilaterally Israel’s borders, incorporating large swaths of occupied territory. Stage one was to build on the West Bank the so-called security barrier which the Palestinians call the apartheid wall. The international court of justice condemned this wall as illegal. It is three times as long as the pre-1967 border, and its primary purpose is not security but land-grabbing. Good fences may make good neighbours, but not when they are erected in the neighbour’s garden.

Stage two consisted of the unilateral disengagement of Gaza in August 2005. This involved the uprooting of 8,000 Jews and the dismantling of many settlements − a shocking turnaround by a man who used to be called the godfather of the settlers. Withdrawal from Gaza was presented as a contribution to the Quartet’s road map but it was nothing of the sort. The road map called for negotiations; Sharon refused to negotiate. His unilateral move was designed to freeze the political process, thereby preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state and maintaining the geopolitical status quo in the West Bank.

His enduring legacy has been to empower and embolden some of the most racist, xenophobic, expansionist, and intransigent elements in Israel’s dysfunctional political system.

Debris. Evidently it depends where you stand and who the debris lands on – if it is considered important or not.

Enduring legacy. Evidently it depends where you stand and where racism, xenophobia and expansionism lead – if it is considered ill-advised or even criminal.

Nostalgia for Israel’s founders is misplaced. This includes Sharon. What was done in the origins of Israel – to Palestinians – was wrong. What is being done today in the name of the Jewish people – to Palestinians – is wrong.

Even in the parenthetical criticism of Sharon at today’s funeral this essential fact was missed. It is also instructive. World leaders gathered to honor a man considered by Palestinians to be a fascist essentially affirmed his policies and, more importantly, his legacy as Israel’s state policy.

Not surprisingly, for the most part, Palestinians were unnamed throughout the funeral proceedings. Out of respect for Sharon? Or out of fear of naming the Palestinian dead, Sharon was responsible for?

On the Jewish side, Sharon’s funeral shows that a Jewish military and political leader considered by many to be a war criminal can be honored within Jewish history.

This is as Sharon would want it – injustice and atrocity normalized as central to Israeli and Jewish life.

The funeral orations demonstrate we are living and negotiating within the parameters of what Sharon left us. Israel has conquered Palestine. Sharon was central to this abiding state policy.

Jews should understand Sharon’s legacy in this light, too. Sharon left Jews the debris of a religion and a culture that once wrestled with the ethical.

Only nostalgia – and ignorance – can save us from the knowledge that Sharon’s funeral is an omen whose future his life revealed.

Marc H. Ellis
About Marc H. Ellis

Marc H. Ellis is Professor of History and Jewish Studies and Director of the Center for the Study of the Global Prophetic. His latest book is Finding Our Voice: Embodying the Prophetic and Other Misadventures.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

27 Responses

  1. hophmi
    hophmi
    January 13, 2014, 10:28 am

    “Is there so much water over the dam that we have forgotten how progressive Jews loathed Sharon? How Sharon should be banished from Israeli politics? How Sharon didn’t belong in Israel’s public arena, certainly not in “our” dream of a Jewish state?”

    I don’t think so. I think like some leaders, Sharon changed over time, and thus, so did the perceptions. Have you forgotten how many people hated Nelson Mandela at one time and thought he was a terrorist (not that I would compare Mandela and Sharon)?

    “Not a word in that direction was heard at Sharon’s funeral today.”

    Why would people talk about that at a funeral?

    “Sharon spent his adult life near the center of Israeli power and then, much to the surprise of many, reached its pinnacle as Prime Minister. Amid predictions once again of his failure, he was reelected as Prime Minister. Politically speaking, there was no end in sight to Sharon’s political might.”

    Yes, and as Prime Minister, he behaved in a way no one could have predicted, and withdrew the IDF and Israeli settlers from the Gaza Strip.

    “It is three times as long as the pre-1967 border, and its primary purpose is not security but land-grabbing.”

    This is a political interpretation. Its primary role is security, and it was changed a number of times to minimize the amount of the Palestinian land it incorporated.

    “The road map called for negotiations; Sharon refused to negotiate.”

    Actually, Sharon accepted the Road Map and signed the Wye River Accord, so I don’t think one can say that he didn’t negotiate.

    “On the Jewish side, Sharon’s funeral shows that a Jewish military and political leader considered by many to be a war criminal can be honored within Jewish history.”

    This is the kind of analysis I find risible. You know what, Marc? People like me can accept that Sharon was a thug. But you seem to believe that only Jews can admire thugs, or that nations can be built without them. As I said elsewhere, Americans admire a whole lot of them, including Andrew Jackson, whom we made a President (and who is actually a lot like Sharon – child of the frontier, war hero, unilateralist, unlikely President). We’ve honored many a military man here. The Palestinians themselves admire a long list of thugs, from Yasir Arafat to Sheihk Yassin and many others.

  2. Justpassingby
    Justpassingby
    January 13, 2014, 11:06 am

    Of course the warcriminal Tony Blair is there.

    • piotr
      piotr
      January 13, 2014, 8:42 pm

      Debris on the wake? Does it mean rubbish on the funeral?

  3. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    January 13, 2014, 11:35 am

    RE: “Jews should understand Sharon’s legacy in this light, too. Sharon left Jews the debris of a religion and a culture that once wrestled with the ethical.” ~ Marc Ellis

    FROM NORMAN POLLACK (1/10/14):

    [EXCERPT] . . . Israel is determined not to have a settlement. Its characteristic mindset is obviously the militarization of Zionism and, to that end, making Judaism a State Religion. This is very different from the spirit immediately following World War II, when the socialist kibbutz was affirmed as the nation’s model. Judaism does not need Israel. It is a world religion with fundamental moral-ethical principles, all which Israel violates on a daily basis. When the oppressed become the oppressors, we have a profoundly sick psychoanalytic condition, the introjection of the crimes committed against it, now turned outward. That, I submit, has happened. Israel has left Judaism far behind, in its quest for power, superiority, expansion.

    American Jewry, once the fountainhead of liberalism and radicalism, reaching a high point in the New Deal, and manifested not only in politics, but culture, and a saving remnant existing into the ’60s, incorporating true humanism and inclusiveness as part of the civil rights struggle (Schwerner-Goodman-Cheney), has degenerated into NeoCon warmongering, reactionary politics and social policy, superpatriotism, in sum, the forfeiture of all that made me proud of my heritage. To criticize now is to be pilloried as a self-hating Jew, whether said criticism is directed to Israel or US global policy–Joe McCarthy with a yarmulke, functional red-baiting by e.g. AIPAC under a different label. I shall continue to affirm my Judaism, wholly separable from Israel. . .

    . . . American support for Israel surely goes beyond residual feelings of guilt for allowing the Holocaust to occur and continue (e.g., by joining forces with Europe after the invasion of Poland, or later, the siege of Stalingrad), admiration, post-war, for suffering humanity, here, Zionism qua a crusade of the displaced persons for security in a new land, or devoted respect of Judaism as a foundation stone of religion in the West. Some of this may be true (on the level of sentiment, and political expediency in attracting American Jewry), but the US pro-Israel position has always been firmly grounded in realpolitik, at first a bastion or forward line in the Cold-War confrontation with the Soviet Union, relatedly, preservation of the Middle East as a sphere of influence centered on the world’s oil supply, and then, access to oil itself, freed from Left popular forces and the confiscation of US oil properties.
    But as Israel developed, and especially proved its military mettle to the US in dislodging and forcing out the indigenous Palestinian populace, along with a general posture of identifying with conservative regimes (apartheid South Africa, various dictators in Latin America) and somewhat rigidly following the American lead in international relations, concomitant with abandonment of a socialist-kibbutz vision in domestic organization in favor of becoming a Mossad-style world player and nuclear-armed military power, the US rejoiced at the special relationship. Ideologically, Washington gives away nothing. This was love at first- or at least second-sight, testified from early on by the close working relations between the military and intelligence communities of the two countries. Now, perhaps more than ever, because of America’s struggle to maintain its global hegemony, it not only sanctions but applauds every abuse of the Israeli government, possibly acting as enablers for inhumane thought and practices which might otherwise not have materialized had such back-up not been provided. In any case, America’s overall policy toward Israel reveals its own ethnocentrism, militarism, and disregard for international law. To see Israel is to see America with clear eyes. . .

    SOURCE – http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/10/diverse-signs-of-american-decay-and-decline/

  4. seafoid
    seafoid
    January 13, 2014, 11:36 am

    Blair could have been talking about Hitler. Hitler did what it said on the tin. He cleared poland. He was decisive, unflinching, insane. Sharon was a poor man’s Hitler really.

  5. seafoid
    seafoid
    January 13, 2014, 11:38 am

    Sharon’s lifelong mission was to destroy palestine but he seems to have taken Judaism out in the process. Collateral damage.

  6. Maximus Decimus Meridius
    Maximus Decimus Meridius
    January 13, 2014, 12:05 pm

    ”Is there so much water over the dam that we have forgotten how progressive Jews loathed Sharon? How Sharon should be banished from Israeli politics? How Sharon didn’t belong in Israel’s public arena, certainly not in “our” dream of a Jewish state?”

    So what did all these ‘progressive Jews’ do to put their ‘loathing’ into practice? Did they demonstrate in huge numbers against his invasion of Lebanon (and no, not after it began to damage the ‘soul of Israel’, but right at the start, in 1982)? Did those living in the US write to their senators to ask that all funding to Israel be halted while he was in power? Did they actively support the Palestinian or Lebanese resistance?

    Or was their ‘loathing’ (with some notable exceptions) more a squeamishness about how Sharon laid bare the horrible reality of Zionism, a Zionism which most of these ‘progressive Jews’ continued to support?

  7. Denis
    Denis
    January 13, 2014, 12:06 pm

    Well, there’s always the mirror problem, eh?

    Maybe the real tragedy here is not the wall, or Blair, or Bush, or Sharon, or even Netanyahu. Maybe it’s that we’re the ones who let them get away with their outrageous behavior.

    If those of us who are opposed to zionism had been as adamant in opposing Sharon as Sharon was adamant in destroying the Palestinians, there wouldn’t be an apartheid Israel today. There are a lot more right-minded people in this world than there are zionists.

    In fact, Americans have more than enough power to shut down the whole zionist enterprise. Without America’s support, Israel would be about as welcome at the UN as a dog food ad at a pony show.

    Whenever I see something on Sharon, I think of that “Bulldozer” moniker, and whenever I think that, I think of Rachel Corrie, and that just reminds me again of how freaking useless most of us really are in resolving this travesty.

    To paraphrase Will Rogers’ famous quip about dogs going to heaven, I don’t know where Corrie went, and I don’t know where Sharon went, but I want to go where she went.

  8. eljay
    eljay
    January 13, 2014, 12:06 pm

    >> Once decided he was unflinching. He carried all before him. And in this mode he didn’t move, he charged. Positions, parties, policies, he could leave considerable debris in his wake. But always his destination was clear. As was his motivation.

    Motivated by supremacism, driven “unflinchingly” to pursue it, leaving devastated lands, lives and livelihoods in his wake. Hateful and immoral. A Zio-supremacist.

  9. seafoid
    seafoid
    January 13, 2014, 12:34 pm

    “On the Jewish side, Sharon’s funeral shows that a Jewish military and political leader considered by many to be a war criminal can be honored within Jewish history.”

    Netanyahu’s observation that Sharon was one of the great Jewish generals of all time was funny. I don’t believe the field is particularly big, especially if you exclude the last 70 years.

    If a shoemaker was lauded by him as “one of the great Jewish shoemakers” the debate would be massive.

    • Edward Q
      Edward Q
      January 13, 2014, 2:41 pm

      Sharon’s victory over the town of Qibya doesn’t seem like a glorious military acheivement. A lot of his “victories” seemed to involve attacking civilians.

  10. pmb1414
    pmb1414
    January 13, 2014, 1:27 pm

    Fox News, reporting on Sharon’s funeral, describes the controversy surrounding his life as Israel’s right wing being upset that he removed the settlements from Gaza. That’s it. No wonder the ignorance of my fellow Americans on the subject when our news is sanitized for our ‘protection.’ Thank goodness for sites like Mondoweiss that inform us with the unvarnished truth.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      Maximus Decimus Meridius
      January 13, 2014, 2:25 pm

      Plus, if they do refer to Sabra and Shatila or the invasion of Lebanon, they’ll preface it with expressions like ”Arabs say…”, ”He is hated by Palestinians because….” as though there was nothing inherently wrong with what Sharon did – it’s all in the heads of those weird Arabs.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      January 13, 2014, 5:09 pm

      This is very good .

      http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.568379#

      “Arik the recalcitrant and brutal

      Sharon and his worldview of endless war represent all that is most painful about Israel’s history, for me.

      By Emily L. Hauser | Jan. 13, 2014 | 3:50 PM | 7
      Jewish America’s institutional leaders have been responding to the news of Ariel Sharon’s death with sorrow, admiration, and the occasional “We didn’t always agree, but…” This was to be expected, and in a way, is as things should be. The immediate aftermath of a person’s death is ordinarily a time to either praise, or be silent.

      But as those leaders have all attested, Arik was no ordinary person. He was larger than life, his military actions and political decisions among the most determinative of Israel’s character today. Sharon’s shadow will long fall on any Jew, anywhere, who loves the Jewish State. Some people do not return to mere dust when they die.

      The eulogies are full of references to the love many Israelis felt for Sharon, but little is said about the rage he induced among others. I live in Chicago now, but for a long time I lived in Tel Aviv; I can be numbered in that latter group.

      Indeed, Arik’s legacy is a big part of why I don’t live in Israel anymore, why my Jerusalemite husband and I chose to raise our children in galut. For me, Sharon represents all that is most painful about Israel’s history, all that went badly wrong. His personal warmth, his not inconsiderable charisma, and his unwavering dedication to his vision of the country’s security aren’t enough to reverse the consequences of his actions and policies, or undo the damage he wrought.

      As a young military man Sharon was recalcitrant and brutal, and was never truly held accountable for either. As a middle-aged politician he lied to his government and his people to launch a grisly and criminally wasteful war, ultimately getting away with that, too. He provoked and exploited Palestinian violence in 2000, and then when elected Prime Minister, cracked down with the same ruthlessness he’d always brought to the conflict. As Likud leader, Sharon ignored the results of a referendum that he’d called and pledged to respect, instead forming a new party that would allow him to do what he’d already decided to do: Withdraw from Gaza unilaterally, using the disengagement as ‘formaldehyde’ for the diplomatic process.

      Sharon’s was a worldview of endless war, in which the enemies against whom Israel fights are little more than animals, accountability is for suckers, and a strong democracy is for the weak. This is the same worldview we see reflected anytime an Israeli soldier beats a Palestinian, anytime settlers establish a new outpost, anytime those tasked with protecting and serving Israel’s future as a viable Jewish democracy break the country’s own laws and ignore the international instruments to which it is a party.

      When the Second Intifada erupted, my husband and I were living temporarily in the States. In 2001 I flew back to vote (ineffectively) against Sharon; as the violence raged on, we came to understand that the country over which he ruled was not one to which we could bring our family – because endless war would never lead to peace, or security.

      I know that as a leftist I was supposed to be thrilled by the Gaza withdrawal, but I couldn’t believe it was the brave move people wanted it to be. Sharon had seen the growing support among Israelis for a two-state solution suggested by the Geneva Initiative, knew what the U.S. Road Map demanded, and understood that both would lead to an independent Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza – and he decided to do everything he could to strengthen Israel’s position on the West Bank in the meantime.

      So he bulldozed ahead as he had at every stage in life. His refusal to negotiate even security arrangements with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas belies the notion that he was seeking a path to conciliation – and not incidentally, that refusal allowed Hamas to claim credit for Israel’s retreat, contributing significantly to its later electoral success and ultimately to the rockets fired on Israel the years since.

      We cannot know what might have happened if a young Sharon had faced real discipline, if his post-Lebanon political exile had stuck, if he hadn’t gone up on the Temple Mount. We cannot know what might have happened if Israeli politics and culture had not become so wedded to the settler movement he fathered, or if someone, somewhere had insisted that the rule of law mattered more than visions of Greater Israel.

      But at a time when Jewish institutional life is roiled by vitriolic attempts to narrow the boundaries of acceptable thought, young American Jews feel torn between ipso-facto supporting military occupation and defending human rights, and the one-state ‘solution’ is barreling down upon us, we may want to reconsider Arik’s legacy.

      I hope that after his long physical nightmare, Ariel Sharon is now at peace – but I fear that the Israel he left behind may never be. And if we love Israel, no matter where we live, that should matter.

      Emily L. Hauser is an American-Israeli writer currently living in Chicago. She has studied and reported on the contemporary Middle East since the early 1990s for a variety of outlets, including The Chicago Tribune and The Daily Beast. She can be followed on Twitter: @emilylhauser “

      • puppies
        puppies
        January 13, 2014, 7:59 pm

        What is so good?
        It’s one more piece of the propaganda flood that tries to switch all the evil of Zionism to the “right wing”, “settlers”, “Likud” etc., when it’s the so-called “Liberal” Zionists and their fake “left wing” that have been the main practitioners of invasion and genocide.
        Sharon, of course, is a blodthirsty monster, the butcher of Beirut. Just as Rabin was the butcher of Ramleh, Ben Gurion and Co. the master executioners of the Nakba, and so on.
        No, as long as they do not understand that Zionism itself is the monster, they are the enemy.

      • marc b.
        marc b.
        January 14, 2014, 8:42 am

        What is so good?

        along similar lines:

        The image of the out-of-control Ariel Sharon was deliberately and carefully cultivated by the Israeli media and government in order to instil fear among the Arabs. Even the stories of the terrorist adventures of Unit 101 served to present Sharon as a danger far worse than the “regular” danger of the Israeli terrorist army. And just as Menachem Begin took pride in the results the massacre of Dayr Yasin in his book, The Revolt, when he said unapologetically:

        “The enemy propaganda was designed to besmirch our name. In the result, it helped us. Panic overwhelmed the Arabs of Eretz Israel. Kolonia village, which had previously repulsed every attack of the Haganah, was evacuated overnight and fell without further fighting. Beit-Iksa was also evacuated. Those two places overlooked the main road; and their fall, together with the capture of Kastal by the Haganah, made it possible to keep the road open to Jerusalem. In the rest of the country, too, the Arabs began to flee in terror, even before they clashed with Jewish forces.”

        Similarly, Ariel Sharon spoke about the Qibya massacre (Ethan Bronner called it a “battle” in his love poem about Sharon) in similar “pragmatic” terms in Warrior:

        “But while the civilian deaths were a tragedy, the Qibya raid was also a turning point. After so many defeats and demoralizing failures it was now clear that Israeli forces were again capable of finding and hitting targets far behind enemy lines. What this meant to army morale can hardly be exaggerated … But with Qibya a new sense of confidence began to take root.”

        In other words, the terrorism of the Zionist movement (and later of the Israeli state) was part and parcel of the policies and strategy of the government and was never incidental or accidental. Conversely, the terrorism of Palestinian or Arab groups was incidental or often accidental (although the use of car bombs or bombs in crowded areas – a practice that was pioneered and perfected by Zionist gangs in the 1930s and 1940s – can be said to be deliberate and purposeful in the targeting of civilians).

        So while Ariel Sharon deserves all the scorn and loathing that Arabs heap on him, one must be careful to not fall victim into the trap of Israeli Mossad propaganda where Sharon’s murders are presented as accidental or marginal or a side-story to the Zionist narrative. Sharon was not an anomaly and Israeli leaders from Ben Gurion to Golda Meir and Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres are in no way less bad or less terrorist or war criminal than Sharon. Israeli war crimes and massacres have been planned and agreed upon by a collective Zionist leadership.

        http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/angry-corner/ariel-sharon-international-war-criminal-remembered

      • Sumud
        Sumud
        January 14, 2014, 10:48 am

        No, as long as they do not understand that Zionism itself is the monster, they are the enemy.

        Disagree with your harsh assessment of Hauser.

        She literally emigrated because of how bad things were getting in Israel. I respect that. And I respect Israeli jews who are genuine activists for Palestinian rights – as opposed to armchair liberal zionists. I count Hauser in the first group. There are lots but they are a minority and have been overwhelmed by the right wing.

        While I think Israel as a zionist country is now doomed and beyond salvation it didn’t necessarily have to be that way. There are any number of forks in the road where Israel could have not perpetrated or set about making amends for past wrongs and gone on to become a normal country.

        So I guess I don’t agree that zionism is ‘the monster’, but, as zionism has manifested in Israel it surely is [a monster].

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        January 14, 2014, 11:38 am

        I can’t see how Zionism – the belief in certain rights held exclusively by people who are Jewish – could ever have taken a form which was not very drastic and harsh in its effects on those most affected by its claims.

      • American
        American
        January 14, 2014, 12:18 pm

        ”She literally emigrated because of how bad things were getting in Israel”……Sumud

        Let me ask one thing here……do they not see that the many ‘exodus’ of the Jews has never stopped? They ran from other nations and now they run from their own creation. Do they not see that zionism is another ‘jews qua nation’ insistence that has dogged Jews every century?
        How come so few of them didnt understand that while they demand ‘inclusion’ by the world and also demand ‘peoplehood nation seperation and to be an exception in the world — that that could not and will not work forever?

        The whole premise of zionism was wrong from the beginning…turning a religion into a ‘people’ and a nation to be seperate from the world.
        And it becomes crazier by the day as we see in Israel’s latest announcement that they want to declare Christians a ‘nationality” in Israel like Jews are a nationality. Israel takes it upon itself to declare nationality for religions? Can they get any more bizzare?
        I dont know how zionism and Israel are going to get off the planet insanity they have created without those who support it owning up to the fundamental fact that inclusion+ seperation+ exceptionalism doesnt work.
        After supporting the two state solution I am coming to the conclusion that a One State solution is the only cure for the zionist state and best after all.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        January 14, 2014, 4:28 pm

        I have a lot of time for people like Hauser. She dropped out because she could no longer live in Israel. That takes a lot of guts. Israel is a Jewish tragedy.

      • puppies
        puppies
        January 15, 2014, 4:15 am

        @Sumud – Of course many among the Master-Race citizens of the Zionist entity are disgusted, emigrate, some even resist their government –without fighting the very idea of Zionism. It is a monster simply because it advocates stealing other people’s land and political autodetermination. Nothing else is needed to make it monstruous. All these forks in the road lead to the same result: it’s not for nothing that there are hundreds of Zionist political parties but all (necessarily) practice a single policy, that of Jabotinsky. And nothing short of burying Zionism itself (including the absurd idea of racial Jewishness not limited to the religious, a murderous delusion shared by non-Zionist ultranationalist factions) will “make amends”. I did use the term “enemy” advisedly because it’s not about a “war of ideas” but a shooting war started in 47 and getting worse every year.

      • puppies
        puppies
        January 15, 2014, 11:53 pm

        @seafoid (no Reply button) – as an aside: emigrating from the hellhole “takes a lot of guts”? What’s this place, the DR Congo? Your average family in the Shitty Little Country has some 3-4 passports, or the right to them, to say nothing of the automatic US visa. Plus lavish welcome grants and social support in many places of landing. Plus family networks. Plus the tribal networks.
        Make me cry, will you? They’re not likely to get jailed for years in the middle of the Pacific or capsize in a small boat trying to run the Coast Guard.
        I’m all for any and all Jewish Israelians getting out of there. They have no reason not to, and the sooner the better. But let’s not make it out to be necessarily a gesture in opposition to Zionism itself.

  11. dbroncos
    dbroncos
    January 13, 2014, 2:55 pm

    Zionist’s have retreated behind their last barricade – mountains of cash that can still purchase votes and euologies at the Butcher’s funeral. It’s plain to see, for anyone who is willing to look, that their outsized support is bought not earned.

  12. Citizen
    Citizen
    January 15, 2014, 9:18 am

    There’s no reply button for the dialogue going back and fourth about Hauser. So I have to add my two cents here. It’s clear to me that Sharon would despise Hauser as a hypocrite, as a liberal Jew who loved her ideal Israel, her romantic kibbutz vision of it, but who looked the other way when people like Sharon did the dirty deeds needed to make the Zionist dream come true, and remain true. Well, she was not entirely ostensibly a hypocrite as she left Israel, disgusted with what it was becoming under leaders like Sharon. She says, “For me, Sharon represents all that is most painful about Israel’s history, all that went badly wrong.” And further, “Sharon’s was a worldview of endless war, in which the enemies against whom Israel fights are little more than animals, accountability is for suckers, and a strong democracy is for the weak.”

    To me this means, that she has ignored what it took to make Israel a reality, for example the Nakba, which commenced at the very latest in November of 1947, when Sharon was not involved. The becoming of Israel was nasty from the start. In short, I agree with American and puppies that, while Hauser deplores the Zionist means, she still has a crush on Israel, the romantic dream. By moving to the USA, she can stay atop her loving hobby horse in comfort and sans personal guilt. Time for her to look at the ideology of Zionism, and compare it to say, the ideology of Nazism. They both lead in the same logical progression. There’s plenty of available quotes from both early Nazi leaders and early Zionist leaders who were engaged in putting their respective dreams into practice on this unholy earth.

Leave a Reply