I have never written a single sentence that defends any aspect of Zionism.
Scotsmen have a right to be Scottish. Englishmen have a right to be English. These two identity collectives are officially sanctioned as two nations within the United Kingdom. Neither dominates the other. It is a system that has worked well for over three hundred years. There is at least a possibility that it could work in the case of Israel and Palestine. At least, it is worth thinking about.
What is your alternative? Expulsion of the invaders? Let me point out that Israeli citizens born and brought up in Israel (and these are probably a majority by now) are not invaders. To punish them for the the sins of their fathers would be an injustice in itself, and replying to injustice with another injustice does not produce perfect justice. And if you think it would be possible to carry out such an expulsion, you are living in dreamland. Israel has the big guns, and its big brother the USA has bigger ones.
You will say that they are all Zionists. But that is not their fault. Israeli Jews are immersed in Zionism from cradle to grave. It is in the schools, the synagogues, the Knesset, the courts, the IDF. It is Zionism that needs to be bent until it breaks, and that is the business I am in. If you look at my articles on Mondoweiss you will see they are all about exploding the Zionist narrative.
If you say that the Zionists need to be bent until they break (and this includes you Mooser) you are inciting violence, and that makes you the criminal.
Replies to Mooser
August 16, 2018, 9:40 pm
|Someday they may even be “Palestinians” and not “Palestinian Arabs”
Of course, they are Palestinians. I only use the phrase "Palestinian-Arabs" when discussing their national identity. They are Arabs because they speak Arabic, and a common language is one of the hallmarks of a nation. Also, the foreign jews who migrated to Palestine under the Mandate called themselves Palestinians and founded a newspaper called the Palestine Post (now the Jerusalem Post). Technically, all Israeli Jews living outside the Partition Line are living in Palestine and could therefore be called Palestinians, but they are not part of the Palestinian Arab nation.
August 17, 2018, 1:41 pm
|I thought you told me that the Zionist ‘wrongs’ gave them ‘rights’?
No. If you are talking about human rights, they apply to "Everyone" - including criminals.
If you are talking about the right of the State of Israel to exist, that was given by the States that recognized Israel as a State.
| What does the “historic Jewish homeland” have to do with the Zionists who invaded Palestine?
They claimed a right to settle in Palestine because it was their historic homeland. I pointed out that their historic homeland was a very small part of Palestine, and that the rest of Palestine was the historic homeland of the Samaritans, whose descendants are now Palestinian Arabs. (Well, some may have converted to Judaism and are now Israeli Jews.)
August 17, 2018, 1:07 pm
|Once again, the criminal actions of “hardcore Zionist invaders” earn them rights?
Once again, rights are not 'earned'. They apply to everyone, including criminals.
Mooser. Zionist boilerplate is that there were no Palestinians until they were invented by the KGB in 1964.
According to the historian Haim Gerber, emeritus professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, there has been a distinct Palestinian national identity "stretching back to the time of the Crusades and beyond". I doubt that "beyond" includes your 15 thousand years. You probably meant to refer to the 15 hundred years since Herodotus wrote that "there is a district in Syria call Palaistine". But its people were not called Palestinians. They were mostly Israelites, in two kingdoms: Judah in the south with its capital Jerusalem, homeland of the Jews: and Israel in the north, capital Samaria, homeland of the Samaritans. Judah was much smaller in extent than Israel, which included what is now the northern West Bank and northern part of the modern state of Israel. When the Zionists claim that all of Palestine was the historic Jewish homeland, they are wrong. In Byzantime times the were around a million Samaritans: to day there are only a few families. What happened to them? There were numerous massacres and persecutions, but many eventually converted to Christianity and/or Islam, becoming Palestinian Arabs.
Yes, nations can be created quickly. Italy was created between 1815 and 1871, a bit faster than Israel.
Currently two states exist: the State of Israel, declared in 1948, and recognized today by 161 other states; and the State of Palestine, declared in 1988 and recognized today by 138 other states. They are both members of the UN. As recognized states, they both have the right to continue to exist in peace and security.
I agree with the authors that a single democratic state in historic Palestine has to be the eventual solution, but the only possible way it could come about is by a voluntary union of the two existing states. Neither is going to allow itself to be absorbed by the other.
There are two distinct peoples living within former Palestine, Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. They have different histories, different languages, different cultures, different legal systems and different religions. These are national identities, and were recognized as such in the 1921 Carlsbad Resolution of the World Zionist Congress, and in the Mandate as explained in 1922 in the Churchill White Paper.
Peoples' national identities are important to them. A one-democratic-state solution that recognizes and preserves national identities and national institutions is more likely to succeed than one which does not.
How this might work out is explained in the One-State-Two-Nations Proposal.
A peace agreement requires the consent of both peoples. I understand that there was no legitimacy to the creation of Israel, either legal or moral. Nevertheless, the State of Israel exists and, by virtue of its recognition by other States and by its membership of the United Nations, has a right to continue to exist. The same applies to the State of Palestine, which has already recognized the right of Israel to exist in peace and security. The main log-jam in the peace process has been the failure of Israel to reciprocate and recognize the right of Palestine to exist in peace and security.
I do not say that 'the Jews' constitute a nation, nor that there is an Arab Nation. I say that Jewish Israelis constitute a nation, as do Palestinian Arabs. See the definition of 'nation' in my reply to Mooser. Israel IS the homeland of Jewish Israelis, most of them have been settled there for at least a generation, or else born there. You say that 'the Arabs' will not accept the permanancy of the Israeli Jewish community in Palestine. I do not accept that. The PLO has accepted it, Hamas has sort of accepted it by offering a long-term truce with Israel, and most Palestinians are sufficiently intelligent to realise that there is no way that Israel could be forced to disappear.
The reason for the continuation of the conflict, is that there are two nations in Palestine, but they both want sovereignty over ALL the territory of Palestine. The one-state-two-nations proposal (please read it) solves the conflict by giving each nation sovereignty over all of Palestine, on a shared basis, through the parliament and government of the United State, while allowing the Israel and Palestine nations to continue their national lives and identities under their own parliaments.
NOTE FOR Echinococcus. You say: So a “long-term solution” is one that is monstrously unjust to one side and gives an unearned advantage forever to the other."
The one-state-two-nations proposal treats both nations on an equal basis. Please read it carefully before jumping to condemn it. I know the extent of the injustice that has been done to the Palestinians, and they need to be recompensed for that. That recompence should occur in the process leading up to the final settlement.
In the one-state-two-nations proposal the state is secular, democratic, respects equality, human rights and international laws. The two nations are democratic, respect equality and human rights, and have complete freedom of religion. It is a pity you did not read it.
You and the authors have failed to understand the positive role that religion can play in national life. It is not about the imposition of religious law. The model for the one-state-two-nations proposal is the union of England and Scotland. Both nations have established churches. In the days before Scotland gained its own parliament, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, attended by the monarch or her representative, acted in many ways to influence the UK parliament on issues relevant to the Scottish people. I remember the time when the House of Lords, including some of the bishops of the Church of England, provided the only effective opposition to the government of Margaret Thatcher.