"That’s why the first world leader to congratulate Netanyahu was the Prime Minister of India"
Um, unless no world leader at all congratulated Bibi (which, by the way, is pro forma anyway, and doesn't mean a thing), wouldn't, by definition, one of them have to have been the first to do so? So what if it was India's PM? India is not the pre eminent country in the world, not by a long shot. In any event, whoever it was, the same argument could be made...."That's why the first world leader to congratulate Netanyahu was the President of France...." "....was the PM of Italy..." etc.
Thank you for taking the time to reply in detail to my post.
Assuming the validity of the model that posits two, discrete kinds of guilt, without overlap, one healthy and useful, leading to contrition and attempts to ameliorate, and the other counterproductive and pathological, leading to further crimes, still, a population as large as that of Israeli Jews is not likely to be composed of a huge majority of one and very few of the other. A group numbering in the millions, one would think, would have plenty of folks representing both kinds of guilt.
"The comparison with SA is appropriate but only up to a point. For Israeli Jews the existence of Israel is a matter of life and death. They believe that without Israel all Jews will perish. This is why from their point of view they cannot *afford* to reflect too deeply or take any reflections to their logical conclusion. The logical conclusion will mean an end to an exclusively Jewish state and the creation of a one state for all. To most Israeli Jews this translate to annihiliation. It is really important to understand all of this when we try to make sense of what Israel does and what it is. I am intimately familar with this because I was a product of Israeli upbriniging and education and for a long long time was still immersed in the same psychology, even long after I left."
No doubt, you have first hand understanding of Israeli Jews, but I think you dismiss the analogy with white South Africans, particularly the Boers, too easily.
For the Boers too had a notion that the existence of the apartheid State was a matter of life and death for their people. They too believed that racial equality would lead to the destruction of their people, and, perhaps also similar to many Israeli Jews, there was also a strong religious element at work here.
Apartheid, like Zionism, was many things. It had a secular, pseudo scientific side. It was also grounded in the Boer historical experience, which, while not the same as the Holocaust, did involve taking on the British Empire at its height, and then being subjected to near genocidal measures (concentration camps, forced clearing of villages, killing of civilians) as that Empire was unable to crush the Boer Rebellion in any other way.
Also like the Jews, perhaps even more so, the Boers are and were always a relatively small group, when viewed in a worldwide context. For the Boers, they were surrounded by Black Africans who, naturally enough, hated them. And, beyond that, by an indifferent Western world, ready, as they saw it, to sell them out to gain favor with a larger constituency. Sounds familiar, right, viz a viz Israeli Jews and the Arab and Muslim worlds and the West? And both Israel and the RSA went hyper military, all the way to the point of nuclear weapons, to address their fears. Both also had "an enemy within" as well as enemies outside of its borders. Both also routinely violated the sovereignty of their neighbors, again, as they treated their own fears as license to do unto others anything that appeared to assuage those fears. Etc, etc.
Furthermore, there was a strong religious, messianic, persecution complex component to apartheid as well, again, similar to Zionism.
I would also point out that, unlike the Zionists, the Boers actually did have a three hundred year history in the land of South Africa. Unlike the Zionists, the most ancient of which got off the boat in Palestine in the late 1800's, with many more arriving much later, right down to the present day, the Boers were, by the late 20th century, truly indigenous to Africa, and, perhaps more importantly, literally had nowhere else to go. And, of course, there were few Boers elsewhere, unlike the still large Diaspora Jewish population. And so the notion that their very survival as Boers was bound up with the suprematist nature of their polity was even stronger than that it is for Jews in Israel.
Thus, all the things in life that matter, material, spiritual, community, history, etc, were bound up in apartheid. And yet it fell to sanctions, eventually.
Edited to add, re your further comments, that apartheid was also very much a cult, that the education system in the RSA was much like what is described in Israel, that young men in the RSA were called upon to do terrible deeds in the townships, in the bush, and across the borders, etc.
" Israel has for a long time been readying itself for when the time comes, to bunker down, live with austerity and give up the fancy lifestyle the country has become increasingly accustomed to in the last 20-25 years. They can do this. Israel has always prepared itself psychologically and economically to being isolated. All that openness to the rest of the world that Israel has enjoyed increasingly in the last generation or so, and Israel’s acceptance by others, have always been seen as temporary in the eyes of most Israeli Jews."
I wonder if this is really so. After all, white South Africans, particularly those of Boer descent, saw themselves as the ultimate outsiders, and their "Boer Trek" mentality, mythology and pseudo religion was based on going it alone. And yet, in the end, they could not bear being isolated from the Western world of culture, politics, art, sports, etc.
"Fundamentally Israeli Jews believe that the world hates them because they are Jewish (in their mind it has nothing to do with colonialism or the Palestinians). So although Israel has brought its own situation upon itself, that is not how Israeli Jews see it. "
I wonder about that too. I think, "fundamentally," more people than not in an oppressor class are at least conflicted, and do NOT accept the justifying lies and half truths and misrepresentation and BS arguments in toto. Again, I think that was true in apartheid South Africa, as well as in the Jim Crow South and in the slavery South that preceded it. I think, any such group, Boer-like, will circle the wagons, and pretend to the outside world that they really believe it is none of their fault, that it is all about unfair prejudice against them, and so on.
But, deep in their hearts, "fundamentally," they know it is not so.
And, to me, one of the most telling indicators of this is the growing incompetence and cowardliness of the IDF. Folks who really believe in their cause, right or wrong, as the earlier Zionists did, are quite ready to die for it, and fight like demons. Folks who, in their hearts, when you strip away the crap they tell outsiders, know that their group are the oppressors and are fighting for nothing more than imperialism, colonialism, etc, do not make for good and brave soldiers. And so we have seen in Gaza and Lebanon.
Your inconsistency is unbelievable.
Once again, in a two paragraph post, in the same breath, practically, you manage to minimize actual, documented instances of outright bigotry and threats from your "side" and yet make up ("over the years" indeed!), and decry, allegedly similar instances directed at your "side." And at the same time accuse others of "bigotry!" The arrogance, the chutzpah, of Zionist double speak is almost unfathomable.
IN THIS CASE, we have clear death threats as a result of an orchestrated campaign of hate, misinformation, propaganda, lies and hysteria directed by Zionist organizations. That is hardly "silly." Nor is it exactly surprising that "yahoos" would run with that all the way to death threats. IF, in some other case (again, "over the years"), Zionists have gotten death threats, then, in those instances, that is wrong as well (which nobody here would deny). And, that, of course, is even allowing for the false equivalence of the oppressor and the oppressed, which is highly debatable.
(1) On the overall, your "side" is wrong in substance, as the oppressor group.
(2) In this particular instance, your "side," both the organized agitators and propagandizers, and the "yahoos" who respond to their lies with death threats, are wrong in substance.
(3) You are wrong to deny (2), and its significance. (Of course, you are also wrong to deny (1) and its significance, but that is always true, rather than merely being true on this thread.)
(4) You are wrong to cloud the waters with other, merely posited instances, that have nothing to do with this instance. And,
(5) You are wrong to continue to insist in your odious course of conduct even after your attempts at distraction, distortion, false equivalence, marginalization and shilling for oppression have been exposed.
It really is amazing.
On the one hand, we see the classic minimization and marginalization technique. Despite the fact that numerous Zionist individuals and even organizations have joined in the racist, colonialist condemnation of this perfectly acceptable word, and that friggin' DEATH THREATS have been issued over it, the whole thing is merely "silly." So what's the big deal?
On the other hand, completely made-up out of whole cloth and totally unsubstantiated, full of you know what, barstool claims of "anti Semitism on campus" are so "frightening" that they must be kowtowed to, as they explain, and excuse, all.
The evil that is actually done to thee by mine is "silly." What I make up and claim that thou did to mine is "frightening."
Er, "acknowledgement" is one thing, but "sanctions" are quite another. Sanctions ARE interference. Now, I am not at all expert on the issue of the Maldives, and, for all I know, the US has encouraged anti democratic elements there. On the other hand, I, like the other poster, would prefer that the USA not intervene at all, not in Iraq and Syria, and not in the Maldives either. Furthermore, the fact that the USA has and continues to interfere elsewhere is not a good reason for it do so in this case.
And, frankly, I really don't care if this particular leader can be described as a "progressive Muslim," or any other kind of Muslim, or progressive, or if he supported action on climate change, or not. It is simply not our place, not with sanctions and not otherwise, to try to bully other countries to conduct their internal affairs so that they accord with what we want, even if what we want is "progressive."
If a country behaves so egregiously that a truly international sanctions movement develops and wins majority support in the UNGA, then, if it accords with our values, I would agree that the US should go along with it. But I do not support free floating, unilaterally imposed sanctions by the USA against anyone.
I would also point out that these stories of outrage and demands for "sanctions" are almost always raised against post colonial, of color regimes in Third World countries (with the odd exception of a Serbia, which rocked the EU/USA boat). Ditto with ICC indictments, as the "criminalization" of politics always seems to involve weak, dependent African regimes. Somehow, the USA's and UK's are never the target of sanctions, despite the fact that both routinely violate international law through aggressive wars, as opposed to merely conducting their internal affairs in a way that some folks don't like. No, I'm afraid that the "new," "humanitarian," allegedly "progressive" interventionism is just, to switch the saying, pouring the old wine of colonialism, racism and paternalism into a new wineskin.
The truly "progressive" FP stance for folks in the First World is the "hands off" variety. Hands off the Maldives. Hands off Iraq. Hands off Afghanistan. Etc. A little humility, a little recognition that even us "progressives" don't have all the answers, in my view, is much better than the knee jerk call for "sanctions" every time something happens somewhere in the "global South" that we don't like.
"It [Israel] is also a liberal state that extends equal civic and legal rights to all of its citizens, whether they are of Jewish national origins or not or whether they practice the traditional religion of the Jewish people in any of its forms or not."
I wonder why Zionists even bother to repeat this malarkey on this website. Here, at least, there are few to none who really believe this claptrap. Arab Palestinian citizens of Israel do NOT have equal civic and legal rights with Israeli Jews. And everyone here knows that.
"Liberal Zionists....support equal civic rights in the Jewish state for citizens of Israel who belong to national minority groups, in accordance with Israel’s Declaration of Independence and Basic Laws. Liberal Zionists denounce discrimination against our fellow Israeli citizens who are not of Jewish nationality and encourage the full participation of citizens who belong to any of the national minority communities in the political, social and economic spheres."
Perhaps there are liberal Zionists who do "support" the fine words and promises made in the referred to documents. But that is a far cry from proving that those things are a reality. And, as in pre Apartheid South Africa, the liberals have made their peace with a regime that emphatically does NOT provide equal rights, or even basic human rights, to all of the folks under its control, including those living in its bantustans (as well as not providing equal rights even to all who are technically citizens). So, while these liberals may indeed "support," in some abstract way, equality for all, that "support" is pretty much lip service. And deserves to be treated as such.