Play nice or don’t play at all: comments on Muzzlewatch
Posted on March 1 2007 by Cecilie Surasky under About Muzzlewatch.OK, as careful readers have observed, Muzzlewatch has made a point of allowing a wide range of comments on the blog, including those that fall uncomfortably outside of the bounds of normal civil discourse. But there is a difference between heated but principled debate, and simply calling people names or threatening them.
I realize the safe anonymity of the internet (many Muzzlewatch commenters use false names and registrations) gives many people permission to communicate more freely than in person. This can be freeing, but also destructive.
Today is sad for me because it marks the very first time I have ever deleted a comment on Muzzlewatch. I did not do so for political reasons, but because the comment clearly crossed the line, making an endless personal attack on one person. That the person who made the attack registered with false information made the attack even more despicable.
PLEASE: disagree and debate to your heart’s content. But be substantive about it. Simply calling people names, no matter what side you are on, diminishes your dignity and your credibility, and debases all of us. If we’re serious about making this a better world where all of us can live side by side, and I believe that many of us on all sides of this issues do have that in common, then we can practice what we preach.
If the level of discourse continues to erode, I will not hesitate to delete further posts.
Get Muzzlewatch delivered fresh daily
Print This Post
March 1st, 2007 at 10:36 pm
As far as I can tell none of my comments have been deleted so presumably I’m not the guilty party. Nevertheless, I am a bit curious if I was the target of the attack just because among your regular participants, I’m one of the very few - if not the only - outspokenly anti-Zionist Jewish person participating.
Anyway, having some years of experience with online discussion forums and comment threads on these issues, rest assured I fully understand why some moderation is required. More often than not the discussion tends to degenerate into a lot of ad hominem nonsense, so kudos for maintaining the integrity of this excellent and needed project.
John S.
—
Jewish Friends of Palestine
http://www.jewishfriendspalestine.org
March 1st, 2007 at 10:40 pm
How about deleting some of your own lie-filled posts? That would do a bit more service to the community.
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:07 am
I wonder if any of Richard Silverstein’s frothing rants will be moderated. I’m waiting with baited breath.
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:19 am
Maybe you should delete comments from users who threaten to disclose personal or employment information (even though that person has alleged that one person has lived in more than one location and worked at more than one job)? Of course, it’s just the Israel hating crowd that has done that, so that’s cool.
March 2nd, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Cecilie, please feel free to email advice to me if you feel my posts cause you trouble of the nature that you describe, even if you don’t think it’s bad enough to require deletion.
Thanks for your careful and open-minded moderation. I’m sure it’s not always easy.
March 2nd, 2007 at 6:03 pm
This is not exactly related, but Alvin Rosenfeld has a piece in the New Republic defending his AJC Essay. It’s reproduced on the right-wing liberal website Kesher Talk:
http://www.keshertalk.com/archives/2007/02/rosenfeldtnr.php
March 2nd, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Outrageous ad hominems prove MuzzleWatch’s point, I think. Keep up the good work.
–from a Jew who is very afraid that the actions of the Jewish state may do/has already done irreparable harm to Judaism itself. Human beings are being sacrificed for the sake of a land grab. For shame.
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:50 pm
i don’t understand an anti-zionist jew. when israel ceases to exist and all of palestine becomes arab, what do you think will happen to the jews that live there now? for a clue, you might look at the jewish populations in the other arab countries today.
truly, what you are doing is calling for the destruction of millions of jews. and that i don’t understand.
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:51 pm
land grab, melanie? is that code for the state of israel existing at all? israel is happy to talk to her neighbors about borders. her neighbors refuse to acknowledge her existence. what do you expect israel to do?
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:34 am
“right-wing liberal website” - I love it. I might borrow that quote for my masthead. Thanks for the link.
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:53 pm
RE: bhakti “i don’t understand an anti-zionist jew. when israel ceases to exist and all of palestine becomes arab, what do you think will happen to the jews that live there now? for a clue, you might look at the jewish populations in the other arab countries today. truly, what you are doing is calling for the destruction of millions of jews. and that i don’t understand.”
What utter rubbish. As an anti-Zionist Jew, I personally (not speaking for anyone else) am calling for Israel to cease being an ethnocentric state in favor of being a state of all its people. The idea of a “Jewish State” is in no way different than the notion of a “White State”, an “Islamic State”, a “Christian State” or a “Serbian State” all of which I’m opposed to and all of which run in direct contravention to the modern notions of equality, diversity, human rights, and justice.
And - just to save you the time with the boilerplate response - although I am opposed to these other ethnocentric models, the reason for my particular attention on Israel is because Israel portrays itself as speaking on behalf of all Jews - including me - and therefore Zionism, unlike most other ethnocentric models, is directly and personally related to me, my ethnic identity, and popular perceptions of what it is to be Jewish. So yes, I am much more concerned with Zionism than other ethnocentric ideologies, just as your average Iranian dissident is quite logically more concerned with Iran’s notion of an “Islamic State” than they are with Saudi Arabia and so on.
While it is true that people like me call for the end of the “Jewish State” as such; this has nothing whatsoever to do with killing or expelling anyone in the same way that calls to end South African Apartheid (“destroy South Africa”) did not amount to a call for an extermination or expulsion of the Afrikaners (and resulted in neither). Like the Afrikaners, there can be no denying that Israeli Jews have created a unique society, culture, and nationality quite distinct from everyone else (including non-Israeli Jews); and as such they have every right to remain in Israel/Palestine regardless of the historical processes that led to the current situation. What they do not have the right to do is maintain an ethnocentric state that excludes half the population (meaning the total population between the river & the sea) from full and equal participation in the state tthat rules them.
As for the nonsense about how Jews have faired in other Muslim countries, keep in mind that most Mizrahim didn’t move to Israel because of Muslim hate, but as a direct result of Zionist efforts to stimulate anti-Semitism in these countries. Most Egyptian Jews fled as a direct result of the Israeli “Lavon Affair” terror campaign, most Iraqi Jews fled because of another Zionist orchestrated terror campaign (see Naeim Giladi, “The Jews of Iraq” http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/ameu_iraqjews.html) and so on. Today in Iran some 20 to 30 thousand Jews continue to live, vote, and have parliamentary representation in a situation very much akin to the status of Israeli Palestinians inside the Green Line. And yes, on occasion there are problems, like the recent threatening letters sent to a Jewish community in Yemen, and like elsewhere, the gov’t immediately stepped in, defended their Jewish citizens, arrested those making the threats and everything returned to normal.
In one democratic secular state covering all of Israel/Palestine, as Daniel Gavron has articulated, most of society will remain dominated by Israeli Jews for the time being, just as modern South Africa remains largely dominated by well-educated whites. Nevertheless, things will change to reflect the population and the state will represent the interests of everyone, not just one subset of the population with the right mother.
No one is calling for the destruction of millions of Jews, but an ever increasing number of us are calling for Israelis to behave like Jewish people and not European racists.
March 3rd, 2007 at 4:50 pm
If you don’t like Israel as an Jewish state, I have a solution. Don’t move there.
In the meantime, the Jewish state has done quite well for itself, not just for Jews but for all of its residents. That its neighbors can’t accept it’s right to exist and harbor a pathological hatred isn’t Israel’s fault.
If you want to support a “secular democratic state” that’s fine. Convince Palestinians to give up on their eliminationist demands, and support a “secular democratic state” in Palestine. Let the friendly competition begin to see which state can, in fact, be the most pluralistic and democratic. As a starter, you may want to consider how to attract a few hundred thousand Jews to the new Palestinian state, so that they can comprise about 20% of the population.
March 3rd, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Sounds like a plan, Joshua. Better yet, as soon as Israel stops its overt vilification of all Jews by falsely associating us all with its fundamentally racist ideology and practices (Noting that a majority of Jews have never lived in Israel and Israel has absolutely no claim to represent them), I’d be more than happy to redirect my efforts elsewhere.
Falsely associating all Jews with Israel’s racist ideology by claiming to represent all of us against our will is the biggest blood libel against decent Jewish people in modern times.
March 3rd, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Josh, I think you have never been to Israel If so, and if your eyes and mind were open, you would not say, “one quite well for itself, not just for Jews but for all of its residents.” What an incredible statement.
Have you ever been to East Jerusalem? Have you see the level of normal civil services for Palestinian Christians? Life if horrible and crushing. Yet they are Israeli citizens and treated very differently (education, job possibilities, daily civil services, police protection, etc.) by the Israeli government Israeli than citizens in the occupied territories. So please tell me how you can make such a statement?
And who, anywhere, is talking about attracting Jews to a Palestinian State? Where do you hear or read such things? Why are you confusing the issue here?
Look, let’s be honest. Zionism is built on mid 19th century European romantic ideas of Heimat and Colonial ideals. That is how people thought back then. But not all. Most all European Jews and their leaders actively rejected Zionism up until the middle 20th century, that is until the ideals of Zionism was successfully mixed and confused with perceived and actual threats, persecution and horrible murder of Jews and others in Europe — atrocities and murder and war justified under ideas of blood rights, Heimat, bla blah.
I do not know of any nation state without a bloody and perhaps “unjust” birth. A healthy survival of Israel (and I think that is what we all want) will be greatly increased with honesty, understanding and reconciliation. It is possible.
Yet will never be possible with a primitive us against them mindset, striving for the golden calf of the eternal capital.
The real promised land is an ideal and rest in the heart and mind.
Shalom.
March 3rd, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Thanks for deleting my comment.
March 4th, 2007 at 8:54 am
John S.,
To the extent someone believes a country is “fundamentally racist” you can expect people in that country to villify that person, Jewish or not. You don’t want free speech as much as a special pleading for yourself and others, whereby you can engage in vitriolic and hateful attacks and remain immune from criticism.
Ellen,
Actually, I have been to Israel, including East Jerusalem, Nazareth and Abu Ghosh. Do you care to make more statements about people without basis in fact?
March 4th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Hi Josh:
First: “believes a country is “fundamentally racist”” - just to clarify, I believe the existing state ideology of Israel is fundamentally racist in the same vein that the then-existing state ideology of National Party South Africa was. (“White State”, “Jewish State”, “Serbian State”, “Islamic State” – no difference) This is why I support shedding the ideology (which has nothing to do with killing or expelling anyone) in favor of one democratic secular state for all it’s people - http://www.onestate.org
Second: “You don’t want free speech as much as a special pleading for yourself and others, whereby you can engage in vitriolic and hateful attacks and remain immune from criticism.” Not exactly, I just don’t want to be falsely associated with Zionist racism. Quite simply, Israel and its defenders, by deliberately promoting the outright lie that Israel and Zionism is representative of all Jews (regardless of what they have to say about it), is an intentional and malicious vilification of decent Jewish people that reject the racist ideology of Zionism and deliberately encourages anti-Semitism. Just like previous blood libels vilifying Jews - “ritual murder” for example - when such libels gain currency we are all unjustly associated with them. This has been the deliberate policy of the Zionist movement - to validate the Zionist enterprise by showing that anti-Semitism is insurmountable (which it is not, as illustrated by the U.S.) and thus encouraging immigration to Israel - however many of us flatly refuse to be forced into the Zionist camp by its Hasbara. As I said before, the deliberately malicious lie that Israel and Zionism represents all Jewish people and Jewish identity is nothing more than a vicious blood libel the likes of which would make Nazis and Czarist “Black hundreds” envious. Don’t associate me by virtue of being a Jew with Israeli mass murder and racist oppression; I’m not a supporter at all, in fact I’m an outspoken opponent … and a Jew.
John S.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:27 am
John S.,
No clarification was needed. You made your position clear from the get go. You reject Israel’s very right to exist. To the extent people do that, and want to involve themselves in the debate, they are going to be exposed as such. That’s not unfair vilification, that’s part of the debate.
I don’t really see the point or need to discuss the specifics of Zionist ideology, but I will simply note that if you are looking for a secular democratic state, Israel comes about as close as any state out there. It’s identity as the state of the Jewish people, a nation state for one of the longest continually existing nationalities on earth, doesn’t mean it can’t be secular. It’s not completely secular in this regard, but is largely so. It is also democratic, as every individual has full political rights and the diversity of its parties is truly astounding.
Israel does not speak for every Jew, but it is equally true that the overwhelming majority of Jews have determined that the Zionist endeavor is either one that they wish to partake in or one that they believe other Jews should have the right to partake in if they so choose. If you don’t believe in Zionism, the solution is simple, don’t move to Israel.
It seems that your main problem is that you don’t like the fact that the overwhelming majority of Jews, or for that matter the overwhelming majority of people, recognize that Jews are just like any other people and that their desire for a state was and is a wholly legitimate endeavor. And if you are going to villify a remarkably successful and flourishing state because it doesn’t fit with your personal view of things, then you’re going to have to expect that others will expose your views as being intolerant, misguided, and hateful.
Again, that’s not censorship, that’s part of the discussion. Personally, I think views on any topic should be approached in a respectful manner. But when the anti-Israel crowd engages in hateful rhetoric, ad hominem attacks, and falsifications, then the response will inevitably have to focus on that. Unfortunately, some advocates of Israel engage in their own nasty name calling. But by any objective measure, it’s not nearly as widespread as the vitriol put forth by those who deny Israel’s right to exist. What the anti-Israel crowd (Hamasbarists?) really wants is to engage in unmitigated criticism and hatred, without having to face counter-speech.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
I don’t understand why a blogger who freely uses the basic principles of free speech and is discussing a subject that has a hotbed of views, feels that silencing objections are justifible. You become your own “Ann Coulter” just with a different position. Shame on you.
March 5th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
With all due respect, that sounds precisely like censorship. If the comment is indeed that bad, it is better to let it stand in order to discredit the person who made it.
Bellyaching about discourtesies hardly qulifies as uncouraging discourse.
I for one would really like to see what was so objectionable.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:00 am
Josh,
You say “a nation state for one of the longest continually existing nationalities on earth…”
Ideas of nation/state and nationality are quite modern concepts, emerging first in what we now call Europe, most clearly under Charlamaign, Karl der Grosse, whatever you want to call him, depending on your modern national identity, Nations, boarders and administration of boarders were introduced.
Late in this nation state abstract colonial ideals emerged, mixed with romantic ideas of blood and lineage belonging to a land (blut und boden) and god given rights. (For God and King, Manifest Destiny, etc.)
The case that the Philistines and the Palestinians are the same people can be made. This would then put them in in Caanan at and before the time the Hebrew tribes conquered, settled and divided the area among the 12 Israelite tribes. So also a continuation of a defined people and identity.
Zionism is a very European concept. A national idea. That is all.
I cannot imagine any serious theological historian could call Judaism a nation. Nation is abstract, a very modern concept.
There is no evidence anywhere to support the idea that the overwhelming majority of Jews identify with Zionism — a nationalist idea.
Remember that the Temple Emanu-El founded in New York City in 1846 by and the European Jews who established this Temple asserted that Jews constituted a religion, NOT a nation, and thus rejected Zionism, as set out in the “Pittsburgh Platform” written in 1865.
It is only very recently in the scheme of things that Zionism has the support it does. Claiming that the majority of Jews support and identify with Zionism does not make it so. Nations come and go.
Ideas remain.
March 6th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Ellen, although you try to portray “nationalism” as a Europen concept, I think you betray your own Eurocentric and white racist biases in doing so.
The European nation-state and the ideals behind it are, as you point out, relatively modern concepts. But Europe is not the beginning or the end of the story. The land of Egypt was essentially a nation in one form or another for millenia. Even within the “city states” of the Greeks there was also a larger pan-Hellenic identity and nationalism. And of course there was Rome. So to say that nationalism starts with Europeans and that Zionism draws its influence solely from that is ignoring, well, much of the rest of the world.
The “religion” “nation” distinction is also a very Eurocentric phenomenon. In part, Judaism was influenced by the diaspora experience, and the “religion” and “nationality” aspects were somewhat separated. In any event, the Jewish identity has for centuries been about much more than religious ritual or theological belief.
In any event, our system of international relations is now based on a respect for sovereign nations. Israel is as legitimate a nation as any other.
You claim that “The case that the Philistines and the Palestinians are the same people can be made.” I suppose it can, but it would have to be a highly counter-factual argument. In any event, I don’t think the “Palestinian” claim to the land has to do with whether they can make tenuous arguments about connections with the Cannanites or Philistines (who were not even a semitic peoples), as it is significantly more modern. The Palestinian claim is much more compelling based on the here and now, rather than trying to fabricate historic connections and identities which were explicitly rejected by the Arab/Palestinian leadership just a few decades ago.
“There is no evidence anywhere to support the idea that the overwhelming majority of Jews identify with Zionism — a nationalist idea.”
More bold statements with little evidence to back them up. Whatever “evidence” you think there is or is not, there are two irrefutable facts. 1) That about half of the world’s Jewish population lives in Israel and supports their own right to exist in an independent nation, and 2) The rest of the world’s Jewish population, even if they have not chosen to identify as Zionists or make the move themselves, support the rights of those who do.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Quick comment…
Ellen wrote: “There is no evidence anywhere to support the idea that the overwhelming majority of Jews identify with Zionism — a nationalist idea.”
Josh replied: “More bold statements with little evidence to back them up. Whatever “evidence” you think there is or is not…”
For the record: The U.S. has the largest Jewish population in the world, exceeding that of Israel by at least a million. Just to complicate things, most of the 760,000 Israeli citizens that have emigrated from Israel (Ha’aretz, 2004) live in the United States too and are counted as being part of the Israeli Jewish population (by virtue of holding citizenship, despite no longer actually living in Israel) as well as the U.S. Jewish population (by virtue of self-identification as Jewish).
From: Steven M. Cohen, “Poll: Attachment of U.S. Jews To Israel Falls in Past 2 Years,” The Forward, 4 March 2005, http://www.forward.com/articles/poll-attachment-of-us-jews-to-israel-falls-in-pas/ - excerpts:
The attachment of American Jews to Israel has weakened measurably in the last two years, a recent survey demonstrates, continuing a long-term trend visible during the past decade and a half. … The survey found 26% who said they were “very” emotionally attached to Israel, compared with 31% who said so in a similar survey conducted in 2002. Some two-thirds, 65%, said they follow the news about Israel closely, down from 74% in 2002, while 39% said they talk about Israel frequently with Jewish friends, down from 53% in 2002. Those who talk about Israel frequently with non-Jewish friends dropped to 23% this year from 33% in 2002. Those who had donated to an Israel-related charity during the previous 12 months dropped to 40% in the current survey from 49% in 2002. Attendance at an Israel-related program dropped to 22% from 27%. … Israel also declined as a component in the respondents’ personal Jewish identity. When offered a selection of factors, including religion, community and social justice, as well as “caring about Israel,” and asked, “For you personally, how much does being Jewish involve each?” 48% said Israel mattered “a lot,” compared with 58% in 2002. Just 57% affirmed that “caring about Israel is a very important part of my being Jewish,” compared with 73% in a similar survey in 1989. The drop from 1989 appears consistent with a widely noted, long-term generational decline in attachment to Israel. However, generational change is unlikely to explain the dramatic shift during the last two years, which appears to reflect responses to current events in the Middle East. Tellingly, as many as 37% agreed that they were “often disturbed by Israel’s policies and actions,” while another 30% were not sure. Just 33% said they disagreed, 4% of them “strongly.” The survey was conducted between December 14, 2004, and January 15, 2005, and included a representative national sample of 1,448 American Jewish households. It was sponsored by the Jewish-Zionist Education Department of the Jewish Agency for Israel.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
If we accept the notion that “nation” is a modern, European construct (which can be debated, but let’s take Ellen’s point at face value for the sake of argument), then this points out that all nations represent such constructs, and thus all are equally legitmate (or illigitimate). Indeed, as nations go, Israel is one of the older nations in the world, even if you take 1948 as it’s birthdate (most UN members trace their starting date to after the establishment of the Jewish state that year).
Which begs the question, if all nation states are equally legitimate (or illigitmate) and if Israel is relatively old as states go (young compared to European states, but older than most other states on earth), then why should Israel and Israel alone be signaled out as an anachronism. In fact, if we are to do away with the supposed anachronism of the nation state, wouldn’t it make sense for those states which routinely accuse Israel of illigitmacy (for example, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan) to disband themselves in order to set a proper example. Indeed, shouldn’t Ellen and other JVOP supporters on this site be fighting with all of their might to stop the creation of yet another anachronistic state, such as the state of “Palestine?”
Just asking.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
John S., it may be that most American Jews do not feel an overwhelming emotional attachment to Israel (although when faced with it’s absence or potential destruction, they might change their tune). That’s besides the point. Most American Jews, along with the majority of their countrymen and women, would agree that those Jews that have decided to engage in the community building and nation building exercise of Zionism are engaged in a legitimate choice and have the right to exercise that choice in peace.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:37 am
Jon,
Yes. Modern states as we know them are not anachronistic. And the debates of legitimate borders of any state anywhere can be argued back and forth from a historical perspective. Who did what to whom to get what they have.
I object to the framing of the modern state of Israel as “a nation state for one of the longest continually existing nationalities on earth…” This thinking and distortion also plays into the arrogant, racist God’s Chosen people line — which feeds into justification tribal behavior and inhuman crimes. (The horrific attack on Lebanon this summer justified as Israel’s right to protect itself, for example.) That is not the true nature of Judaism.
I do not believe in a two state solution, but an integration of all peoples into the State with the boarders of 1948. Ideas of a two state solution are not sustainable, I think.
Tragically it looks like there are destructive interests on both sides set on preventing an integration of peoples. Interests, that may be a minority, but are control the debate and the agenda. So I am pessimistic.
Zionist ideology, on the face of it, ultimately supports the removal or elimination of another peoples among their midsts in this nation. This is what is anachronistic. Think about it: using an ancient Kingdom of David (also a conquerer) as a model for the 21st Century. Such fantasy! (And many ridicule the Muslim world for still concerning itself with the history of the Christian crusades into the Middle East. What hipocracy.)
Didn’t Gandhi say something like “A nation founded on religion sows the seeds of its own destruction”?
The ongoing policies of the Israeli (and US) government is a road to disaster and destruction, and not in the interest of building and sustaining a modern nation based on the internationally agreed boarders of 1948 –that, I think, is what most all would agree is now legitimate.
March 7th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Thats very naive. A “One state solution”, do like in Ruanda? That is simply Arab code for “drop your defenses.” One of the reasons that I feel that way that I do is that I read the Arab press and listen to what they say rather than assuming that everyone feels the exact same way that I do. Its not a dispute over rights, land or territory, its an existential dispute. Yasir Arafat articulated his intent to use the diplomatic process to get as much land as he could to use as a base and then take the rest by force. The first step in this process was to divide the Jewish people psychologically into two camps. JVP represents his sucess in this effort. A “One state solution” would have Jewish residents in it only long enough for the Arab side to accumulate enough strength to expell all the Jews. Lets not be “useful idiots.”
March 7th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
I’ve seen a lot of hateful rhetoric directed at Israel, but I have to admit I haven’t seen one quite so stunning as…
“I object to the framing of the modern state of Israel as “a nation state for one of the longest continually existing nationalities on earth…” This thinking and distortion also plays into the arrogant, racist God’s Chosen people line — which feeds into justification tribal behavior and inhuman crimes.”
The thinking has nothing to do with arrogance, racism, or “God’s Chosen People.” It’s just a historical recognition of the history of the Jewish people/nation, which extends back over two thousand years.
Ellen’s statement is bizarre, because while she seems to think that nationalism is valid, it is invalid to point to historical, cultural, or other actual facts behind that nationalism.
“I do not believe in a two state solution, but an integration of all peoples into the State with the boarders of 1948.”
I do not believe in a “Palestinian state” but rather incorporation of the Palestinian territories into Jordan and Egypt. It’s a lot easier and less messier than trying to create yet another Arab State.
The problem is, the Palestinians don’t want that. So I wont try to force such a view in the name of peace. Similarly, I’m not going to demand that Israel be forced into confederation with a neighbor who has just elected a racist hate group with a charter that directly quotes from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
“Ideas of a two state solution are not sustainable, I think.”
You can think what you want, but I’m not sure what the basis for your thought is. Israel has demonstrated its ability not only to exist but to thrive as an independent nation. In less than 60 years the country would has firmly established itself not only as a nation with staying power, but a democratic, pluralistic and free society. It also has established itself as the region’s economic powerhouse, a country with a strong educational system, and miraculous technological advances that seem to pop up every week! It is not an exaggeration to say that Zionism is probably the most successful national liberation movement over the past couple of centuries!
As for Palestine, can it be sustained? Theoretically there’s no reason why not. The problem is that Palestinian nationalism, itself a recent invention, has never really focused on building a Palestinian state, but rather focused its efforts on denying the existence of the neighboring Jewish state. Under such circumstances, it is tough to create the national infrastructure necessary to succeed. Again, it makes a lot more sense for Jordan and Egypt to annex the portions of the territories adjacent to them. That was what the international community tried to do for a few decades. But the Palestinians and other Arabs, largely out of rejectionism, insisted that “the PLO is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.”
Well, they wanted it, and they got it. So now they’ll have to engage in statecraft on their own. If they ever put aside their obsession with destroying their neighbor, I think the Palestinians have a good shot at becoming a state. However even if they can’t, that does not make it incumbent on Israel to then take in the population of another failed state.
March 12th, 2007 at 2:12 am
John S. says “The idea of a “Jewish State” is in no way different than the notion of a “White State”, an “Islamic State”, a “Christian State” or a “Serbian State” all of which I’m opposed to and all of which run in direct contravention to the modern notions of equality, diversity, human rights, and justice.”
that would be great in an ideal world, but the fact is that there ARE 22 islamic states, many of which don’t allow jews to live freely. so go ahead call for the destruction of all of them, but israel is NOT going to go first.
anyway, it’s more like saying france is for the french and spain is for the spanish. israel is for the jews. what’s wrong with that? as long as in france and spain and israel minorities have rights. which of course they do. they all have elections and voting and minorities serve in parliament. i wish the arab countries could say that. until they do, i don’t know why you would destroy a country that DOES have civil rights for minorities, let alone for women and homosexuals, and replace it with a country that has no civil rights for its citizens, like the arab countries. does that fit your idealistic worldview?
“the reason for my particular attention on Israel is because Israel portrays itself as speaking on behalf of all Jews”
don’t know what gave you that idea. israel doesn’t “speak” for you, it doesn’t even speak for many israelis, which comes out every day in israel’s free press.
i’ll tell you what israel does offer you- a safe place for you, as a jew, to go if you should ever need it.
but if you’re really that concerned, that’s great. speak out against israel’s policies. but can you distinguish between that and calling for israel’s destruction? for as terrible as the US government is right now, are you calling for the destruction of the USA?
“While it is true that people like me call for the end of the “Jewish State” as such; this has nothing whatsoever to do with killing or expelling anyone ”
no, of course not, i’m sure when israel is destroyed its arab neighbors will suddenly and immediately love all jews and human rights, and will bestow full rights to all jews and women and other citizens in their lands. yes, i’m sure of it.
“in the same way that calls to end South African Apartheid (“destroy South Africa”) did not amount to a call for an extermination or expulsion of the Afrikaners”
you didn’t call for the destruction of the country of south africa, now did you?
Like the Afrikaners, there can be no denying that Israeli Jews have created a unique society, culture, and nationality quite distinct from everyone else (including non-Israeli Jews); ”
non-jewish israelis, too. yes, israel is a distinct country.
What they do not have the right to do is maintain an ethnocentric state that excludes half the population”
they don’t have that. if the west bank is occupied, then they are not part of israel, of course israel can exclude people from other countries, every country does that. within israel, everyone, jewish or not, has full civil rights, which is more than any arab country can say.
“(meaning the total population between the river & the sea)”
why stop there, why not go from sea to shining sea. THERE ARE 2 COUNTRIES THERE. JORDAN AND ISRAEL. talking about the total population is code for the destruction of israel. and that DOES mean killing jews. do you really have relatives that died in the holocaust? ouch.
“from full and equal participation in the state tthat rules them.”
lol. when arabs get that in arab countries, you can fix the one non-islamic state in the region.
“most Mizrahim didn’t move to Israel because of Muslim hate, but as a direct result of Zionist efforts to stimulate anti-Semitism in these countries. ”
that is a load of crap, a big lie, you might as well tell us about the blood of christian children in matzahs. jews stimulating anti-semitism. like we need to.
the truth is that over a million jews were displaced as a result of the wars of 48-52, and this time, finally, displaced jews had a place to go. just as many arabs were displaced, but unfortunately, their fellow arabs refused to let them in, forcing them into refugee camps.
your voice is valued and valuable when you criticize israel’s policies. when you call for her destruction, however, you align yourself with hitler and bin laden.