The Jewish left takes on anti-Semitism on the left
Posted on April 26 2007 by Cecilie Surasky under Anti-semitism.April Rosenblum has written a must-read, downloadable booklet on anti-Semitism: The Past Didn’t Go Anywhere: Making Resistance to Antisemitism Part of All of Our Movements.
Rosenblum, a veteran of social justice work on “police brutality, prisoners’ rights, political prisoners, womens’ reproductive freedom, immigrants’ rights, poverty, anti-racist education, Palestinian self-determination” and more, writes:
My work to create this pamphlet was inspired by noticing how afraid I was to speak up when I noticed instances of anti-Jewish oppression in my movements, and my realization that, like me, my activist friends were staying silent not out of antisemitism, but because they needed a basic resource about how to confront it.
I haven’t had the time to do a line by line reading, but what I have read has been incredibly impressive if not brilliant. She’s a tremendous thinker, firmly grounded in left politics, who understands the ways anti-Semitic thinking scapegoats Jews as a way to deflect people from real power relations. I could go on, but we have a conference going on, and it’s better that you read it yourself here.
Get Muzzlewatch delivered fresh daily
Print This Post
April 26th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Apaprently shameless self promotion works! You are now #1 in all categories.
But the JIBlogs are supposed to be pro-Israel- and except for some of the brilliant words of the commentors, I see nothing pro-Israel about this blog.
And some of your links are down-right anti-Israel.
Maybe I’d feel more comfortable about this if you stated it once and for all:
Does JVP endorse the existence of Israel as a Jewish state?
If you don’t, then this is not a pro-Israel blog, and you should recuse yourselves from the pro-Israel blog awards.
From the JVP mass email:
Pardon this display of shameless self-promotion, but our new Muzzlewatch blog has been nominated for three categories in this year’s Jewish & Israeli Blog Awards. This is unusual, because the awards have largely honored blogs with a narrow perspective when it comes to Israel and Palestine.
In fact, this year, there are a number of terrific blogs that have been nominated that you should check out or vote for including Semitism , Tikun Olam, JVoices, and Jewschool. You might also enjoy Realistic Dove, Mondo Weiss, and of course, The Third Way.
Please vote for Muzzlewatch at the following links. First round of voting closes at the end of Sunday, April 29.
Vote for Best New Blog - First Round Group A
http://www.jibawards.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=110
Vote for Left Wing Political Blog - First Round Group B
http://www.jibawards.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=146
Vote for Jewish Anti-Establishment Blog - First Round Group A
http://www.jibawards.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=149
April 27th, 2007 at 6:23 am
a) the jibs are not a pro-israel blog awards ceremony, they are a jewish and israeli subject oriented blog awards ceremony.
b) being critical of the policies of the israeli government and objecting to the existence of a jewish state are not even remotely the same thing.
c) jewish voice for peace, as far as i understand, does not deal with the question as to whether or not zionism is a legitimate expression of jewish self-determination, but rather focuses on promoting the pursuit of policies that will bring about a just resolution to the israeli-palestinian conflict.
d) posting off-topic is rude.
e) go apri! “the past didn’t go anywhere” is a phenomenal and important undertaking and april’s efforts should be applauded and shared with as many folks as possible.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:35 am
The booklet is an interesting one and makes some good points in a much less offensive way than many others but there is one major thing that stuck out which I could not possible agree with and it is something that I don’t think many people really would but it said:
“But Israel did not, and does not, cause antisemitism.”
Are you kidding? As far as the Middle East is concerned this is almost an irresponsible statement. The oppression of the Palestinians is a major cause of anti-Semitism and one of the ways to reduce anti-Semitism is by straightening out the policy. I can’t think that someone is even serious about stopping anti-Semitism without taking this into consideration. Actually, this problem is exactly why some elements of the Left have made anti-Semitic statements. If Palestinian oppression wasn’t the reason then I don’t think these people even come from the Left.
Another thing is that people who try to use Israel as a scapegoat for Iraq are not people of the Left at all, but are just typical Right-Wing lunatic anti-Semites. I will say that the people who have made the accusation of “the tail wagging the dog” are not necessarily anti-Semitic though and a lynch mob type attitude towards them will backfire.
One last point is that I think many of the problems with anti-Semitism are not confronted effectively because of the awful mainstream Jewish organizations. They have not served the community very well and need tremendous reform. Actually I think their presence is one of the main reasons that the Left has not believed that there is a need to take up the defense of Jewish people as much because of all these rabid accusatory organizations who end up attacking those from their own ranks.
Oh, and one last thing. To say that Jews are very oppressed now and especially in this country is terribly inaccurate and in my view that is an insult to the sickening, awful, cruel treatment of Jews throughout history and in the Shoah. In the Middle East it is a problem, but for the most prosperous ethnic group in this country to say such things comes off as elitist victimhood and even though that’s not the intention, it still has the effect of building feelings of resentment from the left. That is something that BOTH sides have to understand. Be sensible about what you say. Saying that the county is ready to throw the Jews in ovens is an insult. You hurt people’s feelings by saying such things. All non-Jews are not NAZIs!
All in all, not a bad booklet though, except that I think it sometimes is confused on some issues.
April 27th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
There was plenty of antisemitism around well before Israel, and it came from all corners.
It is indeed irresponsible to claim that Israel causes antisemitism.
April 27th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Israel oppresses the Palestinians and forced them off their land but you don’t think that is why there is anti-Semitism in the Palestinian community?
Don’t think I am making an all or nothing statement. It isn’t the cause of all anti-Semitism but surely a portion of it. You would have to reach entirely new levels of absurdity to refute that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCL6WdnuNp4
April 27th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Matt, thats foolish and naive. Arabs were chanting “Itbach Yahud” in 1929, before anyone heard the words,”Palestinian” or “occupation.” The status of Jews under Islam is “Dhimmi.” Look it up and then get back to me as to whether you still think that this is a recent and purely poitical phenomena.
April 27th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Yes, let’s get our priorities straight. It’s all about anti-Semitism. What else going on in the world right now can compare in importance? The 60-year genocide of the Palestinian people? A million dead in Iraq? The next war in Iran? Islamophobia aimed at all Muslims? Hardly!
(And if not anti-Semitism, the POSSIBILITY of anti-Semitism! If we don’t look after ourselves, who will?)
April 27th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
I’m sorry, but Matt is very much correct, one cannot divorce the oppression of the Palestinians by present-day Israel and the pre-state Zionists (evident long before 1929) from Palestinian and Arab attitudes towards Israel and Jews, no matter if they were considered “Dhimmi” or not, which by the way refers to, “free non-Muslim subjects living in Muslim countries who, in return for paying the capital tax, enjoyed protection and safety.” While the status, shared by all non-Muslims not just Jews, certainly had its drawbacks even Bernard Lewis states that in most respects their position “was very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in medieval Europe,” and that it was rarely ever expressed in ethnic or racial terms.
Israel does contribute to anti-Jewish feeling as it has long promoted the myth that all Jews support Israel and Israel represents all Jews. Olmert fell into this just recently when he promoted the notion that the war against Lebanon was fought by “all the Jews.” This is no different than claiming Jewish collective responsibility for the acts of any Jew or Jewish group, and is the mirror image of the longest-standing anti-semitic trope.
The author of the article also gets her history wrong: In the farm crisis of the 1980s, white supremacists most assuredly did not “step in and save the day” for the beleaguered farmers of the mid-west. Damn near nobody did. Hundreds if not thousands of farms were lost and suicide rates soared. Nor is she correct when she asserts that the Old Left ignored or dismissed issues of gender and race in favor of class. The Communist Party USA first took on issues of race in 1921, sending organizers into the deep South to fight Jim Crow. The CP’s civil rights defense group, the ILD, later the Civil Rights Congress, provided free lawyers and defended poor blacks in Jim Crow Court for decades. For Left unions the fight against racism was instrumental to the class struggle not secondary. The forerunner of the modern women’s movement also evolved within the Old Left. Nor does she mention that one of those “anti-colonial forces” who attempted their bolster their efforts against the British by bonding with the Nazis happened to be Zionist - the Stern Gang headed by a future Prime Minister of Israel.
But more to the point, Zionism and anti-semitism are two sides of the same coin, and have been from the start. The Zionists were the original self-hating Jews. All of which was part and parcel of rejecting traditional Judaism in favor of creating a “new Jew” in the Zionist mold.
As late as December 1936, the Zionist youth group Hashomer Hatzair republished its “Weltanschauung” or world-view, of 1917: “The Jew is a caricature of a normal, natural human being, both physically and spiritually. As an individual in society he revolts and throws off the harness of social obligations, knows no order nor discipline.”
In 1934 Yehezkel Kaufman, then a well-known scholar of biblical history at Jerusalem’s Hebrew University and a Zionist, published “Holocaust of the Soul” citing three of the classic Zionist thinkers towards much of the same: For Micah Yosef Berdichevsky the Jews were “not a nation, not a people, not human”. For Yosef Chaim Brenner they were nothing more than “Gypsies, filthy dogs, inhuman, wounded, dogs”. To A.D. Gordon his people were no better than “parasites, people fundamentally useless”.
In 1924 Maurice Samuel, a close associate of Chaim Weizmann, whose papers reside at Brandeis, published “You Gentiles”: “Jew and Gentile are two worlds, between you Gentiles and us Jews there lies an unbridgeable gulf…There are two life forces in the world: Jewish and Gentile…I do not believe that this primal difference between Gentile and Jew is reconcilable….In everything, we are destroyers–even in the instruments of destruction to which we turn for relief…We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers for ever. Nothing that you will do will meet our needs and demands.”
The Zionists argued that anti-semitism was natural, for without their own homeland Jews were unhealthy “aliens” that the gentile nations could not stomach. All this was grist for the mill of Nazi anti-semitism and they made much of it, particularly when the Zionist press came out in favor of the 1935 Nuremberg Laws. Zionist collaboration with the Third Reich in the Transfer Agreement (instrumental in breaking the Jewish-led boycott against the Third Reich) lasted from 1933 to 1939, and the Nazi press worldwide crowed about that as well. In Britain, Oswald Mosley’s newspaper, the Blackshirt, loved it: “Can you beat that! We are cutting off our nose to spite our face and refuse to trade with Germany in order to defend the poor Jews. The Jews themselves, in their own country, are to continue making profitable dealings with Germany themselves. Fascists can’t better counter the malicious propaganda to destroy friendly relations with Germany than by using this fact.”
To make a very long post short, I don’t believe one can discuss anti-semitism without also discussing Zionism’s contribution to it.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:16 am
“To make a very long post short, I don’t believe one can discuss anti-semitism without also discussing Zionism’s contribution to it.”
right. and you can’t discuss rape without also discussing what women do to bring it on.
April 28th, 2007 at 11:04 am
So tell me, when is the Jewish Left going to denounce the six major Democratic candidates for appearing at a racist and anti-Semitic hate organization (Al Sharpton’s National Action Network) that reputedly yelled “Kill the Jew!” while murdering Yankel Rosenbaum in Crown Heights and of course reenacting the Night of the Broken Glass?
“White interloper,” “[Jewish] diamond merchants,” “Greek homos” and “whore” (re: a white rape victim, the Central Park jogger) are all directly from Mr. Sharpton himself. His followers threw in helpful terms like “cracker” and “bloodsucking Jew.”
Meanwhile, the Jewish Left (National Jewish Democratic Council and even A Jewish Voice for Peace) did their best to whitewash MoveOn.org’s anti-Semitic and anti-Christian hate speech.
“The Jewish left takes on anti-Semitism on the left?” I’m still waiting.
April 28th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
correction:
the author’s name is not april rosenbaum - it’s april rosenblum.
thanks.
April 28th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
this is the sentiment of a jewish rabbi amrom blau..
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/blauCallJerusalem.cfm
what you geniuses seem to overlook is that these old rabbis and judaics from before ww2 were warning that zionism would aggravate the anti semitic feelings of the nation….and thus far they have been proved right…..if you would only read the warnings of these wise men you couldnt sit there and deny the fact that they have been right on every point….but you all just want to justify israels apartheid racist jewish state, and continnue to wish that there be no palestinians living in the land. you discount as ridiculous palestinians right of return yet the zionist returned there after two thousand years and told the palestinians that they had to leave and then proceeded to terrorize 750,000 of them out of the land….history is repeating itself and the nations are running out of patience with the bull&it.
if after two thousand years israeli zionist returned to the land then why cant palestinians return after 60 years?
hypocrits!
The Jewish People are absolutely opposed to any injury against the Arab nation. The Arab nation never harmed the Jewish People until the advent of Zionist nationalism. The Jewish People are commanded by the Torah to seek the peace of the governments where they are citizens, and not to rebel against any nation, G-d forbid, especially when this concerns the Holy Land, to which we are forbidden to engage in mass immigration.
are you guys american or israelis?
youre sentiments seem to speak to an israeli allegience.
April 28th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
that was an excellent and well informed post Grist.
after the event of world war 2 the jewish population of the world turned to zionism, and even though they themselves wouldnt go and live there they defend it like their homeland, unfortunately for most of them they choose to ignore the warnings of the old rabbis who were against zionism and warned the jewish people of what they could expect if they allowed zionism to flourish.
those who ignore historys lessons are forced to repeat it…over and over and over….unfortunately the history of the jews in many nations isnt the loveliest and the intransigence of the israeli zionist will eventually cause even america to turn it’s back on israel…..that sentiment was expressed by one of the leaders of the directors of the major jewish organizations in america…….
look to the past grasshopper, and you shall find wisdom in the words of the judaic rabbis.
April 29th, 2007 at 1:32 am
“even though they themselves wouldn’t go and live there, they defend it like their homeland”
For many, it’s precisely because they would never go and live there that their support for Zionism is so blindly loyal. It’s compensation for their guilt feelings.
This dynamic is what makes the problem so intractable. Because in a sense it’s not really Israelis who are responsible for the war against the Palestinians, it’s the diaspora Jews who make it possible.
April 29th, 2007 at 11:02 am
So much claptrap and nonsense.
April 29th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
jack, what you mean to say is that it’s so much truth that you refuse to look in the mirror, burying oneshead in the sand will not minimize the truth, the truth will roll like a train on its inevitable course…
the expulsion of 750,000 palestinians lost their houses, fields, bank accounts etc…and the world was silent…..
the facts are out there from the mouths and diaries of the perpetrators themselves…
Gruenbaum’s response to the plea of Rabbi Yitzhak Itshe Meir Levin, a leader of the Ultra-orthodox Agudat Yisrael who stated, “Take the Jewish National Fund money…won’t you halt the work in Palestine during such a period, when they are murdering slaughterinig Jews by the hundreds of thousands, even millions? Don’t establish new settlements, take the money for those needs.” Greenbaum responded:
“. . . . Let them say that I am anti-Semitic”….Let them say what they want. I will not demand that the Jewish Agency allocate of a sum of 300,000 or 100,000 pounds sterling to help European Jewry. And I think that whoever demands such things is performing an anti-Zionist act.”
…January 18, 1943, Yitzhak Gruenbaum and Others at the Zionist Executive Committee; Gruenbaum, Days of Destruction, p.68
April 29th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Most posts on this blog by Cecilia have been about Jewish organizations crying wolf over anti-semitism. Yet the ONE time a post is made about actually fighting real anti-semitism I hear the following:
#7 How dare you talk about defending your own people, you can defend others but never yourselves.
#8 If it weren’t for those horrible nazi zionists there would not be any anti-semitism
Jon Doe this one comment from you really makes me sick:
“are you guys american or israelis?
youre sentiments seem to speak to an israeli allegience.” This is classic anti-semitism, claiming that we are disloyal to the countries we are citizens of.
The above comments reveal the importance of “The Past didn’t go Anywhere”. Thank you for posting this, Cecilia. And G-D bless April Rosenblum for her excellent work.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:52 am
oops, I made a mistake, it’s Cecile not Cecilia. Sorry
April 30th, 2007 at 3:04 am
“the expulsion of 750,000 palestinians lost their houses, fields, bank accounts etc…and the world was silent…..”
just as many jews were expelled from the arab countries during the same period.
the difference is that israel welcomed these jews in, and jordan and egypt forced the arabs into refugee camps.
April 30th, 2007 at 8:18 am
anon, the stories of the zionist involvement in terrorizing jews out of their arab lands and then treating them as second class citizens because they werent as white as the ashkenazi jews is old and out there for anyone who wants to read it…there have been many defectors who have told their stories…
here are a few stories about the jews of the arab lands….they are the stories of jews from iraq, tehran…truth is stranger than fiction….in zionism, fiction is disguised as truth and sold as patriotism…..much like the war on iraq was sold to u.s citizens under the banner of patriotism…but truth is dawning like the morning sun in the east.
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/impact/tehranchildren.cfm
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/impact/tehranchildren.cfm
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/impact/yemenchildren.cfm
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/resources/onlinebooks/martyrsmessage.cfm
April 30th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
“Most posts on this blog by Cecilia have been about Jewish organizations crying wolf over anti-semitism. Yet the ONE time a post is made about actually fighting real anti-semitism … ”
I’m wondering how you know which are the REAL posts. Those who worship at the temple of antisemitism are going to bow down to pamphlets like this. Others will see them as just more examples of crying wolf, just more excuses for wronging others.
But I have a feeling you’re not conscious of any wrongs being done to others, am I right?
April 30th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
“But I have a feeling you’re not conscious of any wrongs being done to others, am I right?”
I don’t understand your question.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Whatever you think of April Rosenblum booklet, don’t be guilty of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Like all human endeavour, April’s efforts are subject to imperfections and it is precisely this facet of human nature that makes it vital to converse with those we are not in full agreement with so that we may all grope towards the “Truth.”
There is much in her booklet, but for now I wish to reflect on one sentence:
“Anti-Jewish oppression cannot be dealt with in a movement that isn’t also utterly dedicated to fighting the oppression of people of color, both in the larger world and in our movements.”
In response to anti-Semitism the Jewish Bundists sought to build a just society for all of humankind. Only in a world free of all forms of oppression can anti-Semitism be something in the past. When racism. sexism and homophobia no longer exist, anti-Semitism too will become purely a memory.
Zionism with few exceptions was the racist response to anti-Semitism. It was the response that accepted a view of humanity as irredeemably base. A viewpoint that its proponents claim is realistic.
The struggle for universal justice is seen as the notion of dreamers, but ultimately it is the only solution to all of our problems that is sustainable. It may not work; it may never happen, but there is no option to solving the problem of anti-Semitism through the promotion of universal human values applicable to each and every one of us.
What is absolutely certain is that violence and racism are never going to solve our problems. Israel is the stronger party, militarily, for the moment, but this will eventually end as surely as all other “powers” have eventually lost their military advantage over those that they oppressed. If all that protects the Jews of Israel is their military superiority, then they will have nothing when that eventually disappears. Thus current Israeli policies seem a rather foolish solution to anti-Semitism and one that can hardly be called “realistic” in the long run.
Humiliating Palestinians is not going to provide security for Israelis, but is the easiest thing to go on doing. The most difficult thing of all to bring about is the only thing that will work, namely, respect. It is also not a question of Israelis saying things like, “When the Palestinians do x, y, and z, then we will respect their rights . . . ”
All sides have to respect each other’s humanity immediately.
The crimes of my enemy are not an excuse for me to commit crimes. The crimes of others do not justify nor do they excuse my crimes. My primary concern is my own crimes. When those are taken care of, I can turn to the crimes of others.
My primary allegiance is to humanity. Nothing I do for the benefit of my family, my group, or my country is acceptable if it harms other members of the human family.
If April’s booklet promotes universal justice for all of humankind in some small way, then I welcome it with all of it’s imperfections.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Wow, I’m really surprised at the tone of the critical posts here, because I feel the pamphlet gives a thoughtful, detailed, and complicated analysis, while the critiques here are being offered on the simplest levels - are people actually reading, or just looking for things to be pissed about?
The statement that Israel isn’t the cause of antisemitism is offered within the context of much more information, which I encourage people to read and consider for themselves rather than take this cheapshot seriously.
Another example of the - the pamphlet specifically talks about the way that Arab and Muslim communities are much more dangerously under attack in the US right now, but that doesn’t mean antisemitism isn’t also happening - and Rosenblum encourages us to not stop working on all the other issues of justice that we are committed to, but instead to integrate analysis of antisemitism into all of our work for justice. It’s not true that we have to choose one group of people to care about, that’s the tone of some of these comments but not of the pamphlet.
JVP has published some really useful analysis of antisemitism in the past, so I’m sorry to see the knee-jerk judgments I’m seeing on this thread.
I think this pamphlet gives us an opportunity to engage some really deep learning and questioning with the goal of strengthening our progressive movements. I hope the conversation in the future can take advantage of the chance to go deeper into that conversation.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:40 pm
This broadside is hailed as “Incredibly impressive…if not brilliant” and a “must-read” work from “a tremendous thinker.” It does have some nice flourishes. And then it goes on to pronounce the same old crap, with a laundry list of statements and concepts and words that supposedly no conscientious person is permitted to use: despite all the merits of this booklet, it lost me when it started trying to insist that it is anti-semitic to say “Zionism is racism,” that it is anti-semitic to draw any comparisons between, say, the Warsaw Ghetto and Qalqilya, or to point to an “israeli lobby” as playing a role in US military policy in the Mideast, or to suggest that there is a pro-israeli/zionist bias in the American corporate media which systematically distorts coverage, or to suggest that the heightened tensions in the region have something to do with Israel. What a load of crap.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:29 pm
I’m afraid I must agree with Anomalous, Emily. What a load of crap.
We don’t have to be brilliant social scientists to notice that the “antisemitism!” charge is being used to further some pretty nasty causes. Whether intentionally or just through sloppy thinking, Rosenblum’s pamphlet seems designed to protect that misuse.
To disagree with someone over topics like whether racism is inherent in Zionism, or how powerful is the Israel lobby, is one thing, but to try to label whole subjects off-bounds for discussion is another.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Anomalous, with full respect:
In the fight for justice in human affairs one does not want to be providing succor to right-wing fanatics. That means that occassionally you have to chose your words very carefully and be quite clear in exactly what are the similarities in the comparisons you make. Israel is not a Nazi state but when you compare The Warsaw Ghetto with Qalqilya, many Jews will understandably assume that that is what you are saying. If you are not suggesting that, then exactly what does the shorthand of this comparison actually refer to?
If you are referring to the arrogance that dehumanizes the “other” in order to enamble the perpetrators of the atrocities that occurred in both places to be at peace with themselves as they acted with brutality, then why don’t you say just that. It is no less damning and you are more likely to be listened to than when you employ what amounts to sloganeering tactics.
If you really think about it, even though you are right about the media bias there is a short distance between what you justifiably say and racist statements like “Jews control the media.” Then it is not to far before we are into Jewish conspiracies to control the world. Individuals are guilty of war crimes, not nations, or religions or ethnicities.
Some Americans are guilty of war crimes with regard to the invasion of Iraq. Americans as a whole can never be tried and found guilty of what is happening in Iraq. Certain individuals were tried at Nurenburg, not the Germans.
Some citizens of Israel and some Jews who are citizens of the US have committed crimes against humanity and deserve to be tried, but that has nothing to do with being Jewish.
Some Palestinians have organized suicide bombing of civilian targets in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions while engaged in a legitimate struggle against oppression. These people should be tried, but their acts say nothing about the nature of Palestianians, Arabs, or Muslims.
So while we must talk about a Jewish lobby and try to expose what needs to be exposed about those sorts of goings on, history tells us to be very careful about the criminal scapegoating that could ensue.
It is easy to shout out: “What a load of crap.” You are not, however, by so doing, encouraging the kind of discussion that will lead to greater clarity. Until the majority are convinced and motivated to act for justice, there is not going to be any change.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:08 pm
good post, lawrence.
and of course it is anti-semitic to say zionism is racism. zionism is a political philosophy, and in any case, judaism is not a race. so saying that zionism is racism makes no sense except to demonize supporters of zionism.
May 1st, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Lawrence,
“In the fight for justice in human affairs one does not want to be providing succor to right-wing fanatics.”
One should admit that right-wing fanatics will gather their succor where they may (and do) and there is little one can do to prevent it other than shut up altogether. One should also admit that criticism of Israel or Zionism by right-wing fanatics (or their quoting of others to that same effect) is not by itself alone necessarily anti-semitic or incorrect. David Duke may parrot Norman Finkelstein but that is not Norman’s lookout, nor is it a legitimate argument against his work.
Nor is it legitimate to ask others to parse their words in light of some vague presumption of what “many Jews will understandably assume.” Who are these “many Jews”? By what path does one fathom what they may, or may not, “understandably assume”? And, if such understanding were possible, why should their assumptions trump those of anyone else? And what of the Jews who just might agree with even the harshest criticism of Israel? Is one to take a poll beforehand to determine the majority Jewish opinion then cut one’s criticism to fit it? And if one did, how would that further the discussion? And what if the minority is actually correct?
Is not there a parallel here with the long-standing debate over what is “anti-American” criticism? Not too long ago (and, excuse me, it still exists today), one could and was accused of giving aid to the enemy (Communism, terrorism, etc.) by merely pointing to the faults of the United States. Advocates of civil rights, organized labor, the eight-hour day, and national health, were all accused of subversion, or being “dupes” for the same. The merits of their arguments were not to be addressed as long as the so-called “crisis” existed - which, of course, meant never.
The “crisis” of anti-semitism is little different. Every ten years or so, whenever Israel gets into hot water, we find ourselves faced with another “new anti-semitism” trumpeted by the ADL and other mainstream Jewish groups. Thus, we are all to watch our words lest we give succor to the enemy.
Israel is a country. Zionism is the political ideology of that country. Both are fair game for criticism and comparison with other countries and ideologies, whether those comparisons are factually correct or not. Points of comparison between Nazi Germany and Israel may be lacking altogether, or overstated in important respects, but to cry “anti-semite!” is not only nonsensical in that it assumes Jews to be morally apart from the rest of humanity, but it is also part of the larger ongoing attempt to limit and frame the debate in Israel’s favor.
The pamphlet in question patronizingly instructs us in what is allowable or not, based on the author’s notions of anti-semitism, and defends such with unsupported assertions which in many instances are themselves debatable, in fact, baldly incorrect (i.e., her bizarre accusation that the organized Left silenced “oppressed groups”). Little of this furthers discussion concerning Israel, Jewish Nationalism, Zionism, or the fate of the Palestinians. What it does is throw sand to obscure the true debate and the true way to conduct it, which is through free and open debate using historical fact, the tenants of international law, and moral suasion.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:05 am
Grif,
I agree with the broad strokes of what you say. However, I want to clarify that I am not suggesting parsing one’s words in the sense of censuring the fullness of truth as one understands it. Rather, I am suggesting ensuring that one is precise and specific, leaving as little room as possible for misinterpretation. Hopefully, this will reduce the interminable red-herrings that one is always having to deal with in discussions with supporters of Israeli oppression.
The pamphlet is certainly flawed, but I think there is validity in recognizing that anti-semitism does exist even as one argues that a Jewish State is a racist and ineffective solution to the problem of anti-Semitism. The author has certainly picked up on popular myths pepetuated by a number of activists from oppressed groups who in the 70s hived off from the generalized left accusing the left of ignoring their particular oppressions.
Even now, marxism is rejected by various groups who claim that it is concerned solely with class while downplaying the specific oppression that the speaker labours under. I agree that historical fact, the tenants of international law, and universal human values are all that really count in the debate.
Personally, in light of these, I am convinced that:
1. The partition of Palestine was an immoral and illegal decision by the United Nations, and in complete contradiction to the the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The partition is the quintessential Apartheid act and a two state solution is the Apartheid solution to the conflict and will perpetuate the divisions and misunderstanding.
2. Anti-Semitism is racist and unacceptable and must be challenged wherever it appears. Islamophobia is racist and unacceptable and must be challenged wherever it appears. Racism is unacceptable and must be fought.
3. That the author of the pamphlet makes a vital point in talking about the role of scapegoats. Jews, people of colour, women, LGBTs have all been oppressed in the interests of preserving the ruling elite.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:36 pm
You’ve missed two really big points in history. The real partition of Palestine was in 1923 when 2/3 of the British mandate of Palestine was barred to Jews, and cut off to become a national homeland for the Arab people called,”Transjordan.” The UN proposed 1947 partition plan was never implemented as the Arabs rejected peace, partition and compromise in favor of violence,war and blood shed.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Lawrence, I agree 100% with all you say in the post immediately above.
That said, I disagree a great deal with the response you gave to my comment above as well as to Grif, which appear to arise from a belief that Jews are either the only audience for comments on Israel/Palestine, or the only audience that matters.
I can’t say that I agree with your apparent proposal that all comments on the subject of Israel/Palestine must at all times be framed and limited by the ostensibly anti-semitic uses to which our words might be put by “right-wing [or any other] fanatics.”
Vigilance about anti-semitism and racism in our movements is one thing. Crippling and limiting our own ability to speak and meaningfully communicate, out of deference to a real or contrived hysteria about anti-semitism, is quite another.
The silly checklist proposed by the pamphlet is virtually indistinguishable from pronouncements routinely issued by the official organs of Zionism in order to delegitimate or prevent criticism of Israel.
A real committment to anti-racism requires that we reject such nonsense.
Your argument about deferring to the anxieties of extremists reminds me of the position taken by the head of CNN shortly after the Sept 11 attack. Out of consideration for the complaints of extremists who objected that airing images of victims of the war is anti-american, he issued an executive order: henceforth, any image of a victim of the war against the afghan people would have to be framed by an image from September 11. Ultimately of course even that compromise wasn’t enough, but in so doing he effectively transformed all CNN employees into propagandists FOR the war, and implicated them in the fiction that would enable the subsequent war against the Iraqi people.
In my experience, something similar happens with Palestine activists. Our sensitivity to the anxieties of some Jews (both within and outside our movements) about anti-semitism ends up implicating us in this intensive campaign of discursive blackmail, the ultimate end of which is to play along with a ludicrous - and ultimately racist - Jewish exceptionalism: the assertion of an exclusive Jewish right to comment on the subject of Israel/Palestine.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:02 pm
I agree with what you say, Anomalous, but fear I am not communicating my point clearly. I am merely suggesting that:
1. one needs to be specific rather than engage in sloganeering in fighting for justice
2. just as European anti-Semitism and the Holocaust are no excuse whatsoever for establishing a country at the expense the the Palestinians, the depredation practiced and/or allowed by the Israeli state are no excuse for anti-Semitism.
I am not suggesting deferring to the anxieties of anyone by compromising one’s principles. I am suggesting that everyone’s anxieties need to be recognized and evaluated. This does not mean that I believe only Jews have a right to comment on the subject of Israel/Palestine.
For example, I don’t agree with the idea of Jewish ownership of the Holocaust. I don’t even like the fact that it is spelled with a capital H as though the holocaust suffered by African slaves is any less of a human catastrophe than the treatment of Jews at the hands of the Nazis. The Nazi Holocaust is a crime against humanity and as such is of concern to all of humanity. If it is to be used for good, it should be a lesson against the crime of racism and the evil of arrogance in all of human affairs.
Jews have a long memory of discrimination directed against them and that is simply because they have existed as an identifiable group for so long. Throughout all the centuries in which Jews suffered persecution, many other groups have suffered persecution as well. These others have just not had the persistent presence. That does not make the Jewish suffering any more important than the suffering of others. Neither does it make it any less important. In Israel/Palestine the oppression is currently perpetrated by Jews against Palestinians. That Jewish beneficiaries of the conflict are guilty of racism is not in doubt. The response of Palestinians resisting oppression cannot be called racism no matter how bigoted the attitudes of some may be.
The suicide bomber who targets civilians is guilty of murder, but it is a murder born of despair. While I don’t deny that those who target civilians have to take responsibility for their actions, I believe very strongly that the rest of the world has to take responsibility for remaining silent in the face of the injustices that have been visited upon the Palestinians. We (the rest of humanity) share in the responsibility for what suffering and injustices others suffer because we remain silent. We can struggle vigourously to end injustices perpetrated by the Israeli state and any number of Jews without resorting to or facilitating anti-Semitism.
Israelis can be accused of committing a host of crimes against humanity without resorting to anti-Semitism. I was born in South Africa in 1947, lived there during most of the Apartheid years and find that I’m often reminded of those years when I hear certain Israelis talking, but I will not call Israel an Apartheid state in spite of the many similarities. There are just as many similarities to any number of other racist situations, Like the British in India and China and even Nazi Germany, but I will not call Israel a Nazi state. The USA is guilty of the same level of racism right now towards Iraqis and Haitians, but I know enough Americans to not paint the entire citizenry with the disgust I feel towards those in power who facilitated and perpetrated the injustices being done to Iraqis and Haitians.
I don’t believe that Holocaust denial is a good thing because it inevitably involves anti-Semitism. By the same token, I feel that Naqba denial enables the continuing persecution of Palestinians and is thus the focus of my agitation against Israeli oppression.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:12 pm
“the assertion of an exclusive Jewish right to comment on the subject of Israel/Palestine.”
who has ever asserted that? that’s absurd. if you can comment on the subject without calling either side racist, without calling for the destruction of either side, chime on in.
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Lawrence,
Thanks for the well-put response. I agree with with much of what you write, particularly with your last three points. Anti-semitism is indeed real and should be refuted, just all forms of racism should be refuted. The problem arises, as I believe you would agree, with the ever-expanding definition of what actually constitutes anti-semitism, i.e., the “red herrings” you speak of. As one should always refute anti-semitism, one should also refute the ever more arcane definitions of it that work to silence critics of Israel and Zionism.
So, while I agree that one should always try to be as “precise and specific” as possible (sound advice for whatever argument one is involved in) I would also argue, and I venture you might as well, that one has the right to be wrong or to overstate one’s case, without being labeled anti-semitic or of giving aid to anti-semites. I state this in the belief that full and vigorous debate is only stymied when one is looking over one’s shoulder to what the lunatic fringe might be making of it.
As nothing we can say or do will change the racist attitudes of the David Dukes and the holocaust deniers and those who believe the Protocols of the Elders of Zion nonsense, the same can be said of the bitter-end Zionists, Dershowitz, Pipes, et al, who continually argue that there is indeed “legitimate” criticism of Israel, but never admit to any and cry Gevalt! at a moment’s notice. A pox on both their houses. Ultimately, one can only argue as one can. How extremists of any stripe may later misuse it lies beyond remedy.
Just as an aside, I would ask the author of the pamphlet just how she determined the Protocols to be a perpetual “best-seller.” As one with many years in the book business I would find that an impossible task.
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:24 pm
real voice for peace,
“if you can comment on the subject without calling either side racist, without calling for the destruction of either side, chime on in.”
Well, therein lies the rub, doesn’t it? What if one believes Zionism to be ultimately racist? What if one believes the “Jewish State” in practice to be ipso facto a racist endeavor? Is that calling for the “destruction” of Israel, or is it calling for Israel to become a truly pluralist democracy? Now, can one still chime in?
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:52 am
So ultimately one is left with the thought: “Why were the Afrikaners denied their “Whites Only” state, if it is OK to have a “Jewish” state?”
Of course it is not OK. Just as Darfur, Rwanda, the Congo and a number of repressive Middle Eastern regimes are not OK. Just as US involvement in the Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Angola and Haiti are not OK. Just as Nato involvement in Afghanistan and the “coalition of the willing” involvement in Iraq are not OK. Just as Australian involvement in the Solomon Islands is not OK.
None of these iniquities lessens the culpability for what having a “Jewish” state entails for the Palestinians.
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:46 am
“So ultimately one is left with the thought: “Why were the Afrikaners denied their “Whites Only” state, if it is OK to have a “Jewish” state?””
Because there is a difference between a “White ONLY” state and a “Jewish” state.
Israel has never demanded ethnic purity as part of its state, and Israeli Arabs can and do partake in civic life.
The only people wanting an ethnically pure state are the Palestinians, who have demanded a Judenrein West Bank and Gaza.
And yet even after they received a Judenrein Gaza, they use it to launch rockets at its neighbor. Go figure.
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:27 am
israelis are enlightened westeners who should not be discriminated against….but its ok for them to discriminate against arab palestinians because they are a special race…
“Israel acknowledges itself to be a state of one particular religious group. Anyone committed to democracy will readily admit that equal citizenship cannot exist under such conditions.
Most of our children attend schools that are separate but unequal. According to recent polls, two-thirds of Israeli Jews would refuse to live next to an Arab and nearly half would not allow a Palestinian into their home.”
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Just as “Coloureds” and “Indians” would have been part of the “White” state and be subject to the rule of whites.
Israel does not demand ethnic purity, just an ethnic majority that guarantees ethnic control and privilege.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:46 pm
It seems that of all the peoples of the world, it has become “politically correct” to deny Jews, but only Jews, the right to national self determination. In order to accomplish this, certain things need to be stretched. Rather than the usual definition of “refugee” (”till peaceably re-settled”), its now asserted that Palestinians, but once again, only Palestinians, have an inheritable, un-questioned, un-examined right of return of refugees. While there is no question that other countries can set their own immigration and citizenship requirements (i.e. any person of recognized Irish or German ancestry can apply to retun to those countries)it becomes an issue only when it comes to Israel. The double standard goes on and on. I’m sure that others can add to this list.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:54 pm
“What if one believes Zionism to be ultimately racist? What if one believes the “Jewish State” in practice to be ipso facto a racist endeavor?”
one is not being honest. israel IS a pluralist democracy, more so than any other country in the region. west bank aside, all religions and races have full civil and voting rights in israel.
so yes, saying that a jewish state of israel is racist, but not saying that vatican city is racist, is hypocritical and anti-semitic. saying that israel shouldn’t be a jewish majority state without saying that france shouldn’t be a french majority state is hypocritical and anti-semitic.
all of which is, of course, different than criticism of policies of the government, which i have never deemed racist or anti-semitic.
““Why were the Afrikaners denied their “Whites Only” state, if it is OK to have a “Jewish” state?””
i don’t buy that analogy. within apartheid, black citizens had different rights than white citizens. that is not true in israel. arab or muslim or christian citizens have the same civil rights as jewish citizens.
israel wanting to be a jewish state is like germany wanting to be a german state or japan wanting to be a japanese state. nothing wrong with it, as long as minority rights are protected, which they are in israel, and are not in the surrounding arab countries.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:01 pm
“Israel does not demand ethnic purity, just an ethnic majority that guarantees ethnic control and privilege.”
Which is basically the case for almost every country in the world. Try demanding your “right” of immigration to (and citizenship in) Mexico, or Japan (or, heaven forbid, Saudi Arabia!). The few countries that don’t “demand” that are the exceptions– USA, Canada, Australia (any others?).
The PA demands that no Jews live in the future Palestinian state. For that matter, Hamas demands that no Jews live ANYWHERE (http://pmw.org.il/bulletins_apr2007.htm#b030507)
So those who selectively single out Israel as being illegitimate in this regard and demand a change in the fundamental character of that country, while ignoring every other country in the world that has the same exact basis for its nationhood, must have some reason for this selectivity.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:42 pm
“while ignoring every other country in the world that has the same exact basis for its nationhood …”
What is another country that denies citizenship to people who were born there?
You can be special or you can be normal, but you can’t be both.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:49 pm
israel does not deny citizenship to people born there, where did you get that idea?
from the government of israel’s website:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2001/8/Acquisition%20of%20Israeli%20Nationality
Citizenship may be acquired by Birth
Acquisition of Nationality by Birth is granted to:
Persons who were born in Israel to a mother or father who are Israeli citizens.
(of course that means jewish or non-jewish citizens of israel. if an arab citizen has a baby, that baby is a citizen from birth, whatever his religion.)
Persons born in Israel, who have never had any nationality and subject to limitations specified in law, if they:
* apply for it in the period between their 18th and 25th birthday and
* have been residents of Israel for five consecutive years, immediately preceding the day of the filing of their application.
which means that if they were born in israel, even if their parents are not citizens, they themselves can be.
Q.E.D. where DO you get your crazy ideas?
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:48 pm
real voice for peace,
All you’ve done now is confirm what you first denied. Unless one agrees with your dubious assertions one is labeled a anti-semite, which is what started the conversation in the first place.
The 2nd class citizenship of non-Jewish Israelis is well-documented and openly discussed in the Israeli press as enshrined in a morass of law and regulations.
A French majority state in France is the same a Jewish majority state in Israel? Excuse me, but this is just silly. To be French means merely you are a citizen of France (no matter your religion), thus for France to be anything but a French majority state is nearly impossible. France does not require a test for prospective citizens to check how Gallic they are. To be an Israeli does not by necessity entail that you are Jewish, thus to maintain a Jewish majority (and Jewish control) Israel must restrict the rights of its non-Jewish population and restrict further citizenship to Jews, hence the laws denying the right of Arab-Israelis to live with non-Israeli spouses in Israel.
Throughout your post you confuse citizenship with ethnicity/religion, which is of course the entire problem with Israel.
Later on this . . .
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:14 pm
In answer to PeaceThroughJustice’s question:
“What is another country that denies citizenship to people who were born there?”
Well, Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Algeria and Morocco (to name just a few countries) denies citizenship to the hundreds of thousands of Jews born in those nations taht were expelled from their homes in the 1940s and 50s. Similarly, I think a million Pakistanis would point out that they can no longer return to the homes they were born in in India, and a similar number of Indians could say the same thing regarding Pakistan. In fact, the world is full of refugees from other nations for whom the phrase “right of return” is never uttered, simply because this phrase was invented for one group and one group only: the Palestinians (and even there, only Palestinians whose claims are for Jewish owned property - heaven help the Palestinian who tries to make a similar claim in a nation already under control by an existing Arab regime.
I hope this clears things up.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:22 pm
In response;
“What is another country that denies citizenship to people who were born there?”
Actually, most countries, other than a few Western,Liberal democracies. In most countries the child has the parents’ citizenship rather than the place of birth. For example, in Germany, a modern, Western democracy, its a struggle for third generation Turks to obtain German citizenship, althoughthey maynever have been to Turkey and although a “Volga Deutsch” can “return” to the Germany of his ancestors.
And “the laws denying the right of Arab-Israelis to live with non-Israeli spouses in Israel” came about after that particular sham marriage ruse was used to bring terrorists into Israel with Israeli security cards, who later committed terror attacks.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:23 pm
I just noticed that the last message (posted by me) did not get my name attached to it. No doubt, my recent upgrade of Explorer cleared out a cache somewhere. Anyway, it’s from me - Jon Haber - not Anonymous.
Getting back to the original point of this thread, while I do think it is commendable that JVP and Muzzlewatch begin an exploration of anti-Semitism among their own ranks, I would add that they have a special obligation to undergo this type of self-reflection. After all, a site dedicated to the proposition that their own legitimate criticism of the Jewish state is allegedly being shouted down by accusations of anti-Semtism is really obliged to tell us all what - if anything - constitutes real anti-Semitism (short of someone with a shaving-brush mustache, brown shirt and armband goosestepping around the Holocaust Museum singing “The Furher’s Face”). This thread is a positive development in that it at least acknolwedges that anti-Semitism exists among Isreal’s critics. Now it is up to those who claim they are unfairly besmirched by accusations of anti-Semitism to tell us where legitimate criticism ends and Jew hatred begins.
From what I’ve seen in the comments section to date, and from what I saw happen when this same type of exercise took place in Great Britain (see:
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=918
I wish you luck avoiding the label of “sell out” for simply bringing up this question.
Jon
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:52 pm
“Unless one agrees with your dubious assertions one is labeled a anti-semite, which is what started the conversation in the first place.”
i have no idea how you got that grif. when did i say or imply that? the rest of us are having a conversation. feel free to join in.
“The 2nd class citizenship of non-Jewish Israelis is well-documented and openly discussed in the Israeli press as enshrined in a morass of law and regulations.”
there is a problem there, just like there is a problem with african americans here.
social problems will always exist and will always be worked on. that’s not the same as citizenship. arab citizens are full citizens with full civil rights. they are protected by the government, even when individuals seek to abridge those rights.
“To be French means merely you are a citizen of France ”
you’ve never heard of algerian citizens of france?
“To be an Israeli does not by necessity entail that you are Jewish, thus to maintain a Jewish majority (and Jewish control) Israel must restrict the rights of its non-Jewish population”
huh? how does restricting someone’s rights mean that they are no longer present? even IF the non-jewish population had fewer rights, they would still exist, and thus having a jewish majority has nothing to do with that.
and if my other post passes moderation, you’ll see that anyone born in israel can be a citizen, regardless of religion, as long as they are not a citizen of another country.
compare that to the arab countries where jews have no civil rights, are denied citizenship, and have no course of redress when wronged.
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:07 pm
We all seem to agree that that there are, or have been over the last century, abuses of human rights in post-war Germany and France, Egypt, Yemen, Morocco, Algeria, Western Sahara, Darfur, Congo, Indonesia, China, Tibet, Liberia, Zimbabwe, Guantanamo Bay, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Mexico, Columbia, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Poland, Chechnya, Ukraine, Russia, Uzbekistan, Burma (Myanmar), North Korea, South Korea, Canada, Japan, and Rwanda, to name just a few that immediately spring to mind.
We all agree that there were abuses in Apartheid South Africa. We all agree that historically the USA is guilty of abusing the indigenous people of North America as well as US citizens of African and Japanese descent.
It is only Israel that is at issue. Some of us think Israel is not doing the right thing. Others think that Israel should be cut more slack.
International humanitarian law is an attempt to deal with all of these problems. It may or may not work, but it is the only solution that has any hope of providing peace and security for all of humankind. Israeli military superiority over it’s neighbours seems to be the preferred option for Israel an its supporters, but this superiority will noty go on forever. Too many remarks to the effect that international law amounts to anti-Semitism enters these discussions.
International law is not perfect and we should struggle always to improve it, but there is no other option that provides long-term hope.
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:26 pm
One person’s list of what makes Israel a racist state in the eyes of her accusers:
the flag
the national anthem
the Law of Return (1950)
the Law of Absentee Property (1950)
the Law of the State’s Property (1951)
the Law of Citizenship (1952)
the Status Law (1952)
the Israel Lands Administration Law (1960)
the Construction and Building Law (1965)
the 2002 temporary law banning marriage between Israelis and
Palestinians of the occupied territories.
Source: Joseph Massad, associate professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University, in an article published in Al Ahram.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/836/op1.htm
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Lawrence Boxall Says (after a long list of various human rights abusers in the world):
“It is only Israel that is at issue. Some of us think Israel is not doing the right thing. Others think that Israel should be cut more slack.”
The notion that Israel and only Israel must be subject to scrutiny and criticism only makes sense if you are willing to admit that:
(1) Israel is, in fact, morally superior to each and every other case you list of human rights abusers around the world
(2) Even though (1) is true, that you still want to practice your moral lens solely on the Jewish state
… and you are willing to provide reasons for this particular narrow focus, given that many of the other human rights abusers you list have significant levels of responsibiliy for suffering that goes on not only within their own borders, but in nations surrounding them. Syrian internal repression AND sponsorship of terror within Israel and Lebanon come immediately to mind.
If you would like to state that Israel is morally superior to any other nation we might bring up, and provide an explanation as to why a devotion to human rights requires us to still scrutinize only Israel and ignore eveyone else, then we will at least be making progress towards an honest discussion of this issue.
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Oh this is getting really funny! So if I am getting this right, NOW its being asserted that although many other countries do the exact same things, and far worse than Israel, that its only Israel thats singled out AND this web site exists specifically to complain about this biased one sided, unique treatment of Israel being interfered with by people with an interest in the issue and a knowledge of the subject (”muzzling”). Right?
So it doesn’t matter if whats being said about Israel is true or not, hate motivated, biased, inciteful, hateful, unwanted, boring, transparently politcallly motivated etc, if one disagrees its “muzzling.” How truly Orwellian!
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Haber,
What’s your problem? You know exactly was Lawrence is talking about — that the issue concerning this forum and JVP as well is Israel.
Actually, more to the point: “Tracking efforts to stifle open debate about US-Israeli foreign policy,” as the masthead puts it.
If you would like to start a forum to discuss the sins of every other state in the world in comparison to Israel, then please feel free. But don’t go lambasting Boxall for trying to bring us back to the point.
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:41 pm
from Wikipedia:
Lex sanguinis
Many countries provide immigration privileges to individuals with ethnic ties to these countries (so-called leges sanguinis). As examples:
Armenia: Article 14 of the constitution provides that “individuals of Armenian origin shall acquire citizenship of the Republic of Armenia through a simplified procedure.” This procedure is provided by Article 13 of the Law on Citizenship, which specifies inter alia that citizenship shall be conferred upon stateless persons of Armenian heritage who have taken residence in Armenia. In practice, Armenia has granted citizenship to ethnic Armenians who move to Armenia and renounce their former nationality. Armenia has traditionally had a widespread diaspora and has seen its diaspora population persecuted.
Bulgaria: Article 25 of the 1991 constitution specifies that “person[s] of Bulgarian origin shall acquire Bulgarian citizenship through a facilitated procedure.” Article 15 of the Law on Bulgarian Citizenship provides that an individual “of Bulgarian origin” may be naturalized without any waiting period and without having to show a source of income, knowledge of the Bulgarian language or renunciation of his former citizenship. Bulgaria and Greece were subject to a population exchange following the second Balkan war mandating that they accept populations claiming respective ethic origin.
China: See Chinese nationality law. The only significant immigration to China has been by the overseas Chinese, who in the years since 1949 have been offered various enticements to return to their homeland. Several million may have done so since 1949. (Source: http://countrystudies.us/china/35.htm )
Croatia: Article 11 of the Law on Croatian Citizenship allows emigrants and their descendants to acquire Croatian nationality upon return, without passing a language examination or renouncing former citizenship. In addition, Article 16 permits “a member of the Croatian people who does not have a place of residence in the Republic of Croatia [to] acquire Croatian citizenship” by making a written declaration and submitting proof of attachment to Croatian culture.
Finland: Finnish law provides a right of return to ethnic Finns from the former Soviet Union, including Ingrians. Applicants must now pass an examination in the Finnish language. [Ed. note: I have been informed by Jussi Jalonen, based on a translation of the Finnish Directorate of Immigration web site, that certain persons of Finnish descent who live outside the former Soviet Union also have a right to establish permanent residency, which would eventually entitle them to qualify for citizenship.]
Germany: Article 116(1) of the German constitution confers a right to citizenship upon any person who is admitted to Germany as “refugee or expellee of German ethnic origin or as the spouse or descendant of such a person.” At one time, ethnic Germans living abroad (Aussiedler) could obtain citizenship through a virtually automatic procedure, but since 1990 the law has been steadily tightened to limit the number of immigrants who can come each year and require proof of language skills and cultural affiliation.
Greece: Ethnic Greeks can obtain Greek citizenship by two methods under the Code of Greek Nationality. Pursuant to Article 5, ethnic Greeks who are stateless (which, in practice, includes those who voluntarily renounce their nationality) and who “really behave as Greeks” may obtain citizenship upon application to a Greek consular official. In addition, ethnic Greeks who join the armed forces acquire automatic citizenship by operation of Article 10, with the military oath taking the place of the citizenship oath. This view arises from the fact that approximately 85%% of ethnic Greeks were outside of the nation state boundaries when the country was formed, 40% remained outside of the final boundaries at the beginning of World War One with most de jure stripped of their host country citizenship, as well as Greece’s traditional wider diaspora.
Hungary: Section 4(3) of the Act on Nationality permits ethnic Hungarians (defined as persons “at least one of whose relatives in ascendant line was a Hungarian citizen”) to obtain citizenship on preferential terms after one year of residence. In addition, the “Status Law” of 2001 grants certain privileges to ethnic Hungarians living in territories that were once part of the Austro-Hungarian empire and permits them to obtain an identification card, but does not confer the right to full Hungarian citizenship.
India: Persons with at least one Indian great-grandparent may apply for a Person of Indian Origin card, provided that neither the applicant nor any ancestor has ever been a citizen of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan or China. This card is a travel document and permits the holder to enter and stay in India without a visa, own land and attend educational institutions, but not to vote or hold office. In addition, persons of Indian origin who are nationals of certain specified countries (again subject to an exclusion for Pakistanis and Bangladeshis) may apply for Overseas Indian Citizenship, which confers similar rights and also permits the holder to apply for full Indian nationality after one year of residence.
Ireland: The Nationality and Citizenship Act allows any person with an Irish grandparent to become an Irish citizen “by registering in the Foreign Births Register at an Irish embassy or consular office, or at the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin.” Such an individual may also pass his entitlement to Irish nationality on to his children by registering in the Foreign Births Register even if he chooses not to take up citizenship himself, provided he has registered with the Foreign Births Register before the birth of those children. Section 16 of the Irish citizenship law of 1986 grants the interior minister authority to confer automatic citizenship on any applicant of “Irish origin or affiliation” although this is sparingly used.
Israel: The Law of Return, as amended in 1970, confers an automatic right to citizenship on anyone who is Jewish by birth or conversion, or who has a Jewish parent or grandparent.
Italy: Possibly alone in this respect, bestows citizenship jus sanguinis: There is no limit of generations for the citizenship via blood, but the Italian ancestor born in Italian territories before 1861 had to die after 1861 anywhere (in Italian territory or abroad) but without losing the Italian citizenship before death in order to being able to continue the jure sanguinis chain. This is required because 1861 is the year that the Unification of the Italian territory took place. Another constraint is that each descendant of the ancestor through whom citizenship is claimed jus sanguinis can pass on citizenship only if they were a citizen at the time of the birth of the person to whom they are passing it. So if one person in the chain renounces or otherwise loses their Italian citizenship, then has a child, that child is not an Italian citizen jus sanguinis. A further constraint is that citizenship could be passed on by women only after January 1st 1948, so those born before that date are not Italian citizens jus sanguinis if their line of descent from an Italian citizen depends on a female at some point. See Italian nationality law
Japan: A special visa category exists exclusively for foreign descendants of Japanese emigrates (Nikkeijin) up to the third generation, which provides for long-term residence, unrestricted by occupation, but most Nikkeijin cannot acquire Japanese citizenship without going through the naturalization process.
Kiribati: Articles 19 and 23 of the constitution provide that “[e]very person of I-Kiribati descent… shall… become or have and continue to have thereafter the right to become a citizen of Kiribati” and that “[e]very person of I-Kiribati decent who does not become a citizen of Kiribati on Independence Day… shall, at any time thereafter, be entitled upon making application in such manner as may be prescribed to be registered as a citizen of Kiribati.”
Lebanon: Lebanese law currently makes no provision for reacquisition of nationality by members of the diaspora, but a pending government proposal would permit descendants of Lebanese emigrants to acquire an overseas identity card that confers rights similar to the Person of Indian Origin scheme.
Poland: The Statute on Polish Citizenship, as amended in 2000, permits the descendants of Poles who lost their nationality involuntarily between 1920 and 1989 to take up Polish citizenship without regard to ordinary naturalization criteria.
Romania: Romanian expatriates who lost their citizenship prior to December 22, 1989, as well as their children and grandchildren, may reclaim their nationality upon presentation of a declaration and supporting documents.
Russia: Until recently, persons holding Soviet passports could exchange them for Russian Federation nationality on a virtually automatic basis. The 2002 amendment to the Law on Russian Federation Citizenship, however, puts substantial qualifications on this right, including language and financial requirements and preferences for immigrants who have a secondary education or who join the armed forces. Former Soviet citizens may, however, still apply for Russian citizenship without a waiting period.
Rwanda: Article 7 of the Rwandan constitution provides that “Rwandans or their descendants who were deprived of their nationality between 1st November 1959 and 31 December 1994 by reason of acquisition of foreign nationalities automatically reacquire Rwandan nationality if they return to settle in Rwanda.” In addition, “[a]ll persons originating from Rwanda and their descendants shall, upon their request, be entitled to Rwandan nationality.”
Serbia: Article 23 of the 2004 citizenship law provides that the descendants of emigrants from Serbia, or ethnic Serbs residing abroad, may take up citizenship upon written declaration.
Slovakia: A person with at least one Slovak grandparent and “Slovak cultural and language awareness” may apply for an expatriate identity card entitling him to live, work, study and own land in Slovakia. Expatriate status is not full citizenship and does not entitle the holder to vote, but a holder who moves his domicile to Slovakia may obtain citizenship under preferential terms.
South Korea: The law of South Korea grants special status to descendants of ethnic Koreans who emigrated after 1922. As with India and Slovakia, this status falls short of full citizenship and does not confer political rights, but permits them to live, work, own property and conduct business in South Korea.
Spain: Citizenship on preferential terms may be obtained after two years’ residence by Andorrans, Portuguese, citizens of Latin American countries, the Philippines or Equatorial Guinea, and Sephardic Jews. The time is reduced to one years’ residence for grandchildren of Spanish citizens.
Turkey: Turkish law allows persons of Turkish origin, and their spouses and children, to apply for naturalization without the five-year waiting period applicable to other immigrants. Turkey and Greece reciprocally expelled their minorities in the early 1920’s and were mandated by international treaty to accept incoming populations as citizens based on ethnic background.
Ukraine: Article 8 of the Law on Citizenship of Ukraine permits any person with at least one Ukrainian grandparent to become a citizen upon renunciation of his former nationality.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis)
As far as flags, how about this salient fact:
The flag of Turkey, which was the flag of the Ottoman Empire, has been an inspiration for the flag designs of many other Muslim nations. During the time of the Ottomans the crescent began to be associated with Islam and this is reflected on the flags of Algeria, Azerbaijan, Comoros, Malaysia, Mauritania, Pakistan, Tunisia, and of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags)
Also, the following countries feature a different religious symbol, the Christian cross, in their flags:
Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Greece, Tonga.
and for national anthems, here’s the lyrics of a few other countries that somehow are not pilloried as “racist”–
Saudi Arabia:
Hasten to glory and supremacy!
Glorify the Creator of the heavens
And raise the green, fluttering flag,
Carrying the emblem of Light!
Repeat - God is greatest!
O my country,
My country, may you always live,
The glory of all Muslims!
Long live the King,
For the flag and the country!
Thailand (I suspect that not 100% of the citizens of Thailand are ethnic Thais…):
Thailand unites its people with flesh and blood.
land of Thailand belongs to the Thais.
long maintained its sovereignty,
Because the Thais have always been united.
thais are peace-loving,
no cowards at distress.
They shall allow no one to rob them of freedom,
Nor shall they suffer tyranny.
ready to die for freedom, safety and prosperity.
And as to recourse to “international humanitarian law”, not only do Jews of the previous generation know how well THAT one works, but all of us now have seen how the interantional commubity conveniently looks the other way when Hamas, not content with the Iranian Hitler-in-a-neckerchief calling for the eradication of Israel, explicitly calls for the elimination of the Jewish people EVERYWHERE.
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:16 pm
real voice,
“i have no idea how you got that grif. when did i say or imply that?”
Let’s see, let’s start with post #34: “if you can comment on the subject without calling either side racist, without calling for the destruction of either side, chime on in.”
Despite that fact that Israel as a racist state is a notion current throughout the world, including Israel, you start out by excluding those who might adhere to it.
Then #42: “saying that a jewish state of israel is racist, but not saying that vatican city is racist, is hypocritical and anti-semitic.”
How the Vatican fits into all this is beyond me, but your sentiments are clear. Unless we cut our notions to fit you, we are not only hypocrites but anti-semites as well.
“there is a problem there, just like there is problem with african americans here…
social problems will always exist … arab citizens are full citizens with full civil rights.”
First you say, “israel IS a pluralist democracy … west bank aside, all religions and races have full civil and voting rights in israel.” But then you backtrack, admitting rather weakly that there is problem, not unlike Blacks in the US. Oh dear, a problem. Butter would not melt in your mouth. A problem?! Gee, might that “problem” have anything to do with the fact that they are not Jewish in a Jewish state? No doubt you believe it a mere coincidence. Try reading the Israeli press if you want to know how “full” Arab-Israeli civil rights are.
“you’ve never heard of algerian citizens of france?”
Aside from right-wing racists, no, but I have heard of French men and women of Algerian ancestry or ethnicity.
“how does restricting someone’s rights mean that they are no longer present? even IF the non-jewish population had fewer rights, they would still exist, and thus having a jewish majority has nothing to do with that.”
What in god’s name are you talking about?
“anyone born in israel can be a citizen, regardless of religion,”
Not true. How about an Arab-Israeli who marries a woman from the West Bank? Neither she nor her children are allowed Israeli citizenship, no matter where the children are born, nor are they allowed to live in Israel. This is the Citizenship Law recently renewed by the Knesset.
“compare that to the arab countries where jews have no civil rights, are denied citizenship, and have no course of redress when wronged.”
Well, alright. Arab-Israelis who are wronged have little recourse either. In most cases none at all. If they receive lip service they’re lucky. The Israeli courts may pontificate, may even, at times, rule in their favor - but try to enforce that ruling. The police will not do it, neither will the courts. Many Arab-Israelis so despair of receiving a modicum of justice from the Jewish State that they’ve given up altogether.
This does not mean that the equally terrible treatment of Jewish Arabs in Arab lands is to be forgiven or overlooked, nor does Arab mistreatment of their Jewish citizens mean that Israeli mistreatment of Arab-Israelis is to be forgiven or overlooked.
What it does mean is that neither group can be held hostage by the other. Neither Jew nor Arab can rationalize their own brutality by pointing to the sins of the other.
The only solution is not perfect, but it is clear. Lawrence put it best: “International humanitarian law is an attempt to deal with all of these problems. It may or may not work, but it is the only solution that has any hope of providing peace and security for all of humankind.”
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Mike,
Just a note on Germany.
Since 2004 Germany has had the fastest growing Jewish population in the world. The influx is fed mainly by Russian Jews. A language requirement was placed into effect in 2006. This was in part due to German difficulties in absorption and in part (according to Haaretz) due to complaints from Israel, who felt that Germany was stealing “their Jews.”.
In addition to the Russian Jews, thousands of Israelis, whose parents had fled to Palestine during the Nazi era, are now claiming German passports to which they are entitled by German law. According to reports from the German Embassy in Tel Aviv, in 2004 alone, 3,164 Israelis received German citizenship. More than 96% of those received their German passports under a law that automatically grants German-Jewish Holocaust survivors and their descendants the right to hold German citizenship.
Also according to Haaretz these Holocaust survivors have been living in dire poverty in Israel, despite the $200 million in yearly payments to Israel by Germany, and are fleeing to Germany (irony of ironies) for a better life.
May 4th, 2007 at 12:09 am
Jon Haber,
You misunderstand me. Let me reword.
Everyone agrees that all the abusing countries or regions I have listed are abusers (except for one notable exception). We ALL agree that they are ALL abusers
Everyone does not agree that Israel is an abuser. We DO NOT ALL AGREE that Israel is an abuser.
This looks to me like the apologists for Israel are asking the world to treat Israel differently. They are saying that it is OK to be abusive if it is for the greater glory of Jewish tribalism
If there is one thing that confounds the reasoning of the anti-Semite, it is the fact that Jews have proved beyond all doubt that they are just as capable of evil and brutality as the rest of humanity.
There is no difference between Jew and Gentile
Jews, Christians and Muslims can, with equal facility, dig around in their scriptures and find some excuse to claim that their Deity sanctions their brutal treatment of their fellow human beings.
Jews, Christians and Muslims can all find within their scriptures passages that encourage the prime duty of affording respect to all of humankind, if that is what they want to find.
Then you say:
“(1) Israel is, in fact, morally superior to each and every other case you list of human rights abusers around the world”
So after a cease-fire is signed in the war between Israel and Lebanon last year, The Israeli forces are ordered to lob thousands of cluster bombs into southern Lebanon. What was that about? What facet of moral superiority does that act illustrate?
Hezbollah fired some pathetic, inferior rockets into Israeli civilian areas and killed a number of people and disrupted the lives of a lot more people while Israel was laying waste to the entire country of Lebanon and crippling the civilian infrastructure of an entire nation.
Hezbollah’s firing of those rockets are unequivically examples of war crimes. Whoever ordered the firing of those rockets should be tried along with whoever ordered the carpeting of southern Lebanon with cluster bombs.
To speak of the moral superiority of Israel is as absurd as to speak of the moral depravity of Jews. To imagine jews arte closer to God is nmo different to claiming that Jews are in league with Satan.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:08 am
Lex sanguinis?
What does this have to do with the fact that every Jew in the world has a right to live in a country that denies that right to thousands of people who lived there around 60 years ago.
Are you suggesting that we give serious consideration to a claim of ownership that goes back 2000 years to a time before the nation state existed.
Are you seriously asking that a 2000-year-old right of return trumps a 60-year-old right of return? And how are we going to find out exactly who is descended from the Jews who were exiled by the Romans from their province of Palestine when the vast majority of Jews living at the time in the Roman Empire were not even living in that particular province.
Now it would appear that over the past 2000 years, the vast majority of Jews converted to Christianity and Islam or just drifted into secularism. This will mean that there are a lot of people who may be descended from those exiles of 2000 years ago who are not Jews today. Does Israel’s Lex sanguinis allow these people to claim Israeli citizenship? If not, why not?
One thing I learned in South Africa: arguments made to justify racial or ethnic privilege lend themselves to reductio ad absurdum.
What Judaism has taught me:
My primary responsibility is to the family of humankind because before everything else I am a human being. Then I can be a Jew and a Canadian and a husband and father. Being responsible to humanity, I love my family as my immediate contact with humanity. My love for my own children is an expression of my love for all children. The love and respect I show my wife, is an expression of my attitude towards all of humankind. When I enjoy that particularly Yiddisher humour that Norman Finkelstein sometimes displays in his lectures, I am delighting in something that is familiar and a trigger for my laughter. I am experiencing my particular manifestation of being a human being knowing full well that others my be baffled by what I am finding amusing just as some of their triggers are a mystery to me. Because our sources of delight are culturally modulated does not make me inferior or superior to someone I don’t understand or am different to in superficial ways. I still owe them respect.
So if you think that your group is morally superior, I would like you to give serious thought to the following.
I believe that the following applies to every single human being. If you do not seek out the personal Hitler that is buried deep inside each one of us and learn what you can about it, you risk being swamped by it. Only by being constantly vigilant against the threat that your own personal Hitler poses can you have any chance of avoiding the curse of arrogance.
Arrogance is the ultimate essential evil of the slave-trader, the Nazi, the oppressor. It is not the murder of the six million Jews that is the essential evil of Hitler: it is rather the arrogance that allowed the racism that reduced human beings to untermenschen that made the gas-chambers. Those piles of emaciated dead bodies are the symptom of the evil of arrogance.
Arrogance is a tempting refuge when we suffer the pain of perceived injustices. It can soothe the pain, but because of what it can lead to we have to resist the temptation of allowing our little Hitlers to take control of our hearts and minds.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:04 am
Lawrence,
Well said, you’re hitting the nail on the head.
May 4th, 2007 at 7:53 am
Grif says:
“What’s your problem? You know exactly was Lawrence is talking about — that the issue concerning this forum and JVP as well is Israel.”
Actually, I thought the issue concerning this particular thread (created by the owners of this forum) was anti-Semitism on the Left. While I have tried to contribute to that discussion (see Post #49), as usual many people who contribute to the comments section want the discussion to never veer from a single subject: Israel’s guilt, with posters like you demanding to play the role of prosecutor, judge and jury. Any attempt to talk about something else is either ignored or claimed as an example of “muzzling.” Let me know if I’ve missed anything.
May 4th, 2007 at 8:02 am
Lawrence - Thank you for your clarification, and I am only too pleased to offer mine.
First off, it is not me who is demanding that Isreal be treated as morally superior to all of its neighbors and many other nations besides. It is those who claim that it is grossly unfair to compare Israel’s human rights situation with those of other countries (particularly Arab countries) that are saying in effect that this difference needs to be taken for granted, and then ignored since the only legitimate topic for discussion is the behavior of the Jewish state. But the only possible explanation for such a stance is that the human rights situation in the Arab world is so abysmal that comparing Israel’s behavior to the behavior of such states is the equivalent of comparing apples to oranges. People who argue from such a position are effectively saying that the apple (Israel) is a state so morally superior to the oranges (the Arab states) that using comparison as a yardstick is not legitimate.
From my perspective, all states must be judged by a single standard. When separate standards are created for some states (like Israel or the US) and a different standard (or no standard) is applied to others, either (1) the accuser demands separate standards because they believe they would otherwise be comparing people from different moral universes, or (2) the difference between Israel and its critics are well known, but the accuser does not want to deal with this issue, and would prefer to endlessly contort logic in order to find ways to continue their real agenda: to judge one country, and one country only, by human rights and moral standards that should reasonably by applied to all
May 4th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Despite all of the attempts at clarification by both sides in this discussion, one thing keeps getting fudged or ignored. I have no problem discussing the unjust treatment of Israeli citizens of Arab ethnicity. I think it’s to be condemned and redressed like human rights abuses everywhere. The question of where it can be said to take its place in the larger *spectrum* of human evils is a legitimate part of a discussion that identifies, evaluates, condemns and seeks to redresses the abuses. It is right to compare them, in other words, with comparable abuses (they’re worse than some and not as bad as others).
These abuses, however, are not the main reason for the larger debate over Israel’s behavior. The reason we’re having this discussion is because of Israel’s treatment of a *conquered* population in Gaza and the West Bank to which it has not—for reasons obvious to us all—granted even an imperfect Israeli citizenship. If not for THAT situation, I would venture to guess that discussions of Israel’s treatment of its ethnic Arab citizens would look very much like discussions of similar problems in other nations with a privileged ethnic majority and an ethnic minority that experiences discrimination.
But this is not the situation that confronts us, and we need to be careful to make distinctions between the two issues.
As far as the territories are concerned, the debate as far as I can tell, is between the following 3 general positions:
1) Those who think that Israel should give up it’s ethnic constitution in order to grant citizenship to all of the people over whom it now exercises military and economic control (a control that trumps the superficial “political autonomy” it has thus far granted to its conquered population). In other words, it should treat the people it conquered in 1967 at least as well—and hopefully better—than it now treats its Arab citizens (those that came under Israeli sovereignty after the 1948 war).
2) Those who think that it should not do so because the ethnic constitution is valuable and important, but that it must grant full political, economic, military, and territorial independence to its conquered population. That is, stop ruling them, and let them rule themselves.
[Most people who hold one of those first two positions also believe that the Israeli government should be forced either by the organized political actions of its own citizens or by external international pressures (or both) to do one or the other of these things. There are others who believe that the present “center-right” political coalition that governs Israel has the balance of caution about these matters exactly right, while still others believe that this caution covers up a hidden agenda (see position 3 below) or that it’s really just a delaying tactic designed to influence the actual details of an inevitable final settlement in Israel’s “favor” (in so far as “in Israel’s favor” is defined by the “center-right” of Israeli’s political spectrum). These positions sum-up the 1 State/2 State solution debate.]
3) Those who think that for either pragmatic, ideological, or religious reasons, Israel should not do or be forced to do either of these things at all, but should instead either keep these people in a state of perpetual conquest without political rights, expel from the conquered territory altogether, or kill them.
The question of Israel’s treatment of its actual ethnically Arab citizens only enters this debate in a truly relevant way when we’re discussing the merits of the first of these three positions (the relevance goes the other way as well—Israel’s security concerns, legitimate or not, have an influence on aspects of the debate over the human rights of its Arab citizens—but important as that is, it’s not my direct concern here). It seems clear to me that Israel could not offer full citizenship rights to the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza without giving up its ethnic character. If it tried to retain that character it would no doubt have to end up making second-class citizens out of a major, not a minor, segment of it’s population. It would, in other words, have to disenfranchise almost half—maybe more—of its citizens. More likely, the Jewish population would have to bend to a process of political compromise that would certainly involve a redefinition of the State’s character and the repeal of a whole body of legislation. Right now, Israel gets away with discrimination for the reasons majorities the world over tend to–the population it discriminates against is too small, too poorly organized, and mostly just too poor to matter to enough people who might pay attention (either inside or outside the country). Israel would not be able to do that with the entire ethnically Arab population between the Jordan and the sea. If the 1 State solution were attempted or forced, the two sides would have to agree on some compromise, some way of sharing power in a state defined in a way that everyone could agree on. If they can’t come to such an agreement, the democracy will break down. Civil war is probably what would happen next. In other words, we’ll be right back in 1948.
I, unfortunately, think this is a likely scenario, which is why I think a *real* 2 State solution is the only realistic solution. As I’ve said before, it would require the granting of real and full independence and statehood to the West Bank and Gaza within some agreed upon and workable borders, but it could work. Such a solution will leave Israel to contend with the on-going human rights problems of its ethnic Arab citizens (and who knows what the future of these will be?), but its relations with the Arab populations of the West Bank and Gaza will become a matter of foreign policy. Right now those relations are in a terribly muddled middle zone. You can call the situation whatever you like. You can decry it or seek to justify it. Just make sure you’re clear about exactly what you’re referring to when you do.
Within its 1948 territorial lines, Israel is an imperfect democracy in which pluralistic impulses contend with ethnic interests (the record of abuses can be compared with those of other nations, and will seem worse than some and better than others, but this will not make it any more or less deplorable than it is. It requires redress in one way or another as part of Israel’s own political processes). In the territories conquered in 1967, however, the situation is far more grave, the abuses far more extreme, and the stakes higher. The people are not simply enfranchised “on paper” and discriminated against in reality. They are captive. As I said, decry that or try and justify it, but don’t claim that the morality of Israel’s policies ought to be judged as if its treatment of its citizens were the same as its treatment of its conquered population.
May 4th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Fascinating demonstration of beknighted “White mans’s Burden.” Although the Arab population of the Weast Bank and Gaza would clearly rather NOT
May 4th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
grif you’re really getting boring.
“Despite that fact that Israel as a racist state”
yes, if you enter into a conversation with that assumption we can go no further. i don’t know how a state can be racist. even in south africa, it was the apartheid regime, not south africa itself. but for you, it’s always israel that’s evil.
“How the Vatican fits into all this is beyond me”
think about it. it’s a state based on a particular religion. you criticize israel for being one but you don’t care about the vatican. that’s hypocritical and anti-semitic.
” I have heard of French men and women of Algerian ancestry or ethnicity.”
great. and you have also heard of Israeli men and women who are arab and/or muslim. same diff.
“How about an Arab-Israeli who marries a woman from the West Bank”{
again, i’m confused. is the west bank part of israel or not? you seem to want it both ways. you want israel out of the west bank, you call it an occupation, yet you want everyone in the west bank to have automatic citizenship? when they aren’t even granted citizenship of a palestinian entity? whatever.
“The Israeli courts ”
at least they exist.
“Neither Jew nor Arab can rationalize their own brutality by pointing to the sins of the other.”
israel doesn’t do that. palestinians, on the other hand, repeatedly use their complaints about israel to justify suicide bombings and other acts of terror and war.
“international humanitarian law is an attempt to deal with all of these problems.”
bring it on. join the civilized world of nations. you are welcome in anytime.
and lawrence, remember that only christianity and islam had the need to spread their religions by force of violence. judaism didn’t need to do that, it was older, but the only way for those 2 new religions to survive was by force, hence their histories. they are both proselytizing religions. judaism is not.
May 4th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Sorry, didn’t mean to hit THAT button!
The proposal of a”One State Solution” is a fascinating demonstration of beknighted, and befuddled “White mans’s Burden.” Although the Arab population of the West Bank and Gaza would clearly rather NOT part of Israel, as was illustrated by the election of Hamas, which was really an Arab referendum on the Peace Process. And although Oslo was an agreement signed by all involved, you feel that its your place, as an American voter, to tell these Palestinians and Israelis whats best for them. Its apparent that neither the sincere Palestinians or Israelis want the simplistic, poorly thought out and insensitive proposal of a “One State Solution” imposed on them, with the exception of those Palestinians that see the “One State Solution” as a “Trojan Horse”, enablng them to use the democratic process to subvert democracy.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
R,
What you say constitutes at least one way of arguing against the practicality or the “rightness” of the One State solution. I would disagree with some of the details of what you’ve just said–the bits about the election of Hamas, the significance of the Oslo Accords, and the subversion of democracy, for example–but not with the larger substance of your position on who has the right to make a final decision about what’s right and best for them.
But did you mean this as a response to my post?
May 4th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
One More Thing:
You posted a very appropriate summation of the various threads of discussion. You could have pointed out that #3 is an extremist position not held by the government of Israel, and #2 has overwhelming support within the Israeli public IF not for this problem: there is a #4 position on the situation which is held by Hamas (which currently governs the PA), Hezbollah and by many others around the world including those who JVP stands with at demonstrations who the flags of thsoe organizations:
“Those that believe that for religious or other purposes, all Jews must be forcibly expelled from every square inch of the land between the Jordan River and the Meditteranean Sea, or killed if they attempt to remain there.”
May 4th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Haber #61
“Let me know if I’ve missed anything.”
What you missed is the entirety of the post I was responding to (#53), which had nothing to do with anti-semitism on the left.
May 4th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
What, a real voice for peace, is one supposed to do with this:
“and lawrence, remember that only christianity and islam had the need to spread their religions by force of violence. judaism didn’t need to do that, it was older, but the only way for those 2 new religions to survive was by force, hence their histories. they are both proselytizing religions. judaism is not.”
Accept that Judaism is superior?
What about the “smiting” of all those tribes who were getting in the way of the Israelites wrestling Canaan from its indigenous inhabitants?
What about the first suicide bomber, a guy named Samson, who is lionized in Israeli classrooms even though he took hundreds of women and children with him when he committed suicide to revenge his blinding?
What about the idea that is proclaimed by Jewish fundamentalists that killing a gentile is not as bad as killing a Jew?
Sorry, but it just never seems to work when anyone tries to claim superiority for their own religion. All fundamentalists sound very much the same to me whether they be Jewish, Islamic, Christian, Hindu, capitalist or communist.
Then from all groups I experience warm loving human beings who elevate my spirits. One’s particular culture does not have to be superior to others in order for one to revel in it. Just enjoy your own kind without putting others down.
If everyone did that there would be no anti-Semitism.
May 5th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
nice try lawrence.
i never claimed that jewish people were superior. you should read more carefully. i merely pointed out a difference. if you choose to apply a value judgement, that is your addition.
“. Just enjoy your own kind without putting others down.
If everyone did that there would be no anti-Semitism.”
if everyone kept to their separate groups? that’s your vision of peace, separation? no, i’m sure you didn’t mean that. i must have misunderstood.
but you’re right, if no one put anyone else down, there would be no racism of any kind, whether or not people just enjoyed their own kind or not.
May 6th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Real voice,
So sorry, no doubt boring a Zionist is just another indicator of anti-semitic intentions.
But moreover, your responses are so irrational and tendentious that its not worth the effort to continue the conversation.
May 7th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Mike,
You’re right that this 4th position exists and that fear of giving the extremists on the Palestinian side a way to try and accomplish that goal is part of what keeps the Israeli electorate leaning to the right on these matters. I acknowledged as much in my post, although you’re right that I did so less explicitly than I might have.
My position on the matter, however, it this: worry about the threat articulated in your 4th position is not an adequate explanation for all of Israel’s behavior, nor does it constitute an adequate *excuse* for all of that behavior. Israelis have every right to be wary about their enemies, but they also have a responsibility to judge carefully and realistically. If they want to really try and make peace, that is, they shouldn’t confuse the ideal desires of a segment of a population with what the majority actually wants or intends, not to mention with what they could realistically *do*.
With some modification of course on the matter of ability, this is after all, what the Israeli’s—rightly—demand of the Palestinians. And the Palestinians, of course, have the same responsibility in this matter.
May 7th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
“But moreover, your responses are so irrational and tendentious that its not worth the effort to continue the conversation.”
lol grif, like your posts don’t have a bias or point of view. the difference is you don’t seem to be able to defend yours.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:52 am
http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_05_07/article.html
AIPAC on Trial
The lobby argues that good Americans spy for Israel.
by Justin Raimondo
Is there a First Amendment right to engage in espionage? Dorothy Rabinowitz seems to think so. Describing the actions of Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, two former top officials of AIPAC, the premier Israel lobbying group, who passed purloined intelligence to Israeli government officials, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist characterized them as “activities that go on every day in Washington, and that are clearly protected under the First Amendment.” If what Rabinowitz says is true—if passing classified information to foreign officials is routine in the nation’s capital—then we are all in big trouble.
On Aug. 4, 2005, Rosen, Weissman, and Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin were indicted by a federal grand jury and charged with violating provisions of the Espionage Act that forbid divulging national defense information to persons not authorized to receive it.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
“My position on the matter, however, it this: worry about the threat articulated in your 4th position is not an adequate explanation for all of Israel’s behavior, nor does it constitute an adequate *excuse* for all of that behavior. Israelis have every right to be wary about their enemies, but they also have a responsibility to judge carefully and realistically. If they want to really try and make peace, that is, they shouldn’t confuse the ideal desires of a segment of a population with what the majority actually wants or intends, not to mention with what they could realistically *do*.”
OK, “one more thing”, now we’re getting somewhere. I’m going to agree with your statement that it doesn’t justify ALL behavior of Israel vis-a-vis the occupation; certainly not the Hebron settlers, certainly not those who cut down olive trees and harass schoolchildren, etc. That’s just thuggish behavior that is rightly condemnable.
But, having said that, let’s see what happened after Israel left Gaza. Sderot has been the target of missiles EVERY SINGLE DAY. And before we get the apologists of “oh, they’re just homemade rockets that usually land in fields” tell that to the families of the children killed in their yards. Imagine what would happen were Israel to withdraw to the 1967 lines and Hamas to be given free reign to place Iranian Katyushas in range of Ben Gurion Airport– and don’t say that this is not realistic, because you know that it *is*. And then let’s have anyone on this list say what the appropriate response to that would be. I bet that too many of them would say that it’s just what Israel had coming to it– just like Ward Churchill wrote off the 9/11 attacks.
Hamas is very, very clear about its goals. It wants jihad. It wants genocide. It wants extermination. Should Israel simply hand it the means to accomplish this?
Public opinion polls in Palestine have made it clear that it is not just a small extremist minority that supports terrorism and jihad. Even the “moderate” Abbas, while not clamoring for jihad, wouldn’t budge on claiming the so-called non-existent “right of return” for 4th generation descendants of 1948 refugees (http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/Abbas_ROR.htm).
May 9th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
exactly. people’s causality is backwards. before the occupation, jordan invaded jerusalem, kicked out all the jews from the jewish quarter and destroyed it. since israel took over jerusalem in 67, all religions have had access to their holy sites. before 67, egypt used gaza and jordan used the west bank as staging grounds for war.
if the inhabitants of the west bank don’t give up their goal of destroying israel, there is no way they will have control over that land. the westernmost point is like 15 km from the sea, israel could be split in 2 in a matter of hours. we will not allow that to happen.
May 10th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Mike,
Thanks for your reply. I don’t think your position holds water, however. The withdrawal from Gaza does not in any way prove that Israel would have to contend with that sort of violence from a genuinely independent and secure Palestinian State. The withdrawal granted the Palestinians in Gaza no such independence, and it certainly gave them no indication that anything like it would be coming soon. Nor did it suggest anything about what’s likely to happen in the West bank, where the mixture of motives I mentioned before is far more complex and intense on the Israeli side.
Let the Israelis and Palestinians negotiate in good faith a settlement that leaves the Palestinians with a genuinely independent state within agreed-upon borders (based on the Green Line with legitimate territorial swaps), a capital in East Jerusalem, and some mutually agreed-upon solution to the refugee issue. Then let’s see if the Palestinians can or cannot control their more radical elements. I see no reason why they shouldn’t be able to do that, once they actually have a state to preserve or at the very least a negotiating process that promises to actually give them that state. If, in the end, radical elements do take over, and the Palestinian state becomes a threat to Israeli security, then Israel will have every right to treat that threat the way any state treats a threat from another state. Right now, all the threat comes from an occupied people trying to throw off an occupying power that has refused to either give them their independence or to integrate them into its own more or less free political life. There’s no use pretending that the withdrawal from Gaza gave these people any reason to think that they should give up their struggle. I have no interest in legitimizing the firing of rockets at civilian targets. That sort of killing or attempted killing is a moral abomination (it doesn’t matter how many die—or even if no one dies, the reckless attempt is bad enough). But it is also a mischaracterization of what actually happened to argue that the firing of the rockets—or even the kidnapping of a soldier—is the whole story of the Palestinian response to the withdrawal.
And this leads me to your characterization of Hamas. A wing of that organization continues to maintain a powerful allegiance to violent solutions, and this has made the pronouncements of its political party seem mixed or ambivalent. It has probably also compromised its ability to fully control militant elements in the population as a whole (some of those elements are within the organization itself and some are not—some are actually opposed to it and operate against its interests). The organization has, however, in its capacity as governing party, declared a truce, a willingness to suspend hostilities in order to seek a negotiated solution with Israel. Israel has refused to take that offer and to sit down to talk with its enemy. It keeps asking for worded statements that it knows are politically impossible for Hamas to make. On the surface, it looks like it’s doing this because it doesn’t trust that a Hamas-led Palestine could ever be a peaceful neighbor. That’s certainly the public line. My own position is that this is only one part of the story. More is going on than meets the eye or that your account allows for (I assume that you’re arguing in good faith, but I think that your characterization hides a complex reality).
This is what I think is actually going on (at least this is the impression I get from reading widely in the Israeli press and in recent historical studies): I think that most Israelis know that they can’t actually control or determine the outcome of Palestinian politics, but a lot of Israelis hope they can influence the final outcome of negotiations in their favor if they delay those negotiations, perhaps indefinitely. If all they wanted was to withdraw from the territories with guarantees that the state that gets established there will recognize Israeli sovereignty and not seek to destroy or undermine its security, I don’t see why they wouldn’t just sit down and start negotiating. I think they don’t want to do that because doing so would mean committing to an end-state that is politically impossible for any Israeli government to commit to fully and publicly. The “Road Map,” after all of the amendments and changes Israel demanded, commits Israel to nothing (hence the lip-service paid to it). The Arab Summit proposal is less comfortable because it outlines the shape of what everyone knows is the only solution that has a chance in hell of bringing peace. That solution—which I outlined myself earlier in this post—provides just enough justice and just enough in the way of land and national symbolism to allow the Palestinians to try and achieve their national aspirations—a goal that they have every right to seek. But Israel has treated the summit proposal warily because it would commits Israel to more than its political culture will allow right now.
Notice that I am not arguing that Israel has no legitimate security concerns. It’s just that security concerns alone are not a reason for not negotiating toward an acceptable solution. Israeli reluctance to do so has at least as much to do with political ambivalence within the Israeli polity as it does with security. It has something to do, in other words, with Israel’s difficulty in dealing with its own desires and aspirations. Israel did not conquer the West Bank merely (or even mostly) for reasons of security, and it has been unable to let go of that land for only one simple reason: a large and politically powerful coalition of different voting blocks within Israeli society has not wanted to (some people within those blocks worry about security, some about money and/or real estate, some about national and historical symbolism, some about water, others about what they think God wants them to do, etc.). The parts of this coalition that stand decidedly to the right of center have managed to keep Israel from real negotiations in the hope of affecting the final outcome in their favor (they also succeeded in scuttling the very imperfect Oslo process, emphasizing its downside for the Palestinians to the point at which large segments of the population lost any faith in it—and then, too, the argument was about security, but the agenda as a whole was not. When someone on the center left finally got back in control, and tried to drive the process to a conclusion acceptable to Israel’s divided polity, they never went far enough toward a just solution than the divided polity would allow. The outbreak of violent Palestinian frustration that followed the breakdown of the accords gave the right just what it needed to get back into control). It’s the power of that coalition that has kept the situation frozen, keeping the Israelis from promising anything like what justice and practicality require. On the other side, violent pronouncements and actions merely play into the hands of that coalition by keeping the ambivalent middle of Israeli politics leaning in its direction.
The power of that right coalition of odd bedfellows is also clearly demonstrated by the fact that Israel has been turning a deaf ear to *peaceful* pronouncements and actions as well. The attempt to sideline Hamas looks a lot more like an attempt to try and control a final outcome than it looks like a reasonable response to a real threat. By refusing, Israel gets a bunch of things: it keeps the Palestinian side divided and in conflict, it allows itself time to finish setting in place security arrangements that keep the threat to its population at a manageable level (it can’t get rid of the threat without annihilation or negotiation, so a manageable threat will have to do), and above all it postpones real negotiations that would entail a full-blown internal Israeli conversation and settlement on key questions of national identity (a settlement that I’m not sure Israeli society is ready come to right now).
The Israeli response has lately been a bit more encouraging on the matter of the Arab Summit statement—at least on the center left—but it has been much more reluctant than security alone should make it. Time will tell…
May 10th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
test
May 15th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
one more thing:
I don’t disagree with your obviously well-studied analysis of the Israeli political barriers to withdrawal from the West Bank. (also, it’s good to see more sophisticated responses than “ethnic-cleansing land-grabbing Zionists” etc, ad nauseum).
However, I would strongly disagree with your dismissal of statements by the Hamas leadership as “mixed” or “ambivalent”. What is ambivalent about “”We will never recognize the usurper Zionist government and will continue our jihad-like movement until the liberation of Jerusalem”? (Haniyeh); and don’t try to quote the “We really don’t want to throw the Jews into the sea” quote from the Feb 2006 Washington Post interview since Hamas spokespeople immediately claimed that he was misquoted.
What’s mixed about “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”?
May 16th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
The ambivalence isn’t expressed by this or that particular pronouncement–which, in any case, can’t be judged out of context or without reference to the sources of their translation. The ambivalence is expressed by the whole of the organization’s actions, and on the whole those actions since the election has been strikingly conciliatory given its previous history and given the strong feelings on its more radical side. Given those gestures it seemed unbelievable to me that Israel would stonewall them. And seeing the intensity of that move has convinced me of something that I had already suspected: that internal Israeli political tensions are driving policy. From a purely strategic standpoint, Israel stood to lose nothing by saying that they would deal with whomever the Palestinian people elected (that’s they’re business, after all. Israel should only be concerned with how a given government behaves). Conciliatory gestures were made, and they should have been reciprocated. The rocket attacks and the kidnapping were not the reason for Israel’s refusal to deal with the elected government. Indeed it’s Israel’s refusal that more or less guaranteed that this sort of thing would continue occurring. Had the new government been able to show it could bring Israel to the table, it would have had more of what it needed to control the radical elements both within and without it’s immediate circle.
It should be an axiom for Israel, based on its own historical experience, that even the most radical groups can be brought into fold or reasonable and peaceful political activity. But there has to be a strong majority in the population that actually believes unity behind a move toward peaceful solutions is actually going to get them somewhere. Where they are likely to get has a lot to do with what Israel is really willing to grant.
The one thing that has yet to occur in the sad history of Israeli/Palestinian relations since ‘67 is a real good-faith negotiation toward the end-state I described in my other posts. The Palestinians have been clear for quite some time now about just what they want and can realistically and reasonably expect from a settlement. It’s Israel, unfortunately, who has pressed very hard to give them less than that (for all the reasons I gave earlier).
May 17th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
one more thing, you are completely wrong, the truth is the opposite. israel has offered 100% of the land and statehood, it is the palestinians who have repeately balked.
“The Palestinians have been clear for quite some time now about just what they want and can realistically and reasonably expect from a settlement.”
well, maybe i misunderstood you. yes, the palestinian authority made it clear that they want to see israel destroyed. yes, israel is offering less than that.
(of course the people, like the israeli population, is overwhelmingly in favor of a 2 state solution.)
May 18th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Real Voice,
Please define “100% of the land and statehood” and point me in the direction of a reputable historical or journalistic source that reveals that such an offer was ever made. If by “100% of the land and statehood” you mean what I described in my post as the minimum requirements of practicality and justice in this case, no such offer has ever been put on the table.
Even according to a book like Dennis Ross’ *The Missing Peace*, which I think incorrectly blames the failure of the Camp David negotiations in 2000 on Palestinian intransigence, nowhere indicates that what the Palestinian delegation rejected was anything like “100% of the land and statehood,” if by that you mean all of the territory on the West Bank conquered by Israel in ’67 and the full requisites and privileges of a sovereign nation-state. Just to give one example, Israel never gave up on the principle that it was entitled to hold onto large settlement blocks as well as control over security corridors running east-west across the lower middle of the territory and over most of the western side of the Jordan Valley itself (that is, along the river, running north and south), effectively giving it complete control of north-south movement within the territory of and over the eastern boundary of the proposed “State” of Palestine. The land swaps were also never equal, and these things are matters about which Ross is very clear (the numbers shift around depending upon the criteria used, but nowhere was “100%” of territory within the Green Line ever offered by Israel). His argument is that Israel had legitimate reasons to refuse to offer the Palestinians the modicum of justice I’ve described (which also more or less corresponds with the demands of international law). His position is one I disagree with, but at least it’s an informed position that doesn’t obscure the issues (in fact, it allows us to examine basic assumptions about what either side sees as “legitimate,” “just,” or “necessary to its security or sovereignty,” etc.—and that allows for the possibility of some final agreement about these principles and then a solution). If that’s your position, fine. We can argue about the relationship between what the Palestinians perceive as a just peace and a just settlement and what the Israelis have in fact been prepared to offer given their concerns about security and the pressures of their own internal politics. But don’t simply throw out meaningless statements about how the Israelis have offered everything and gotten nothing but rockets and suicide bombers in return. Or about how the Palestinian demands in negotiation have repeatedly been for the destruction of Israel, and Israel has rightly refused to destroy itself. It’s empty rhetoric at best. At worst, it simply shuts down all truly reasonable debate about what really happened and what might happen.
May 19th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
President Carter in his book put the kibosh to that myth.
May 21st, 2007 at 11:56 am
I wouldn’t cite Carter as a source—his book is not a piece of original research, nor is it a memoir by a participant in these particular events (not so the *other* Camp David Accords….)—but he does give a pretty accurate account and offers a number of sensible comments and suggestions.
I’m all for sensible comments and suggestions.