The Advisory Council of J-Street, the new peace lobby, met in Washington in mid-September to plot (actually, to hear its staff articulate) the organization's strategy for the remainder of the election campaign and the year following. Among the various discussions Jeremy Ben-Ami, J-Street's immensely gifted Executive Director, had planned for the day was a lunchtime forum with eight of the forty-one congressional representatives who had accepted the lobby's endorsement. We thought this would be a courtesy meeting, with gracious if not perfunctory remarks. J-Street had already signed up over 70,000 to its email network--the number is now over 90,000--but J-Street is a very new organization, with little of AIPAC's accumulated clout. What we got was a meeting of unexpected honesty, even poignancy.
"Where have you been!" California's
Rep. Bob Filner asked us, not entirely rhetorically.
His challenge was repeated again and again by members of Congress from across the country. As Filner put it, progressive forces in this country used to count on Jewish groups, and nobody doubted the
persistence of progressive sentiments among the vast majority of American Jews; a great number of representatives have seen advocacy of a Middle East peace along the lines of, say, the Clinton Parameters as the touchstone of their friendship for Israel, and their absorption by Israel's tragic conflict with, and in, Palestine.
In a way, the Israel-Palestine conflict seemed to them a kind of litmus test for how American foreign policy would be conducted after Iraq: would there be a Western alliance, coordinating its many kinds of power to pursue peace and common interests, or, a Global War on Terror, with force the only language Moslems and Joe the Plumber are presumed to understand?
Curiously enough, AIPAC's approach has also been to turn the way Israel is supported into a test for managing foreign policy more generally, with a steady drumbeat favoring
the use of force on Iran; and it seems that being the target of AIPAC's attention has not been an entirely enchanting experience. AIPAC began as a broad-based organization after the 1973 war, anxious to develop a counterweight to the State Department's traditional coziness with oil interests favoring the Arab version of Zionism. That was then. AIPAC has since become a kind of bastion for self-hating neocons: people who insist they are bipartisan, but who are really quite comfortable with the clash of civilizations, since it allows them to sell Israel as America's biggest Middle East based aircraft-carrier. Think of (though it is unpleasant) Joe Lieberman.
If these Congresspeople were to be believed--and the meeting was open--AIPAC had become one of the most feared, and secretly loathed, presences on Capital Hill. One got the feeling that a much larger number of congressional representatives were hungry for a broad-based, progressive, Jewish-led (but not exclusively Jewish) organization to (as one Congressman put it) "protect their back." Which brings me to the present.
Jeremy Ben-Ami has set the perfectly reasonable goal of signing up 100,000 people by the end of the year. You can hear his pitch, and explore the J-Street site,
by clicking here. I urge all of you, Jews and not, to get involved. As the Hebron riots show, Israel and Palestine will blow unless the world forces the people here into a change in the conversation.
There are a number of other wonderful progressive Jewish organizations including, prominently, The American Jewish World Service, http://www.ajws.org/
and The New Israel Fund, http://www.nif.org/ but J-Street is indeed unique and an important new addition to the landscape.
December 5, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where have we been? We have been too busy complaining about AIPAC being all powerful. We've been too busy talking about how stifling it is to be a progressive Jew and pretending that it was somehow difficult and brave and noble to speak out for peace inside the Jewish community. We have been too busy thinking that all a progressive had to do was to exclaim among like-minded thinkers at places like the Cafe that hey, unlike those other guys, I really do care about Middle East peace. We've been too busy calling each other names and taking solace among like-minded folks that we're not like those other intransigient and unreasonalbe and racist Jews who hate Palestinians--we've been too busy being self-righteous and doing all of these things while AIPAC has been working and getting results.
Yasher koach to J Street for doing work instead of just engaging in name-calling and faux chest-puffery; I'm proud to be one of its 90,000 plus signatories. I guess I have to start putting my money where my mouth is, but I guess I take a little solave in the fact that I didn't learn through the existence of J Street alone that the American Jewish community in the aggregate is not reflective of the extremists who are desecrating Palestinian graves in the holy city of Hebron as we speak.
December 5, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
last sentence should contain the word "solace". I don't know what "solave" means.
December 5, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bernard, I've expressed this elsewhere, maybe in one of your posts, but I'll put it out again. Many folks here and elsewhere have said, "Jews have been at the forefront of liberal causes, why are they so scarce on the IP front? Why do only the right wing Jews show up on forums like these, making arguments about why the Arabs doesn't really want peace or why Israel can't give up the territories, etc.?"
Here is my theory, and it's a broad brushed stroke with many exceptions, such as the estimable Bruce S Levine.
Most progressive Jews--the vast majority--don't belong to "the Jewish community" and don't speak out on issues "as members of" that community or as self-identified Jews. I do NOT mean they are "self haters," "Uncle Jakes," or in any way deny they are Jewish. They are, in their own way, proud of being Jewish; they just don't spend much/any time BEING Jewish.
So, the idea that AIPAC or the ADL is in any way representing them is, I would venture, a completely foreign idea to them. Until recently, I'm sure most of them didn't even know of AIPAC's existence, let alone what it stood for. The idea, proffered here from time to time, that Jews need to rise up and resist the direction "their leaders" have set for them would strike them as bizarre. Those people are not "their" leaders. They see themselves as Americans first and foremost and only by-the-way as Jews. In their view, they voted for Barack Obama; they didn't vote for, support, or put into power the leaders of the established Jewish organizations than they put into power the head of the local VFW chapter.
With many exceptions, the people who belong to the organized Jewish community tend to be a bit more conservative. Progressive Jews tend not to have a robust Jewish identity. Finding ways for progressive Jews, who are mostly non-religious, to build that identity (and overcome some negative childhood associations with that identity) is key to the success of organizations like J Street (IMO).
Maybe a Workman's Circle for the 21st century...
BTW, Bruce, this is Peter reincarnated as one of my favorite "action heroes."
December 5, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a personal thought. This may be why some progressive Jews are having problems with the Zioinst thing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7766727.stm
December 5, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or how about this: http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3633790,00.html
Considering that at least three Palestinians were shot by Settlers today, I must ask: If the IDF going to destroy their family's homes???
December 5, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, well, my point didn't have much to do with Zionism per se. It had to do with whether Jews identify "as Jews." I am pretty sure they are horrified by the violence in Israel. Though, I have to say, this article shows the IDF willing to remove settlers in the name of the law. As to Zionism, it's banner has been reduced to a slur denoting the thuggery of West Bank settlers, but it is far more than that. Personally, I don't see much difference, in principle, between Zionism and any national movement for self-determination.
December 5, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nor do I. It is a national movement. And it is opposed by a competing national movement. That's the rub.
December 5, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is very much the rub indeed. Now what are you prepared to do? Pick one over the other, or work toward coexixtence and cooperation between them?
December 6, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the root causes of the I-P conflict (and many other problems in the Middle East, actually) is the fact that the whole concept of nationalism is a European idea that is so deeply ingrained in Western conciousness that we almost see it as a universal construct. To the Arabs (including the Palestinians), however, the idea of a nation-state has, until quite recently, been an alien notion. Early on (during the British Mandate), the Zionists and the British were able to establish a dialogue about state-building in Palestine. The Arabs are often blamed for having missed the opportunity to engage in that state-building exercise--but to the Arabs the idea of state-building was completely foreign. One reason the Zionists triumphed in Palestine was that they were Europeans who spoke the same language (figuratively and, in many cases, literally) and shared many of the same ideas as the British. Arabs were at a disadvantage from the start because they did not share the same worldview and therefore the whole dialogue about creating two states was strange and meaningless to them.
I have read recent Palestinian analyses of the conflict that have stated that Palestinians must shift the dialogue from one about state-building (which these analysts see as primarily a Western diaogue that inherently places the Palestinians at a disadvantage) to a dialogue about justice and liberation (dialogues that are more natural to the Palestinians). In the view of these Palestinians a state has never been their principal objective. Their principal objective has been justice, defined as a political system that they believe is fair to the Palestinians and that respects Palestinian values, culture, and aspirations. They are willing to consider a state as a means to the primary end (justice), but the creation of the Palestinian state is not an end in itself. In this view, the Zionist movement may indeed be nationalistic, but the Palestinian cause isn't one of nationalism but of justice, and state-building, while central to Zionism, is peripheral to the Palestinians.
BK--I know your interest in Hannah Arendt. Arendt of course saw the state as essential to the establishment of justice for individuals. But Arendt was a Westerner who came out of the same milieu that produced European nationalistic movements. I agree with Arendt that justice requires some form of social organization, but I'm not sure that that organization is necessarily a nation-state. To the Arabs, I suspect, a Caliphate (a regime that ensures the universal adoption of Islamic values, but that leaves most governance up to local communities) would feel more natural than a nation-state as conceived by Europeans. Right now in the Middle East (not just in I-P), the tension between traditional Arab ideas of social organization and European (statist) ideas is, in part, stimulating much of the conflict we observe.
December 6, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Will Jews (the people, as opposed to Judaism the religion, which I submit remains an important distinction) have any right of national self-determination in its historic homeland within the milieu of the caliphate (should the fate of the Jewish people even matter?)? Which Muslim sectarian tradition (Sunni, Shi'a, etc.) shall determine the nature of the caliphate? Please explain how justice may be established and conflict would be resolved upon the liberation from national conceptions like Zionism.
December 6, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd argue that a different paradigm altogether is needed for true peace--neither Jewish nationalism nor a Caliphate, but something more in line with the kind of pluralistic, egalitarian democracy that characterizes the United States (yes, I believe our system is a good one and maybe the only one that can really work in the highly diverse societies that now exist around the world.) Concepts like "right of national self-determination" are atavistic in this view, since the European idea of a nation--a people sharing common cultural and ethnic backgrounds--is no longer relevant. If a nation is anything, it's simply a governing organization that is designed to protect the rights and promote the common good of all its citizens equally. Yes, there are challenges to protecting the rights of both Jews and Arabs in Israel/Palestine given the mindsets of both groups--neither of which is fully ready to adopt progressive, "non-groupist" pluralism. But I strongly believe that ultimately, adopting that kind of pluralism is the only way to achieve true peace given the diversity of I-P's population.
December 6, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would argue that most of the world is still tribal. So, yes, you have Turks living in Germany, for example, but they don't become Germans or Westerners. They take their Turkishness with them and practice it wherever they go. Their children a relegated to an underclass "neither."
IOW, peoples are getting all mixed up geographically, but they aren't giving up their ethnic identities as a result. Here in America, we have done so to a much greater degree than elsewhere in keeping with the IDEA of America. Other countries don't have this guiding idea.
If your idea held sway, the Palestinians could easily move to anywhere in the Arab Middle East. They speak the same language; share the same religion (mostly). They wouldn't need this particular piece of land. The only reason you had a lot Jews moving to this particular piece of land is they were thrown out of every other piece of land--and not welcomed here either-- because they were the wrong ethnic group.
You're swinging back and forth between Caliphates and super-Enlightened, non-existent states.
December 6, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The U.S.A. has tribes like Amish-American tribes and Hasidic-American tribes managing relatively well. Not without stresses and strains, but relatively well compared to a lot of other places that can't handle counter culture. Our system was actually built to let this happen, the states were basically pretty tribal when it was formed, and I think you are underestimating its potential. I agree with the thrust of Purple State comments, I think he is making great points.
It's the Europeans who haven't figured out how to handle it, they take immigrants but then don't want to deal realistically with what it means to their identity to do so. They struggle with the whole cloth of tribes day to day in their baby union, the E.U.
I think the Neo-Cons, by pursuing forcing our system down people's throats and prosletizing it like a religion, have besmirched the fact that it, or something like it, is still the best way to deal with a world growing smaller by virtue of technology and easy travel. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we need to force it on anyone, but I think the answers for a lot of problems around the world are in some of the ideas our founders came up with.
I should add that we are not the only country who figured it out. There is Canada, Australia, many of the Latin American countries that are multi-cultural inventions. It's the "new world" vs. "old world." Yugoslavia didn't work out so well without a dictator, as it's in the heart of the "old world."
It's very simple why many more will eventually come around to our system or something like it: you can't keep young people from mating with each other when they meet each other (which they will do through globalization.) Look at the parents of our current President-elect for an example. We don't see the results in our lifetime, or many lifetimes, maybe, but it's coming, it's the way the forces of change are moving.
December 6, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, perhaps. But I tend to think the US is unique in terms of size, resources, geographic isolation, and lack of serious opponents. We basically crushed what opposition there was to create a new playing field. You're right: As a new world, we started fresh. But the rest of the world is mostly the old world, and I don't think they have a way to start fresh. If either the Israelis or Palestinians tried to "start fresh" the way WE started fresh, they would have to engage in genocide or mass transfer.
So I'm not at all sure we offer a template others can follow.
To be honest, I don't know much about the history of Australia/ New Zealand or Latin America. I would say the former had isolation and weak opponents going for it. If you subdue all the natives and other opponents, then, yes, you can be enlightened and liberal...because you've established the rules and dominance.
(I wouldn't want to generalize about Latin America, but there's a reason they all speak Spanish and Portugese, yes? And I'm not sure these countries are models of enlightened self-government. I could be wrong, though.)
To be sure, I sympathize with Purple's ideals. But even here, it took us centuries to integrate blacks as equals, and we're probably not there yet. The melting pot immigrants endured huge amounts of discrimination over where they could live and work and socialize. I tend to think it was our economic and resource abundance that allowed our ideals to flower. Economic opportunity does wonders for helping folks feel good will toward their fellow human. These economic conditions don't exist in many other parts of the world that are running out of water and arable land and don't have "entrepreneurial cultures."
(Sheer size plays a role, too. The Amish can be a tribe because there is room for them. The Mormons were able to claim a whole state for themselves. Israel is 1/10th the size of Utah. And Amish country would constitute some sizeable percentage of Israel's total land mass.)
And unlike in the US, the IP conflict is built on the relatively recent histories of two deeply traumatized peoples. And it isn't 70 years old. By 70, the US hadn't even had our civil war yet.
I mean, there are a number of models that COULD work theoretically IF the people involved had the will to make them work. Switzerland's federation. Northern Ireland. The US.
In one breath, Purple seems to be saying that the Palestinians would feel more comfortable with a Caliphate model (!) spreading a nice cozy Islamic blanket over the land from the Atlantic to the Indian Oceans...and in the next breath, he's proposing a US model which maybe only three countries have really pulled off. I admire Purple's tireless search for a breakthrough, but I tend to think the "missing piece" is the willingness of both sides...to share.
December 6, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
As to the Caliphate thing, the way I read Purpole State's mention of it, is that you have to take all the current propaganda and prejudices out of the term. As an idea, it's really just another federation. And then, sharia, that is a code of law citizens agree to, like our Constitution, or Israel's laws for that matter, and there's nothing that requires a theocracy to execute it. (Interestingly, Israel is an example of the tension, or not, depending upon your opinion, that using religious law brings to a democracy.) That sharia is interpreted in such a backward manner by most who currently promote it doesn't mean it always has to be that way (Islam needs a Reformation, but that's a whole nother thing... :-))
But be advised that you are interacting with someone who thinks that the Enlightenment influence on our Founders is way overplayed by many on left and the Judeo-Christian influence is way underplayed. That's done so because the right likes to play with and distort the Judeo-Christian thing.
December 6, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect, I don't believe that "citizens agree to" sharia. I'm sure there are more, and less, enlightened practitioners of sharia, but it is, as I understand it, G-d's law. And you don't get to agree or disagree with that.
December 7, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just a quick clarification: I wasn't trying to argue for a restoration of a Caliphate. I was merely stating that the concept of a nation-state was alien to the Arabs who, for about a thousand years, had lived under a very different system that was essentially a loose aggregation of somewhat weakly defined and fluid local communities that were largely allowed to govern themselves as long as they recognized the authority of the Caliph or Emperor, paid taxes, and adhered to the Islamic system of law and justice. Once the British (and the French) took over the ME after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, they tried to divide up the ME into states. These were artificial divisions, that created new power centers that, on one hand, lacked the authority of the Caliph (or Emperor) and, on the other hand, exercised more forceful control over the once largely autonomous local communities and tribes than the Caliph ever did. This radically changed the balance of power among all the groups in the ME and led to much of the turmoil and discontent we've seen since British colonialism ended.
Looking forward, I don't think a return to the Caliphate is possible or even desirable. The modern world is indeed a world of nations and alternative forms of political organization are probably not possible at this time. That said, though, I don't think that ethnic nationalism is the right type of nationalism for the future, and particularly for the future in the Middle East where so many ethnic/religious/tribal groups co-exist with poorly defined territorial borders. Such "groupist" nationalism will result in continued tension as groups fight for dominance (if they remain in the same nation) or territory (if they are separated). Ultimately, if there ever is a hope for peace in the ME, a more pluralist approach to government will need to be adopted. While many may think this is impossible--especially as we observe the inter-group conflicts in Lebanon and Iraq and Israel-Palestine--the past history of the Caliphate actually does offer hope. For a thousand years, all these groups (Jews included) lived together in relative peace. The Muslim world under the Caliphs and the Ottomans was far more tolerant than the contemporaneous Christian world and, if not a modern pluralistic democracy, it was at least was a place where people of different faiths and ethnicities could live together in relative harmony (if not full equality). Pluralism is therefore not completely alien to the Arab world and--because of this--its restoration in the not-too-distant future should not be unimaginable.
December 6, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think your analysis about the Arabs' non-recognition of, or comfort with, the concept of a nation state is undoubtedly correct. I don't know this for sure, but it has the ring of truth.
I do think there was a sense of pluralism as you say, but a pluralism under the big tent of Islam. That's very different from our ideal (at least) of a pluralistic society.
My friend from Cairo tells me that the meaning of "dhimmi" is "protected one" (more or less). It is, as I understand it, which is not very well, a religious duty to protect minorities who are, in effect, under your care. Particularly if they are monotheists.
However, I think embedded in this idea is also the notion of second-class citizen, if you will, with less than full rights. IOW, if you agree not to contravene our laws--not to contradict us--we will protect you. You will be, in effect, our guests.
So, sure, if you don't make a fuss, you can live a "pretty good life" in this state. Muslims had a lot of respect for Jews as fellow people of the book, monotheists, descendants of Abraham. Christians were much tougher on the Jews. But the general picture of traditional comity between Muslims and Jews is a bit overdone. For one thing, if you're a minority, you learn to mind your p's and q's. Most people just want to live their lives. And if you're in the vast majority and hold all the power, it's easy to exhibit noblesse oblige.
But as a protected minority, you aren't really allowed to go your own way. It's been my sense for some time that the reason the Arab world rose up against Israel was not so much that Israel would displace the Palestinians, but that a non-Muslim entity was arising within the bosom of the Muslim world. That this was a basic religious affront. Sure, it was fine to have a lot of Jews living among Muslims as a minority; but it was not fine to have a distinctly Jewish entity arising on land they considered to be "theirs." My theory.
December 7, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin, I agree with your analysis. The Muslim world under the Ottomans and prior Islamic empires, while tolerant compared to the European regimes of the same time, was not in anyway an example of modern pluralism as we conceive it. Jews, Christians, Hindus (in Muslim India) were all "less equal" than Muslims. And the degree of tolerance fluctuated over time--for some periods discrimination and even violence against minorities was actually quite strong. Overall, though, by the standards of the time (the Middle Ages) the Muslim world was notably tolerant.
I also agree that many in the broader Arab world were most troubled by the creation of a Jewish state on land they felt should be part of the Islamic world. For the Palestinians themselves, though, I think the fear of being displaced by the Jews was preeminent. The Zionists were clear about about their intention to create a Jewish state in Palestine and the British mandatory power had proclaimed its support for these Zionist ambitions. Combine these statements with the pace of Jewish immigration and Palestinian Arabs were greatly concerned that the Jews were going to displace them. Their fears, it turned out, were fully justified.
December 7, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting comment, Purple, and I have heard similar analyses. But the fact is that now the entire world is organized by states. I find it hard to believe that anyone could propose a Caliphate, "a regime that ensures the universal adoption of Islamic values," as being anything other than a recipe for ETERNAL conflict.
It's a bit hard to tell if YOU think this perspective has any practical merit or not--but if you do, I can only say that you're out of your mind. Are all non-Muslims supposed to live as dhimmis?
December 6, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Peter:
So nice to see you again. I have been following your comments over the past weeks and wondering who that patient and rational sane blogger was behind the internet curtain. Interesting questions and interesting suggestions we have around these parts. You know, we Jews have at times been welcome in many areas of the Arab world. Indeed, just this morning at shul we sat with a couple at kiddish and the husband told us about how his grandparents came to this country from Baghdad in 1939 via England. There were a quarter of a million Jews in that city before 1948; there are maybe 3 or 4 Jews left in Iraq at this point and they don't flaunt it, and most of them left under not so pleasant circumstances. Most came to Israel, and so it goes.
I don't know where we'll be in 100 years. Perhaps we shall evolve to the point where some kind of binational federation of the type our well-intentioned friend Purple State touts will make more sense than it does now. Right now, and for the forseeable future, we live with the cards we've been dealt, and that means that that "western principle" (if those are the criteria we're wrestling with for the purpose of this discussion) of national self-determination is the one that fits best into reality. The Jews have founded a state in Israel, the nations of the world, beginning with the Soviet Union and not the U.S. and Britain as lots of our lefty brothers and sisters like to claim, recognized its legitimacy after World War II, and now the key is to find a way to recognize the national aspirations of the Palestinian people. No simple task but that's the way it is.
This is where President-Elect Obama, his nominee for Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and his national security advisor General Jones, find themselves, and it is the two-state solution that each of them shall hopefully pursue with vigor. And, hopefully, folks like us, through groups like J Street, will play a constructive role in facilitating such an outcome.
In the meantime, we can also have some fun talking about binational states and stuff, but such discussion is, for now and in the forseeable future, immaterial to the facts as we find them.
December 6, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
bslev says:
Maybe it isn't the Jews, on the whole, who have to evolve, maybe its the haters in the world and those that use them to gain power who need to make that transition.
December 7, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said John, from a man like you who has seen what hatred in man can really do up close and personal. G-d willing, at the rate you're going, you'll be around in another 100 years to test your thesis!
December 7, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce,
I'd like to be around for another 100 years just to see what happened. Imagine what all the people who were born at the begining of the last Century lived to see.
Our great grandchildren were here over the weekend, I lived to see them. :-)
Some time ago one of my grandsons asked why I always gave them oranges to eat when they came to visit. I told him its a ritual their grandmother, my wife, started with our sons and extends to our great grandchildren, and that everyone enjoys oranges. (we feed them navels). He then asked why did the ritual start, and I told him the story about liberating Woebbelin concentration camp. I told him about how, when we were leaving for the Elbe River, I had in my pocket an orange I swiped from a case on the front seat of one of our trucks that brought in supplies for the prisoners, and as I was walking out of the camp an elderly Jewish woman was standing alone by the gate with her hands clasped in prayer and bowing her head up and down, and the last thing I did before leaving that camp was to give that woman my orange.
My wife says that's the thing she's proudest of regarding my experiences in the war, and that's why 'she' started the ritual so many years ago.
She's a gem.
Some things you learn with your eyes you never forget.
December 8, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I should have responded sooner, Bruce. Very nice to hear from you, ALWAYS. And thanks for your kind words. As to my sanity, please speak to my wife first before you pass unwarranted judgements!
December 8, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin
insanity is a rational adjustment to an insane world.
December 8, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State,
Do you really believe Jews appreciated no sense of historical injustice behind their movement to reconstitute their national self-determination in the historic homeland of the Jewish people? And don't you find it a little bit precarious, and with no small amount of irony, using language like "the Arab world," "Palestinian Arabs" and "the Muslim world" while arguing against the idea of Arab nationalism?
December 7, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me try to make this real simple:
Zionism has always been a nationalistic movement that has as its end the creation of a Jewish state. Yes, much of the reason for the Zionists' desire to create a state was to escape the injustices of antisemitism. But from the very beginning the solution to that injustice was seen as the creation of a Jewish state. Nationalism is at the core of Zionism.
The Palestinian cause did not begin as a nationalistic one with the goal of creating a state. Palestinians did not conceive of themselves as a nation, nor did they initially desire to create a Palestinian state. The Palestinian cause was primarily a reactive and defensive one--resistance against the reorganization of their homeland by the Zionists, the British, and the United Nations in a way that was alien to them. At its core then, the Palestinian cause is not nationalistic, though it has in more recent years adopted more of a nationalistic outlook. The Palestinians themselves, though, define their cause more as one of liberation than one of state-building.
As to your second comment, no I don't see anything either precarious or ironic about refering to the part of the world I'm talking about as the "Arab world" or the "Muslim world" while arguing that European nationalism is not a concept native to that part of the world.
December 7, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's do a thought experiment...and pretend no
Zionists ever arrived in Palestine. Just remove them from the equation. The British and French pull out, leaving all these states in their wake: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan.
And then there's Palestine. What, in your view, did they envision? This amorphous region run by small town councils or something? Or did they not think it through that far in advance? Who would have administered the region, a consortium of the other Arab states?
Or would it have been the case that none of these other states would have become states, either?
I'm undoubtedly pushing up against the limits of my historical knowledge, but it seems odd to have the Iraqis, Syrians and Jordanians possessing a sense of nationalism and belonging to a country, but not the Palestinians.
Perhaps you can elaborate...
December 7, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting question, Tintin. I suspect Palestine would have had a fate similar to Syria's. Syria was under French control, but a provisional government was set up under the French mandate and this became the government of Syria when the French left. I'd assume something similar would have happened with Palestine. Another possibility is that Palestine would have remained united with Jordan and both would have gone to King Abdullah (Abdullah was from Mecca, but the British had promised him a kingdom in return for his support against the Ottomans--so he got Jordan, even though he wasn't from there). Still another possibility is that the British would have handed Palestine over to a prominent Palestinian Arab (maybe to al-Husayni, who presumably would have remained more friendly to the British had the British not supported Zionism). A final possibility is that the British would have held on longer, thinking of Palestine (because of its religious significance) as too big a prize to give up. In this case, Palestinian independence might have been delayed until the 1950s or 60s.
All speculation, of course, but those are my guesses what would have happened in the absence of Zionism.
December 7, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State,
Perhaps you did not intend for your declaration of simplicity at the beginning of this comment to come across as condescending as it does to me, but this statement at its conclusion exposes a radical bias against the socio-political legitimacy of non-Arab peoples in the Middle East in general, and a people native to what we know today as Israel in particular. This is precisely the injustice that Zionism has sought to address, even if it can never effectively reverse it. To all too many in the world the Jew can never be anything more than a product of imposed cryptic religious dogma, or aspire to anything greater than a nation within a nation. This image will always dehumanize and delegitimize the Jews as a people, and demonize its interests as antithetical to some lofty theological ideal.
December 7, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
And perhaps you did not intend to come across as excessively querulous. But I'm not sure how else to interpret some of these objections. Now I stand accused of dehumanizing and delegitimizing the Jews as a people and demonizing their interests simply because I used that most pedestrian term-- "Muslim World"--to describe that part of the globe where some 80% or 90% of the population practices the Muslim faith, where for the last millenium or so the ruling empires have all declared themselves Islamic, and where the vast bulk of legal and cultural institutions have been inspired by the words of Mohammad and the beliefs of the religion he founded. So should I now use the term "Judeo-Muslim world" instead to avoid offence and sufficiently acknowledge Jewish national rights in the Middle East? But I was refering specifically to the Muslim part of that world , so maybe I must then use the more elaborate locution: "Muslim members of the Judeo-Muslim world?" But then there are all these other religious minorities to acknowledge. So maybe it's the Muslim portion of the Judeo-Christian-Zorastrian-Muslim world. And do I need to specifically note the division between Shia and Sunni? And what about Sufis? They spin in circles don't they?
Maybe our friend BK is really a Sufi.
December 8, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really comes down to how can minorities and majorities co-exist with some basic degree of equality. I don't have a problem with the term "Muslim world," except insofar as it is used to justify the exclusion or marginalization of other people who are INDIGENOUS to the region, too. Or to suggest that these other people not indigenous (read "don't belong and are interlopers") to the region. The fact is, many of these people were in the region LONG before Mohammed strode the earth. Or Jesus, for that matter.
Islam, it appears, came up with its solution--not completely awful and not wonderful--of the dhimmi. Certainly better than burning folks at the stake. Yet, all things considered, it was a whole lot better to be a Muslim. Just like it was (is?) a whole lot better to be white in American than black or Latino.
On the other hand, you don't want the minority "tail" wagging the majority "dog." It's not good for anyone, and that's what's shaping up in Israel/Palestine.
December 9, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact is, many of these people were in the region LONG before Mohammed strode the earth. Or Jesus, for that matter.
Funny, Tintin, when I read "people" I think first of individuals not groups, and so I initially laughed at your statement, thinking "Well who could have been there before Mohammed and Jesus? No one's that old!"
But yes, I recognize that the Jews have been part of the Middle East for thousands of years, and there's no intention to marginalize or deny or discredit their presence in the Middle East in any way by using the term "Muslim world."
Not to argue with anything you're saying, but just to make an observation that I think you might find interesting: I actually don't buy the argument that just because Jews have been part of the Middle East for thousands of years means that European Jews have some right to move there. I guess I don't really believe in "group" rights--I just believe in individual rights. However, I would argue that the European Jews who came to Israel during the Ottoman Empire, the British Mandate, and since the creation of the state of Israel all have absolute rights as individuals to be in Israel and to stay where they are. I do believe Jewish immigration to Palestine was both legal and legitimate and therefore the Jews who came to Israel (and are still coming) are there "fair and square," and their right to be there should not be questioned. Because I don't really believe in these nationalistic group rights, I guess I don't accept the idea that Jews as a group have some special right to live in Palestine because their ancestors lived there. But I do believe that the Jewish individuals who came to Israel fleeing persecution and in accord with the laws of the time have a basic human right to remain where they live.
So to me, universal human rights justify the presence of the Jews in Israel today. But some kind of collective right of the Jewish people to live in a particular place simply isn't something I can accept. I guess I just don't recognize "groups" as entities that have rights. People--as individuals--have rights. People--as groups--I'm not convinced.
December 9, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, this is an interesting point with which I agree. I guess the collective right argument comes up when terms like "Muslim world" are used to suggest that a Jewish state has NO right to exist within that compass.
But in general, about rights, I agree with you.
Beyond that, I don't think countries come into existence or go out of existence because of "rights." Nor do I think migrations of people happen because of that. We can say, "I see why Mexicans are coming to the US. Yes, I can see why Jews fled Europe for Palestine. Or why any migration happens." And we might approve of it; disapprove of it; understand it; or not understand it.
These are events are motivated by basic need, will, fear, power, and the like. So Israel came into being because of these factors; she fought off all comers; and so she's a fact. Given that, I hope she will deal with the injustices to the Palestinians that resulted. That's me/us trying to order our world in what we feel (rightly I think) is a more humane way for the betterment of more people.
But if the Arabs had won, and the Jews had been wiped out and the rest fled to wherever, Israel would simply have ended up as a historical episode to be chewed over by historians and partisans. Some would have decried it; others would have said they never had a chance; still others would have said they should have fought harder or smarter; and some would have said they got what they deserved. Some might be looking at the dysfunctional government of Palestine saying, "Gee, if only the Jews had succeeded, what a place that would be."
Who knows, but "right" does mean much to me in these circumstances EXCEPT when some countries are considered legitimate and others are not.
December 10, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your view was a part of my thesis in the recent Harper's article I call "Obama's Jews." Most American Jews simply do not want to associate with parochial institutions, which is why the right has grabbed them. At the same time, over 50% of "progressive" and "liberal" (self-defined) Jews give to both local Jewish philanthropies and to Democratic politics. So there is room to assume that a great many are chagrined, and not totally aloof from, the fact that neocons have been speaking in the name of "the community" for so long.
December 5, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure if I understand this comment: "Most American Jews simply do not want to associate with parochial institutions, which is why the right has grabbed them."
What could be more parochial then trying to out-Israeli the Israelis?
December 5, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I interpret it, most secular Jews regard Jewish institutions--ADL, B'nai B'rith--as parochial. As participating in these institutions of mainstream organized American Jewish life as returning to a cloistered, parochial culture in which Jews lived in Jewish neighborhoods, knew mostly other Jews, etc. They see themselves members of the larger American society and culture.
That's why they don't relate to, and don't confront, the Jewish establishment--it doesn't represent them and it doesn't have much to do with them even though, to the outside, it would appear to "represent" them.
They actually don't know much about Israel and while they feel some relationship to it, they don't understand that relationship very well. They certainly don't "get" the politics of it. They are vaguely uncomfortable with opposing other Jews actively because, after all, the world has always done a pretty good job of opposing Jews. My take.
December 5, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
mythbuster,
I would agree that you misunderstood Avisahi's comment (while adding that it is indeed a difficult comment to comprehend). The way I read it, it is the right (ie, Beit Podhoretz) that has grabbed the Jewish parochial institutions by filling the vacuum left by the liberal mainstream of American-Jewish society.
December 6, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin,
There already is a Workmen's Circle/Arbeiter Ring in the 21st Century.
December 6, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
You what would be nice? If we just treated Israel as a regular country instead of some holy litmus test. Is it in our interests to support them or not? If it is, how much support is it in our interests to give them? I have my own answers (not really, not much) but let's at least have the argument.
December 5, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where have you been?
You have been siding with the jihadists.
You have been demanding that Israel make unilateral concessions to those who have vowed a reprise of the Holocaust.
You have been revealingly silent about the terrorist slaughter of Jewish children while you have been loudly indignant about any damage inflicted upon Palestinian olive trees.
You have been saying that you are pro-Israel while doing the bidding of the Arabs who have launched four wars of annihilation against the Zionist State.
Where have you been?
You have been where left wing Jews have always been: in the pocket of genocidal anti-Semites.
And there you will remain, until your Palestinian allies finally realize their explicitly stated goal of liberating Tel Aviv and Haifa.
On that day, you and the other reprobates who comprise J Street will be joyously dancing in the streets.
December 5, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an interesting take on the role that the Soviet Union played in promoting partition and ensuring the creation of a Jewish State, written by Rumy Hasan, a senior lecturer at the University of Sussex in the UK.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/897/op6.htm
Mr. Hasan notes that, following the U.N. partition vote, the U.S. began to have doubts about the creation of an independent Jewish states, and the Soviets countered thusly:
"However, after the expected opposition of Arab states [to the establishment of Israel] and with violence in Palestine itself, the US began to have doubts. On 19 March 1948, the US ambassador to the UN argued for a provisional trusteeship that had been the USSR's original plan. Gromyko countered this in an uncompromising, de facto Zionist, speech at the 30 March meeting of the UN Security Council that secured partition: "'... the only way to reduce bloodshed is the prompt and effective creation of two states in Palestine. If the United States and some other states block the implementation of the partition and regard Palestine as an element in their economic and military- strategic considerations, then any decision on the future of Palestine, including the establishment of a trusteeship regime, will mean the transformation of Palestine into a field of strife and dissension between the Arabs and the Jews and will only increase the number of victims.'"
December 6, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
We'll that's interesting, given the way the USSR went in the years following. I guess the region has always been a political football.
December 7, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Important to keep certain things in mind:
Jews are a minority within the group of strong supporters of Israel in the United States. If J-Street thinks being "pro-Israel" means coercing Israel, against the will of its population and government to make concessions that endanger its security or to give up territories that are vital interests of the country (e.g. Jerusalem), then they and Obama's adminstration are going to confront a lot of opposition from the non-J-Street Jews and the non-Jewish supporters of Israel. Israel is seen by something like 70% of the people in the US as an ally of the US, whereas only something like 15% perceive the Palestinian Authority under FATAH or HAMAS as such. Thus pressure on Israel to go against the interests I mentioned above will be perceived as a US President bullying an American friend to help a basically hostile entity. Bush I was seen to be doing this in 1991-1992 and he lost the next election, partly for this reason (he was criticized by Clinton for doing this).
It is true that Dr Avishai and other "progressives" want Israel to be coerced and bullied into doing what they want, but Dr Avishai's position are representative of about 10% of the electorate in Israel, so J-Street is making a big mistake if they think that is what most pro-Israel people in the US want. Most Jews in the US don't know very much about what is going on in Israel, but they know that terrorism is bad and they tend to rely on the Israeli gov't and traditional pro-Israel (and I mean "pro-Israel" in the traditional sense, not the Orwellian Avishai-J-Street meaning) groups to represent these interests.
December 7, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
From where I sit, this "traditionally pro-Israel" group to which you refer matches the low-information electorate that just got beaten like a gong in the most populated precincts in the most recent general elections -- which is also where most American Jews are.
Agreed, there are lots of non-Jewish supporters of Israel, along with many Jewish supporters of Israel, whose politics are guided by short term fears of terrorist attacks. But it can be argued that, as a group, their cognitive maps lack the long term view of realistic national interest objectives.
You metion Jerusalem as an example of this group's concern for Israel's interests, but there are other issues (eg, settlements in unannexed territories) that serve to water down the effectiveness of Jerusalem, writ large, as an example of political motivation. It is becoming increasingly difficult to justify the idea of Israel sustaining Jewish settlements outside of its borders (ambiguous as those borders may be).
As with any complicated issue -- from gun control to abortion, to use domestic policy examples -- it takes a great deal of information packed into a vigorous debate over a long period of time to even approach the ballpark of any coherent and sustainable policy. At best, we are still closer to the beginning of the story in the Israel-Palestine area of our foreign policy debate.
December 7, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
BK:
You put my thoughts into words over and over and over again. Fortunately, in my world, and even in the belly of the beast where I used to live (i.e. Long Island) and identical places like MJ's Montgomery County, the Jewish people, the ones who overwhelmingly rejected the neo-con candidate and voted for President-Elect Obama, crave peace in Israel and justice for both Jews and Palestinians. The key, as I have stated over and over again, is reaching the Jewish majority and mobilizing them with trust and understanding. That's how political change comes on the domestic front. Call me a racist or the guys behind the tree the moral equivalent of facists, and you get two bucks for the subway and nothing more. The Middle East conflict, like life itself, is anything but linear. I just hope the J Street folks keep this simple truth in mind as they move forward for the purpose of being productive.
Bruce
December 7, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I recently watched a video by Jeremy Ben-Ami, whose Israeli credentials are impeccable, as far as I can see, making a plea for more people to join J Street. Their goal is 100K members by the end of the year (I think). It's hard to imagine him engaging in any sort of demagoguery or name-calling or simplistic solutions.
I think YBD make a mistakes when he equates any sort of "pressure" or "negotiation" with "bullying." Surely, nations negotiate with each other to "get" the other to move in a direction it might not move otherwise. Yes, this is a kind of pressure, but it doesn't mean bullying. For any successful negotiation, BOTH sides need to get something out doing something they might not want to do. UAW gives up some wages, but gets a company that isn't in bankruptcy.
Personally, I think the US has to get ALL the parties with any POWER in the same room. That includes HAMAS, if possible.
December 7, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Personally, I think the US has to get ALL the parties with any POWER in the same room. That includes HAMAS, if possible."
Hamas is explicitly dedicated to the murder of every Israeli Jew, in stark contrast to those of you who are implicitly dedicated to the murder of every Israeli Jew.
December 8, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, since you quote me, I assume you mean me among others.
I'm not implicitly or explicitly dedicated to the murder of anyone, least of all Jews and/or Israelis.
However, Hamas clearly wields enormous power in this equation. Israel has been unable to stamp it out with force. Exerting additional force to try to do so would, I'm sure, result in unacceptable death of innocents.
So, what to do? "Outside the room" HAMAS is dedicated to killing Israelis in any case. "Inside the room" one has a chance of making a change. It was once said that Arafat would never accept Israel. Then he did.
In any event, bringing HAMAS "inside the room" won't result in any more deaths than what is happening now. And once inside, the onus falls on them to behave.
Even if this turns out to be wrong, what's the risk?
Israel won't give up its military advantage? She can still do whatever she's doing now militarily? I just don't see the downside other than having to hold one's nose. To me, the potential for saving lives is worth holding one's nose.
December 8, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink