« Avraham Burg: Response to Book Club | Home | Obama Going To Mideast In January To Push Peace Deal »
Tragedy: Doing the Right Thing Too Long
John Mearsheimer writes, obviously in agreement:
His [Burg's] core message is that Israel is in serious trouble at home and there is good reason to think that things could go horribly wrong in the future. He emphasizes that Israel has changed greatly since 1948.
He quotes his mother on this point:
This country is not the country that we built. We founded a different country in 1948, but I don't know where it's disappeared."
That Israel has changed is inarguably true. Just watch this heart-stopping little film about the country, made by Air France in 1951. I'm not sure Israel has changed quite in the way Avrum and John imply: some big wrong turn after 1967. Tragedy does not usually result from suddenly doing the wrong thing but rather from doing the right thing too long.
The point is, these features made a kind of awful sense in 1951, which were revolutionary times. They do not make sense today, now that Israel is a plural, globalized society. And they should not be tolerated by people in America--or Israel, for that matter--who purport to care about Israel's and the region's well-being.
Advertisement
"The old Arab slums of neighboring Jaffa condemned for health reasons are being torn down to make way for new business and shopping quarters." TCR 13:03:54:02
December 10, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dr Avishai says:
---------------------------------------------
the seduction of American Jews with the cult of Jerusalem
---------------------------------------------
Okay, Dr Avishai is what in Israel is called "anti-religious". Jerusalem, as the holiest place to the Jewish people means nothing to him. That's why he always calls those who think it is, "Judean", whereas the holy place for those he calls "real Israelis" are discotheques in Tel Aviv. That is why he is always demanding that the city be divided, which actually means "destroyed", knowing full well that Jewish access to the Jewish holy places in the Arab-controlled part of the city will become impossible, regardless of what any scrap of paper called a "peace agreement" may promise. But is someone so educated really so blind to Jewish history and Jewish reality to not be aware of the attachment of the Jewish people to Jerusalem for 3000 years? Does he think any Israeli government can simply ignore what most Israelis and Jews think and believe? Make no mistake, the views he propounds are representative of no more than 10-15% of the Jews of Israel. Former Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami who conducted negotiations with the Palestinians during Barak's Camp David period himself admitted that although the holy places meant nothing to him, just like Avishai, and he was quite willing to turn them over to the Arabs, he was forced as a result of "domestic political pressure" to have to worry about them.
Thus, Dr Avishai's cynical comment about the "seduction of American Jewry" with the "cult of Jerusalem" simply shows how out of touch he is with the reality of Israel, why all the policies he has advocated in the past (Oslo, destruction Gush Katif, making cynical political dealings with terrorists like Arafat) have turned into one disaster after another and why the Israeli electorate has turned its back on the political parties that are responisble..Labor and MERETZ.
December 10, 2008 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jerusalem can be an international city governed by an outside board of governors. It is a pile of stones and has only the meaning that human beings give it.
December 10, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bev! where are you?
I always thought Jerusalem could be like Rome, but with heads from the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim faiths.
It is important to all.
Can we be adults?
January 30, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is, these features made a kind of awful sense in 1951, which were revolutionary times.
I wonder if this isn't a stratagem for sentimentalizing or romanticizing the past so as to manufacture a principled basis for rejecting current injustice while accepting past injustice. The Zionist project in Israel/Palestine is one long, unbroken history of building and expanding a state, meant to serve as a home for the Jewish people, by appropriating land and displacing the population that was on that land. The Jewish population of Israel/Palestine has grown steadily since the end of the 19th century, and as that population has grown, efforts have continued apace to incorporate more land into the Jewish political community in Palestine, since 1948 the State of Israel.
Earlier Israelis may have been more socialistic than latter-day Israelis who are more neoliberal, or even further right-tilting. But both socialists and neoliberals are perfectly capable of land appropriation and state expansion, and Jews of all political stripes have carried out these projects with indefatigable commitment. Continuous immigration into a small political community has fueled continuous demand for the physical expansion of that community's territory, independently of the community's dominant ideology at any given time.
Zionists aren't the root cause of the cycle of injustice. The historical forces germinating the expanding state of Israel are Jewish national apartness made problematic by the frequently violent antisemitism of the non-Jewish nations in which Jews have lived. These forces include the feeling by powerful statesmen and the non-Jewish peoples of powerful states that they could export their "Jewish problem" to a faraway place by imposing their will on the weak, miserable and insignificant people who lived in that place. But the project had a propensity toward thievery and injustice built into it from the very start. What is happening in the settlements now is just a repetition of a primal Israeli act that has been played out all over the territorially ever-evolving Jewish state since the beginning of the Zionist project.
December 10, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan writes: "But the project had a propensity toward thievery and injustice built into it from the very start. What is happening in the settlements now is just a repetition of a primal Israeli act that has been played out all over the territorially ever-evolving Jewish state since the beginning of the Zionist project."
Dan, I was with you until this. Here you seem to veer into the thought that the Zionist enterprise is, essentially, metaphysically if you will, destined to be a thief. A thief and really nothing more. Its teleology is set at the outset in the "primal Israeli act"--the original and unexpungable sin of...coming into existence. And yet, "alas," there is a state, a fully functioning, even thriving, state. A country. With a language, with a culture, with a people.
What to do about THAT? Your metaphysical thinking excludes any possibility of a solution. And if I really were a paranoid Jew, I'd say you were into the territory of blood libel and all that.
Here's one way to look at it: America, for all the noble ideals written into her Constitution, was founded for white, Christian men who property. Slavery was written into her founding document. There was no thought of huddled masses coming to our shores to become Americans with equal rights, etc., etc.
Canada was founded as a counterpoint to, if not an outright denial of, America's ideals--though, today, one could argue that Canada does a better job living out America's promise than America herself.
I happen to think that much of what is said to be Zionism--a land for Jews, the right of return, the historic return--is the beginning of a philosophy that can evolve and mature and grow. Israel was also supposed to be a Light Unto the Nations, and if peace can be achieved, it is my hope that she still can be.
How and why a country is founded is the starting point. With luck and hard work, we evolve.
December 10, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that there is no possibility of a resolution, Tintin. But I do think that any resolution must be, in part, a permanent acquiescence on the part of Palestinians in the fact that land was taken from them by force, from the very beginning, and a sad, stoical recognition by Palestinians that they are never going to get that land back. There is no way to sugar coat this. Bernard seems to dote on romantic images of some revolutionary secular socialist glory days, with peaceful and oh-so-progressive kibbutzim dancing and building a new world on the found land of a "country without a people". But people did live in that found country, and Israel was forged from taking, ethnic cleansing and violence, and the continued taking, ethnic cleansing and violence we see today is just an extension of this.
Israel's formation in this way is not that much different than the formation of most of the other nation-states in the world. So we shouldn't portray it as especially evil, and conceived in sin, in a way other nation-states aren't. And the Zionist project is not exclusive to Jews, but is a project that has enjoyed the active participation from many non-Jews around the world. But Israel is a bit of an anomaly in the modern world, in that it is still following a pattern that was more prominent in earlier centuries, and is now widely discredited.
And I'm sorry, but I find it ludicrous even to imagine Israel becoming a "light unto the nations". Israel is a Jewish state, and so long as it exists it will be an ethnically restrictive enclave and refuge for Jews. That is its very purpose. It will be accepted by the world, but is never going to be seen by the world as a model of enlightenment, universal values and progressive cosmopolitan openness. To become such a model it would have to cease being "the state of the Jewish people." Toward what ideal would the Israeli light light the way: ethnic uniformity and exclusion?
December 10, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K writes: "And the Zionist project is not exclusive to Jews, but is a project that has enjoyed the active participation from many non-Jews around the world. But Israel is a bit of an anomaly in the modern world, in that it is still following a pattern that was more prominent in earlier centuries, and is now widely discredited."
I'm not so sure Israel is as anomalistic as you portray, unless you're just speaking of Western Europe and North America. Most other countries are built around an ethnic group. The differences are (mostly) that those ethnic groups are numerically larger and the land they occupy is larger. There is literally more room for others. Jews are and have always been a small group and Israel is a small country. Many countries, especially in the Middle East, are religiously homogenous and certainly privilege those of the reigning religion. Saudi Arabia, whom we ply with arms and aid, is the most egregious example. But Pakistan is a Muslim state as is Iran--a country whom progressives feel the US should get closer to.
To me, the small size and minority status of Jews account for many of the differences. The dominant ethnic group is generally much larger than Jews have ever been. Guess we never took seriously the commandment to be fruitful and multiply.
But there are other big differences. I can't think of another state that has been "reconstituted" with a revivified language after several thousand years of dispersal. Surely this must be unique in human history. I can't think of another country that fits this description. In people's minds, this contributes to its essential contingent nature: We saw it come into existence; we can imagine it disappearing. We can debate it, pro and con.
As you point out, America's beginnings are just as inglorious, perhaps more so. Yet because America thoroughly defeated and did away with the indigenous people...and did it a long time ago...no one considers it a crime worth sweating over. Sure it's mentioned and bemoaned, etc., etc., but no one would dream of DOING anything about it. The Native Americans were never compensated for their loss. Their nations are bantustans for sure. Their languages are dead or dying. And the same applies to the slaves who brought here: Cultures wiped out and labor stolen outright. And yet the blacks in this country have never been compensated for their loss. Not even 40 acres and a mule. These aren't even issues for America or Americans on the left, right, or center.
And the final difference is that Israel was created by people who were, essentially, thrown out of virtually every country where they tried to make their home, including their original home in Palestine. America has been unusually kind to Jews. So the need or apparent need for a safe haven from other people was a huge motivating factor in Israel's creation. The Kurds come to mind as something of a parallel, maybe the Armenians, but without the millennial itinerary.
So, I guess I would: 1) question how widely discredited or discarded the pattern is; and 2) to the degree to which Israel holds on to this pattern is, in large measure, a function of the Jewish people's unique, or let's say highly unusual, traits and historical experience. So, though Israel's journey has entailed and still entails much injustice, I can see why she is the way she is. She isn't simply clinging atavistically to an "old model."
That said, the big message of this series of threads is, Israel has to turn the page on the past and make amends for the original sin of injustice inflicted on the Palestinians.
December 11, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Israel is a Jewish state, and so long as it exists it will be an ethnically restrictive enclave and refuge for Jews. That is its very purpose. It will be accepted by the world, but is never going to be seen by the world as a model of enlightenment, universal values and progressive cosmopolitan openness."
Well, this would be an interesting discussion.
Without getting into it--too tired at the moment--I think it depends on a few things: 1) how Israel and Zionism as an ideology evolves; 2) which world you're talking about, the one populated by big groups that form majorities or small minority groups; 3) whether anti-Semitism REALLY goes bye-bye or just goes into remission; 4) whether Israel ever resolves its conflict with the Palestinians in a good way; 5) whether the "Muslim world" ever truly accepts a non-Muslim nation within its midst.
Should Israel--and the Jewish people--ever turn the page on the Holocaust that, in itself, will serve as a beacon to the world.
December 11, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mearsheimer also says:
"Burg makes it clear that he is not equating Israel's past behavior with what happened in Nazi Germany, but he does see disturbing similarities between Israel and "the Germany that preceded Hitler."
Like Burg, I want to avoid the nasty, even cruel, suggestion that Zionism is just like Nazism in its actions. But I do think it's worth examining the fact that Zionism--as a European nationalistic movement--shares common roots with Nazism and other European nationalistic movements of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Nationalism of this sort has generally been discredited in the minds of progressives, mostly because of the gross atrocities that the Nazis perpetrated against the Jews. In some ways it's bitterly ironic that the group that most brutally suffered from European ethno-centric nationalism--the Jews--now clings so fervently to ethnic nationalism in its embrace of Zionism and its intense desire to create and maintain a state that is specifically Jewish in character.
In a post yesterday, Jo-Ann Mort talked about the need to create a "modern Jewish state." I questioned whether in some ways the phrase was oxymoronic. In my mind, a modern state is a pluralistic state that recognizes the rights of individuals, but avoids any special recognition of ethnic or religious or racial groups. A Jewish state--or any nationalistic state--therefore cannot also be a modern state, at least the way I think of a modern state.
The reason nationalism is so dangerous, of course, is that it requires the separation of people into those who belong to the group (the nation) and those who are "the other". This inevitably leads to discrimination in favor of the people who belong and against the people who don't. In its extreme form, it leads to genocide as with the Nazis. In Israel, right now, it leads to an a perverse (by progressive standards) obsession with "demographics," an almost desperate need to keep Palestinian Arabs out of the polity, an aggressive belief in "Jewish national rights" superseding all Palestinian claims, and what I fear is in some ways the most tragic and yet most symbolically suggestive construction of Zionisim: the separation barrier.
Indeed, I wonder if the legacy of the Holocaust is that the sense of "otherness"--and the sense of threat associated with being other--has intensified in Jewish minds to the point where otherness is no longer seen as something to be overcome, but something to be embraced. The erection of a separation barrier then seems almost a goal, the logical end of Zionist nationalism.
December 10, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purple, I guess we could also wonder if this is the first time the Jewish embrace of otherness has so alienated others around them.
When being "The Chosen Ones" is so historically integral to the Jewish religion, is it possible that throughout history Jewish communities have been something other than perfect victims of bigoted persecution in at least some cases?
Any glimpse at the Talmud certainly raises some eyebrows. And were some less dogmatic Jews in these historical communities sometimes dismissed as "anti-religious," as YBD has done to Dr. Avishai?
December 10, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purple writes: "But I do think it's worth examining the fact that Zionism--as a European nationalistic movement--shares common roots with Nazism and other European nationalistic movements of the late 1800s and early 1900s."
Tintin: But you don't have to go all the way to Naziism. Think of La France. Think of England. Think of any country whose people are proud of it, proud of what it means to be an_____. I'm sorry, Purple, NO ONE EVER calls the French racist for proclaiming Vive La France or the English for their gratitude that "there will always be England." To be sure, these sentiments have become somewhat muted, but largely because these peoples, if you will, formed large majorities. There were a lot of them. So if they just sat there, one sort of had to accept them. The minority, the small people, ALWAYS have to struggle for a place in the sun. And for the Jews, it's always been a matter-- ooh, they're bad for keeping themselves apart--or, ooh, they're bad because they're too much with us and own all the banks, and all the Hollywood studios, and all the newspapers.
Nationalism of this sort has generally been discredited in the minds of progressives, mostly because of the gross atrocities that the Nazis perpetrated against the Jews.
Tintin: I don't know about this. I think it's just changed colors. And a LOT depends on who you count as a "progressive." If you go to Steve Clemons' Blog, ostensibly frequented, mostly, by "progressives," you will hear outcries about all the Mexicans coming across our borders and taking up hospital beds and school desks. Erstwhile progressives in Western Europe get very edgy, even violent, when too many Muslims enter. Austria still seems to be the hotbed of the racial version of this discomfort, but what's the difference in the end? You can still get a LOT of people fired up about what America's official language is.
In some ways it's bitterly ironic that the group that most brutally suffered from European ethno-centric nationalism--the Jews--now clings so fervently to ethnic nationalism in its embrace of Zionism and its intense desire to create and maintain a state that is specifically Jewish in character.
Tintin: I don't know if it's ironic. After a while, one gets the message: Unless you've got a country of your own; unless you're the majority in that country, your views and desires and safety can be swept away. Probably starts with an innocuous question like, "Why do the Jews own all the banks and newspapers?" In Israel, no one's asking why Jews own newspapers. If anything, they're asking, "Shouldn't we have more Arab-owned newspapers"?
December 10, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the questions prompted by Burg's book is, "Does Israel have legitimacy if relentless persecution of Jewry worldwide is... not so relentless?" It seems, more and more, that the Holocaust was (as someone described 9/11) an event, not a condition. But a homeland for Jews is vital only if Jews face constant danger of persecution and worse; I can't think of a part of the world where this is happening, and, yet, Jews live... everywhere. At some point, history must become history. Past tense. Experience is a marvelous instruction manual for the present and a rough blueprint for the future. But obsession with the past, inability to reference history in its proper perspective, rigs the present and future as distortions of yesterday's glories and triumphs, long-ago misdeeds and grudges - real and imagined. The years cannot be peeled back and the astonishing tragedy of the Holocaust made to disappear; but, at some point, even an atrocity so vast, so world-changing, must become part of history, and referenced as such. For too long, Jewish suffering in World War II has been the crucial filter for Western policy regarding the Middle East. And it has been the expedient for Israel's transgressions. If we've learned anything in the past 60 years, it's that suffering and persecution inures no one from becoming tormentors themselves.
December 10, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
SFC writes: "One of the questions prompted by Burg's book is, "Does Israel have legitimacy if relentless persecution of Jewry worldwide is... not so relentless?" It seems, more and more, that the Holocaust was (as someone described 9/11) an event, not a condition. But a homeland for Jews is vital only if Jews face constant danger of persecution and worse; I can't think of a part of the world where this is happening, and, yet, Jews live... everywhere."
This is an interesting point. Is anti-Semitism an "eternal" scourge? Obviously, no one knows. The future can't be predicted. It's worth pointing out, however, that the Holocaust was the culmination of thousands of years of anti-Semitism and persecution. Most Zionist theorists long pre-dated the Holocaust. And even in the sunny climes of the Muslim world, the Jews lived as dhimmis, or second-class citizens. Not the worst thing in the world, mind you, but no one likes it. And as I understand it, every so often, the Arabs got pissed off at the Jews and killed a few. Message: You're not us; you don't belong here; and it doesn't matter how long you've lived here.
But while we're on the topic of whether a homeland for the Jews is "vital"...why not ask whether a homeland for the Palestinians "vital"? Unlike the Jews of Europe, the Palestinians speak the same language as their neighbors the Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis, Jordanians, Egyptians, Saudis. They can even converse with Moroccans. They share (mostly) the same religion, again, unlike the Jews of Europe. Culturally, they're quite similar, certainly much more similar than Jews were to their European and even Arab neighbors. Why can't the Palestinians pick up and move to some place, as Purple might put it, with "the Muslim world." You know, where they'll be greeted and welcomed by their co-religionists as one of their own?
I mean, let's face it, the Jews did just that every century or so. Got kicked out of Palestine before it was "Palestine." Got kicked out of Spain. Got kicked out of Eastern Europe. Got kicked out of every Arab country they ever lived in. Heck, even when I was growing up in Connecticut, there were whole towns we couldn't move to on account of that "gentlemen's agreement."
Anyway, I thought your point was interesting and a good thought experiment...
December 10, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that a "homeland" for Palestinians is not vital. I have never been moved much by the saga of dueling "nations" and "national aspirations" in Israel/Palestine. The world's interest in preventing the expulsion of Palestinians from Palestine, and in ending the permanent thwarting of Palestinian efforts to form a political community, is to take a stand against the "acquisition of territory by force", the central point of UN 242. And the world should also take a stand in favor of the political self-determination of the people who happen live on and possess territory, whether those people are a "nation", or just a bunch of guys names "Ahmad" and "Muhammad" who want to form a state on the land on which they live.
December 10, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that a "homeland" for Palestinians is not vital.
...Unless you happen to be a Palestinian. And that's the nut of the matter: These questions matter most to the people who live there, but they affect us all. As a non-Jew, I care about Israel's future not at all. And the same for any future Palestinian homeland. But as an American, in concerns me that we help fund Israel's policy - political and military (if there's a difference) - to the tune of billions of dollars a year, plus direct aid in the form of arms and strategic intelligence.
This links us to the conflict, if only insofar as Israel's perennial enemies see us as its indispensible ally - and so their foe. In this respect, Palestine becomes vital to me - and the security of my own future - regardless of whether a homeland for this much put-upon people is as trendy a cause as Darfur.
December 11, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2008/12/bernard-avishai-defends-racism-but-only.html
The point is, these features made a kind of awful sense in 1951, which were revolutionary times.
Spin it as you like, this is plainly an endorsement of institutional racism. Moreover, the regime of privilege was not a one-off event. It was not a crime committed in the heat of battle. Avishai describes precisely the creation of structures of racism that would exist for a very long time (this is what writing racist laws and creating racist institutions is about). He is saying that in "revolutionary times" it makes sense it is right for groups to seize the opportunity to create racist structures that would enshrine their privilege. What next, will Avishai care to discuss the times when antisemitism in Europe also made sense?
How about slavery? Was that O.K. in the revolutionary times of the U.S. war of independence? Inquiring minds want to know.
In the process, Avishai effectively says that is expelling 750,000 Palistinians and giving their land for the exlusive use of Jews "made a kind of awful sense in 1951."
How does he say that? First, the land policies he refers too were there for reason, to legitimize and institutionalize the armed robbery and expulsion that took place in 1947-1940, and to create a new regime of land ownership based on settlements that would make the return of the refugees moot and the expulsion irreversible. To ignore the expulsion but justify its institutionalization is what the Prophet Eliahu calls in Kings 21 "to kill and then claim the inheritence." (Haratzakhta gam yarashta?").
But if this isn't enough, Avishai chooses language that directly puts him in the lineage of the transfer idea in Zionist thought. Discussing the possibility of "transfer," Ben Gurion explained his theory of historical action in the late 30s thus: "What is inconceivable in normal times is possible in revolutionary times." The war of 1948 provided the necessary revolutionary times and Ben Gurion indeed seized the opportunity. I cannot imagine Avishai is unaware of this famous quote (although maybe he is, which is a different kind of problem). It sounds like a clear allusion to me.
Revolutionary times may return. And one shudders to think what more atrocities nice people like Avishai will again be compelled to approve.
December 10, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's called a dilemma. We all living in America, but we essentially removed the original inhabitants. We don't want to give the land back, do we? So we create a Foundation Myth. For Avishai to think differently about Zion, he would undo Israel's Foundation Myth. That's a lot to ask of anyone.
December 10, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what, evildoer? Here's the bottom, and here I have to sort of disagree with my friend, Mythbuster. Despite all the writings and doings of the Zionist leaders, Israel would not have been created, IMO, if millions of European Jews hadn't been fleeing for their lives and convinced that NO country that was ever going to serve as a home for them.
That's not a founding myth; that's a founding reality. And it's not a reality based on a relatively short period in Jewish history (the Holocaust), but on millennia of experience. The Jews didn't wake up one day and say, like Andy Hardy, "Hey, let's put on a country somewhere."
December 10, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"He is saying that in "revolutionary times" it makes sense it is right for groups to seize the opportunity to create racist structures that would enshrine their privilege."
No. What he's saying--my interpretation--is when you're fleeing for your life and you have good reason to believe that NO PLACE ON EARTH is going to give you a place where you can live as an equal citizen, free from the fear of losing your life and lesser necessities...you put into place institutions and laws that will protect you.
December 10, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is that Foundation Myth becomes the justification for prior actions, it is not the real explanation for them. The myth of "a land without a people for a people without a land" was a rationalization for the Zionist project. It's the kind of lie a person has to tell a people with a conscience so they can go along.
I totally get the Jews wanting a refuge. That is not the point. Jews wanting safety is totally understandable. Creating a myth about Palestine--and subsequently merging Palestinians into Nazism to support that myth--is something else entirely.
And before some genius mentions the Grand Mufti supporting Hitler, let me say this: Eamonn de Valera, the PM of Eire (Ireland) paid his respects at the German Embassy after Hitler's death and was completely "neutral" during WWII. For some reason, I don't think a serious person would argue that the Catholic Irish got what they derserved in Ulster because of de Valera.
You know, the Grand Mufti and de Valera had something in common: They both wanted the British off their land.
December 10, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"More than two million Jews fled for their lives from the Pale of Settlement and reached the land of the free and the home of the brave before the U.S passed its immigration laws."
Not at all. My family falls into that category. They were NOT fleeing for their lives. And then, doors closed in any event.
So, what does THAT show? When the chips are down, the US and Canada close their doors?
Look, it's pretty clear that Jews disagreed about what to do about "the Jewish question." There were no clear cut answers. The Zionists had one answer. The Bundists another. Others who decided to go elsewhere had another. And of course many ended up dying.
But there is a reason that a whole lot of folks thought it was better, safer to go to Palestine and, unfortunately, America or other "enlightened" options weren't there.
As to your second post, well, I chose to interpret Avishai's remarks and said so. So did you too, but you don't admit to it. You prefer to think you're bringing "the truth" just repeat yourself in bold-face.
You're welcome to your views on Zionism...but I wouldn't confuse them with the truth.
December 10, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Myth, the last post was not in response to yours.
I think it's very unlikely that Avishai believes the foundational myth of a "land without people"; nor does he merge Palestinians into Nazis. Certainly nothing in this post leads me to believe that and nothing I've read of his does either. Nor do I think this myth enters into the logic of what he's saying here.
You seem to be adding these to his argument...
December 10, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ireland was neutral in World War II. The Mufti was an active participant on the side of Nazi Germany and he was an active participant in the Holocaust. Now, if you are going to give us the line that "well, its understandble because Zionism...."
December 11, 2008 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin,
This is not the time to teach you the history of Palestine and or Zionism. You are typically clueless.
More than two million Jews fled for their lives from the Pale of Settlement and reached the land of the free and the home of the brave before the U.S passed its immigration laws. Somehow, it didn't occur to them that in order to protect themselves they should expel the locals, take their land and build racist institutions for their "protection". I wish they did, so that you wouldn't be so smug with other people's rights and liberties.
There are more rationalizations for racism than there are racists, but even I have to admit that "Hitler made me do it" is one of the best ever conceived.
December 10, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"More than two million Jews fled for their lives from the Pale of Settlement and reached the land of the free and the home of the brave before the U.S passed its immigration laws."
Not at all. My family falls into that category. They were NOT fleeing for their lives. And then, doors closed in any event.
So, what does THAT show? When the chips are down, the US and Canada close their doors?
Look, it's pretty clear that Jews disagreed about what to do about "the Jewish question." There were no clear cut answers. The Zionists had one answer. The Bundists another. Others who decided to go elsewhere had another. And of course many ended up dying.
But there is a reason that a whole lot of folks thought it was better, safer to go to Palestine and, unfortunately, America or other "enlightened" options weren't there.
As to your second post, well, I chose to interpret Avishai's remarks and said so. So did you, but you don't admit to it. You just repeat yourself in bold-face.
You're welcome to your views on Zionism...but I wouldn't confuse them with the truth.
December 10, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. What he's saying--my interpretation--
Interpretation is not "it means whatever I want."
He is saying discriminatory land policy privileging Jewish settlement,
Now you can spin it, justify it, excuse it, explain it, discount it, hoopa hoola around it, but the stench is going to stay.
December 10, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
As to your second post, well, I chose to interpret Avishai's remarks and said so. So did you, but you don't admit to it. You just repeat yourself in bold-face.
There is a tradition of interpretation as apologetics, and you certainly fit. But I wasn't repeating myself in boldface. i was quoting Avishai in boldface. So let me quote again.
discriminatory land policy privileging Jewish settlement....made a kind of awful sense in 1951.
Now you can keep trying to explain why building racist institutions and enacting racist laws was the right things to do in 1951. I'm just pointing out that both you and Avishai are making excuses for racism. And your response to me is essentially that these are indeed excellent excuses. I take it. These are indeed the best excuses ever concocted for racism.
As long as we are clear however that they are still excuses for racism.
December 10, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is also a tradition of narrowing the focus of the point to get the conclusion you're after. And avoiding the points on which you lose. I'd say you're guilty of that.
If you want to call it racism and have done with it--fine. I'm glad you're able to live in a world in which all the pieces fit so nicely.
December 10, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to call it racism and have done with it--fine.
I'm glad that we can agree that taking resources by force from native Palestinians and giving them to Jews, discriminating in the allocation of and access to resources on the basis of European origin and Jewishness, and creating legal and administrative structures whose major function is securing and perpetuating inequalities in resource allocation between Jews, especially European Jews, and native Palestinians, is racism.
I guess that's progress. Now that we both agree that you are making excuses for racism, we can look at the quality of these excuses in more details.
But there is a reason that a whole lot of folks thought it was better, safer to go to Palestine and, unfortunately, America or other "enlightened" options weren't there.
There is the minor fact that even in 1947 many Jews did not want to go to Palestine to fight Arabs and many were forced to do that by violence, deception and coercion. See http://www.intheshadowoftheholocaust.com/
There is the less minor fact, that discrimination against Palestinians, their exclusions from resources such as land and access to labor markets has been a fundamental aspect of Zionism since at least 1910. This is so well documented that I'll assume you either know it or refuse to know it. Therefore whatever happened in Europe in 1940 is not necessary for explaining the racist legal and administrative infrastructure erected in Israel in 1951. This racist infrastructure was already imagined and anticipated in action in the twenties and thirties. It happened in 1951 because they finally had the power to do it, not because of new needs created by the holocaust.
On the contrary, the most important result of the holocaust for Zionism was the grudging acceptance that with so many European Jews dead, "inferior" non-European Jews will have to be recruited as substitute. So to an extent, the holocaust forced the Zionist leadership to be a tiny bit less racist than their original intention was.
December 11, 2008 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
f you want to call it racism and have done with it--fine.
I'm glad that we can agree that taking resources by force from native Palestinians and giving them to Jews, discriminating in the allocation of and access to resources on the basis of European origin and Jewishness, and creating legal and administrative structures whose major function is securing and perpetuating inequalities in resource allocation between Jews, especially European Jews, and native Palestinians, is racism.
Tintin: Sorry, no agreement here. I tend not to agree with tendentious arguments whose purpose is to assume/force my agreement. Kind of a procedural thing. If you want to try that on some other folks, I'm sure you'll find TPM a target-rich environment. Lots of "racists" to train your sights on.
I guess that's progress. Now that we both agree that you are making excuses for racism, we can look at the quality of these excuses in more details.
Tintin: Same response.
But there is a reason that a whole lot of folks thought it was better, safer to go to Palestine and, unfortunately, America or other "enlightened" options weren't there.
There is the minor fact that even in 1947 many Jews did not want to go to Palestine to fight Arabs and many were forced to do that by violence, deception and coercion. See http://www.intheshadowoftheholocaust.com/
Tintin: So? Many Jews DID. I've never argued that Zionism was the only reasonable response a Jew could have made to "the Jewish question." There has always been, until recently, a LOT of controversy about Zionism within the Jewish community. Were bad things done in the name of Zionism? Yes, but so what? Jews tend not to agree about a lot of things.
There is the less minor fact, that discrimination against Palestinians, their exclusions from resources such as land and access to labor markets has been a fundamental aspect of Zionism since at least 1910. This is so well documented that I'll assume you either know it or refuse to know it. Therefore whatever happened in Europe in 1940 is not necessary for explaining the racist legal and administrative infrastructure erected in Israel in 1951. This racist infrastructure was already imagined and anticipated in action in the twenties and thirties. It happened in 1951 because they finally had the power to do it, not because of new needs created by the holocaust.
Tintin: I'm sorry; minus the Holocaust, Israel simply doesn't come into being. Nor does what you say mitigate against the goal--providing a safe haven, a place where a Jew could be a Jew-- as the driving force behind Zionism based on an analysis of where Jews stood in the world.
On the contrary, the most important result of the holocaust for Zionism was the grudging acceptance that with so many European Jews dead, "inferior" non-European Jews will have to be recruited as substitute. So to an extent, the holocaust forced the Zionist leadership to be a tiny bit less racist than their original intention was.
Tintin: Then again, a LOT of them were pushed out of their native lands. Why no compensation for them?
Here's the bottom line: If your point at the end of the day is that Zionism is ESSENTIALLY and IRREDEMIABLY racist, then you and are NOT going to agree. If your point is that Israel has to change its actions, policies and attitudes going forward, then we can agree. But unlike you, I don't care if we agree or not.
December 11, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink