Key Zionist pioneer renounces Zionism
I've never met Dov Yermiya, a Jewish Israeli peace activist who is now 94 years old. But I read of course the book he published in 1983 in which he wrote with anguish about the torture and other gross mistreatment of civilians he witnessed directly during Israel's invasion of Lebanon the year before.
I have it in my hand now.
I just learned, in this open letter published today by Uri Avnery, that Yermiya, recently renounced the ideology and practice of Zionism with these stirring words:
I, a 95 year old Sabra (native born Israeli Jew), who has plowed its fields, planted trees, built a house and fathered sons, grandsons and great-grandsons, and also shed his blood in the battle for the founding of the State of Israel,Declare herewith that I renounce my belief in the Zionism which has failed, that I shall not be loyal to the Jewish fascist state and its mad visions, that I shall not sing anymore its nationalist anthem, that I shall stand at attention only on the days of mourning for those fallen on both sides in the wars, and that I look with a broken heart at an Israel that is committing suicide and at the three generations of offspring that I have bred and raised in it.
... for 42 years, Israel turned what should have been Palestine into a giant detention camp, and is holding a whole people captive under an oppressive and cruel regime, with the sole aim of taking away their country, come what may!!!The IDF eagerly suppresses their efforts at rebellion, with the active assistance of the settlement thugs, by the brutal means of a sophisticated Apartheid and a choking blockade, inhuman harassment of the sick and of women in labor, the destruction of their economy and the theft of their best land and water.
Over all this there is waving the black flag of the frightening contempt for the life and blood of the Palestinians. Israel will never be forgiven for the terrible toll of blood spilt, and especially the blood of children, in hair-raising quantities...
Avnery's response is fascinating. He too is a veteran peace activist, and of about the same generation as Yermiya. But in the letter he is, I think, pleading with Yermiya not to renounce Zionism completely, but rather to reconnect with the "idealistic" Zionism that they both experienced during their youth.
He writes,
When I think of our youth, yours and mine, one scene is never far from my mind: the 1947 Dalia festival.Tens of thousands of young men and women were sitting on the slope of a hill in the natural amphitheater near Kibbutz Dalia on Mount Carmel. Ostensibly it was a festival of folk dancing, but in reality it was much more - a great celebration of the new Hebrew culture which we were then creating in the country, in which folk dancing played an important role. The dancing groups came mainly from the kibbutzim and the youth movements, and the dances were original Hebrew creations, interwoven with Russian, Polish, Yemenite and Hassidic ones. A group of Arabs danced the Debka in ecstasy, dancing and dancing and dancing on.
In the middle of the event, the loudspeakers announced that members of the UN Commission of Inquiry, which had been sent by the international organization to decide upon the future of the country, were joining us. When we saw them entering the amphitheater, the tens of thousands spontaneously rose to their feet and started to sing the "Hatikva", the national anthem, with a holy fervor that reverberated from the surrounding mountains.
We did not know then that within half a year the great Hebrew-Arab war would break out - our War of Independence and their Naqba. I believe that most of the 6000 young people who fell in the war on our side, as well as the thousands that were wounded - like you and me - were present at that moment in Dalia, seeing each other and singing together.
What state did we think of then? What state did we set out to create?
What has happened to the Hebrew society, the Hebrew culture, the Hebrew morality that we were so proud of then?
Then, he pleads this:
You, Dov, have invested in this state much too much to turn your back on it in a gesture of anger and despair. The most hackneyed and worn-out slogan in Israel is also true: "We don't have another state!"Other states in the world have sunk to the depths of depravity and committed unspeakable crimes, far beyond our worst sins, and still brought themselves back to the family of nations and redeemed their souls.
We and all the members of our generation, who were among those who created this state, bear a heavy responsibility for it. A responsibility to our offspring, to those oppressed by this state, to the entire world. From this responsibility we cannot escape.
Even at your respectable age, and precisely because of it and because of what you represent, you must be a compass for the young and tell them: This state belongs to you, you can change it, don't allow the nationalist wreckers to steal it from you!
True, 61 years ago we had another state in mind. Now, after our state has tumbled to where it is today, we must remember that other state, and remind everybody, every day, what the state should have been like, what it can be like, and not allow our vision to disappear like a dream. Let's lend our shoulders to every effort to repair and heal!
These are very weighty issues that these two longtime Zionists are debating.
I remember the evening I had back in early March with longtime Jewish-Israeli nonviolence activist Amos Gvirtz. Gvirtz is "only" in his late 60s or early 70s. But like Avnery and Yermiya he grew up in Israel.
He told me in March,
I became an anti-Zionist after Oslo, when the government expelled the Arabs of Jahhaleenn to make room for the big new settlement area if Maale Adummim... Like the Zionists, I believe we Jews need a state of our own. But unlike the Zionists I don't think this should be built on the ruins of someone else's home. So our state need not necessarily be right here.
Gvirtz, too, like Avnery, identified a strong link between the events of 1947-48 and the situation today-- though the nature of the link Gvirtz identified was very different from Avnery's: "The Nakba wasn't really a single event that happened in 1948, so much as a long-drawn-out process, that continues to this day." In other words, he was quite unwilling to neatly divide Israeli history, as Avnery still does, between the idealized, pre-lapsarian days of the 1947 Dalia festival and the post-lapsarian era that was inaugurated-- in Avnery's view-- only by Israel's conquest of the West Bank.
Obviously, this is a very weighty issue for Zionists and their supporters to grapple with. Did 1967 mark a notable break between a laudable past and a troublesome present? Or were there indeed, as Gvirtz and many other current non- and anti-Zionists have argued, many elements of continuity from the 1947 period right through to the present?
Anyway, I'd love to see the whole text of the latest Yermiya letter from which Avnery is quoting, if anyone can provide a link to it, preferably in English. The only recent English text that I could find by him online was this letter, published in the Communist weekly Zo Haderekh in June 2008.
In it, Yermiya was returning to Defense Minister Barak the invitation he had been sent to attend a ceremony to honor all veterans of Israel's 1948 "War of Independence".
He wrote,
As a veteran of the 1948 war, who was already wounded in face to face combat two weeks before the Declaration of the State, I feel obliged herewith to return the invitation to you, as Minister of Defence. I do so regretfully but see this as my duty.I consider you, Ehud Barak, as one of the top military commanders and prominent political leaders who were responsible for converting the army from "the Israeli Defence Force" to an army of occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people and defender of the criminal settlements in their country.
40 years of occupation have utterly corrupted the Israeli army and all strata of Israeli society.They are both characterized by the nationalist 'east wind' [the east wind brings the chamsin and locusts - C.A.] which blows and kindles conflagrations of endless wars, which threaten our people and land with the third and final destruction. Your share in the responsibility for all this is enormous, and therefore I return your invitation to you, without thanks...

















Bless Dov Yermia; what an astounding and timely change. "that I shall not sing anymore its national anthem..." created such a strong mind-picture.
Great column, Helena; thank you.
August 5, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I consider you, Ehud Barak, as one of the top military commanders and prominent political leaders who were responsible for converting the army from "the Israeli Defence Force" to an army of occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people and defender of the criminal settlements in their country."
EHUD BARAK, who is the current Israeli Defence Minister, needs to be apprehended, indicted and brought before the International Criminal Court in the Hague, together with the then prime minister EHUD OLMERT, both to answer charges of war crimes against the civilian population of Gaza in December 2008 and January 2009 in which over three hundred children and one hundred of their mothers were allegedly killed by heavily armed IDF troops under their command. It is alleged that the IDF used Palestinian civilian as human shields during their attack.
August 5, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid Dov Yermia is exactly right. They're sowing the seeds of their own destruction. It won't be the current generation in power that suffers. It will be their grandchildren who suffer the third and final destruction, for the sins of their fathers.
The only way a nation that has committed horrible atrocities ever redeems itself is by instituting a democratic government for all its citizens, with equal rights for everyone living within the borders.
August 5, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
As someone who is deeply worried by what I perceive as the self-destructive course the Israeli government is on, I'm troubled by the ease with which you consign a whole people to its "third and final destruction."
August 5, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Josh, I'm a an American Jew who is also very critical of many Israeli policies and attitudes. But your blog's commentators continually blast Israel as if it's worse than Nazi Germany was. You really need to offer more balance than MJ Rosenberg. I'm a fan of this blog, the first I read each morning, but you really need to do something about the anti-semitic rhetoric.
August 5, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear hear. I've been banging that drum for quite a while. It's profoundly disturbing that nearly the entire discussion (with the exception of Bernard Avishai and Joanne Mort) has been given over to those who do not merely criticize Israel's policies but rather seek to de-legitimize its very existence. The preening clowns over at Mondoweiss are perhaps the most extreme example, but hardly the only one. (I haven't seen them here for a while - hopefully, the editorial staff at TPM came to its senses). Oddly enough, it is often in the same breath that these folks mock Israel for overestimating the threats it faces while at the same time predicting (often with a barely concealed hint of glee) its imminent demise.
MJ Rosenberg is an interesting creature. In a comment on his recent blog, I posed some questions, the answers to which would seem self-evident to a professed supporter of Israel who is employed by an eminently sensible organization that while recognizing Israel's fallibility and mistakes strongly reaffirms its right to exist. Nothing in MJ's blogs or comments indicates that he shares this sober and balanced approach. To the contrary, he frequently mocks any attempt to question the one-sided narrative while making common cause with the most strident Israel-wrong-or-just-plain-evil commenters.
Here is the question. Needless to say, I haven't received an answer, although Artappraiser came through with a credible explanation.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/04/robert_kaplan_former_neocon_former_idf_soldiers_wa/#comment-3550371
August 5, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only time I see Israel being compared to NAZI Germany is by supporters. It really is a tired canard that the only motivation for criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism.
If Josh Marshall is 'anti-Semitic' then the term has no meaning any more.
What you are really saying is 'I don't have an argument, I don't have an excuse, but I really would not like to see my belief system challenged so I will try to find excuses to ignore the problem and hope it goes away'.
What happens in Saudi Arabia or Iran or Zimbabwe is utterly irrelevant to the argument here. The US does not provide any of those countries with aid, it has little to no cultural influence. The very fact that Israel has to compare itself to such countries is itself a terrible indictment of the system there.
These are the tactics of agenda denial. If you know you are going to lose an argument you try to avoid it by arguing that this is not the right time, or that something else should take higher priority.
Netanyahu's claim that the US should not consider the settlement issue while Iran is building a nuclear bomb is a classic example of agenda denial.
August 5, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric did not say that TPM commentators compare Israel to Nazi Germany - although there are no shortage of those comparisons in the "comments." Rather, his point is that the overwhelming majority of commentators singlemindedly and relentlessly focus on the moral failings of Israel. To my mind, this is not warranted by either the magnitude of Israel's failings, many of which I acknowledge, or the fact that Israel receives a disproportionate share of US aid. Nor is the criticism directed solely at Israel's policies. Increasingly, the talk has tended to question Israel's legitimacy, and reviving the notion that Isreali nationalism, among all the national movements in the world, is somehow uniquely racist.
August 5, 2009 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where to begin? Where to begin?
If Israel is being compared to Nazi Germany (and as I mentioned above, the featured commentators on the Cafe are far too sophisticated for that), it is a vicious slander that can only be explained by racism (since you apparently take issue with the term antisemitism). Several million innocent civilians were systematically humiliated and purposely slaughtered for purely racist reasons under Nazi rule? It is for good reason that the Nazis are regarded as a uniquely evil political movement in modern history. In the course of 60 years, how many Arabs have died as a result of this tragic ongoing struggle with Israel over a tiny spit of land? Indeed, even accepting the (false, in my view) one-sided narrative in which Israel is invariably the aggressor, the scale of Israel's alleged crimes is hardly remarkable among other conflicts that pass with hardly a mention by the same folks so fixated upon Israel. But when it comes to Israel, the numbers don't seem to matter. Sorry, but I just don't buy the justification that it's because of US aid.
I've been to Israel many times and though I have not been to the territories, I don't need to speak to the inhabitants to know that many have suffered a historic injustice that has been perpetuated for decades - an injustice for which Israel is partly to blame. But you must also be aware that the overwhelming majority of the current refugees never set foot inside what is now Israel. So too, the overwhelming majority were not displaced by new arrivals. True, some were expelled by the nascent State of Israel. Far more fled the fighting that broke out when the Arab population of British Palestine and the neighboring countries rejected partition and declared war, a war that continues to this day. The countries to which they fled did not renounce hostilities and seek their return to a democratic state. Nor (with the partial exception of Jordan) did they absorb and assimilate the refugees, as Israel did with the hundreds of thousands driven from Arab countries in which they had lived for many generations.
Finally, while I agree the Palestinians have legitimate historic grievances and that Israel bears its share of responsibility for their plight, the reality is that a return to 1947 is out of the question. Acceptance of this would go a long way to ending the conflict.
August 6, 2009 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
This was intended for Trumanbaby.
August 6, 2009 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"What happens in Saudi Arabia or Iran or Zimbabwe is utterly irrelevant to the argument here. The US does not provide any of those countries with aid, it has little to no cultural influence."
What an extraordinary uninformed statement to make. I don't know if the author is anti-semitic or simply ignorant, but this simply is not true.
The fact is that the US has given more aid to Saudi Arabia than it has to Israel. This is a documented fact. The US, in fact, always makes sure that every time they give weapons to one side in the conflict the other side also gets more weapons too. That way they can keep the war going and justify their arms spending and desire to interfere in the middle east. It's American oil money which keeps the Saudi family in power, and it's the Saudi family which keeps the war and anti-semitism going. It's time that people acknowledge the truth: that the US is controlled by the Arab oil money, and the oil lobby. The only concern of Obama and his cabal is keeping the oil going. They could care less about either the Jews or the Palestinians. They are all Christians, and Christians simply don't respect other religions.
On another matter, it's Josh Marshall's site. If he knowingly and continuingly allows anti-semitic sentiments to be published here, and never objects, then he is, by definition, anti-semitic. Like most on the formerly left now right these days.
August 6, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric..may I remind you that Arabs are Semites? If Israel is being compared to Nazi Germany, then perhaps it would be more constructive for you to look a lot harder at why this is happening?
How many times have you been to Israel..or do you just sit here and go with the propaganda flow? If you've gone, how much time have you spent listening to the Palestinian Arabs who have been displaced from their ancestral farms and cities, held in their families for thousands of years..while a gaggle of European and other transplanted Jews move in and take over?
I don't recognize anyone's religious mythology as justification for displacing another established culture! Fine..let there be an Israel, but there had better be a Palestine, as well..and recognition of the full rights of the many actual historical inhabitants..whose ancestors may well have pre-dated the arrival of the Hebrews!
Finally..if you were, in this country, being treated the same way the Palestinian Arabs have been, just how long would you stand for it? We never gave them the opportunity to form their own government on their own terms..it was all dictated to them by the Brits and the U.S. and rubber stamped by the UN, when all was said and done. Not exactly the "American Way", my friend!
August 5, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
See immediately above.
August 6, 2009 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
August 5, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Josh, I was quoting Dov.
August 6, 2009 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Key American religious leader, the President's pastor renounces US:
So? What's the big deal?
August 5, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, the big deal is, already, that we are referring to lives, real lives, real people, real children, real women and horrific real death.
You refer to a single word. That's real good stuff. Maybe I'll write my dissertation on that idea.
August 5, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I renounce my belief in the Zionism which has failed,..."
Me too, although I retain my faith in the Zionism that might yet succeed.
" that I shall not be loyal to the Jewish fascist state and its mad visions,"
Me too, although I think there is a meaningful difference between a state that is wholly fascistic and one that is governed by parties with fascistic tendencies... Israel is the latter, and thus is not yet a "fascist state" in the sense that others have succumbed. There is an opposition and I stand with them.
"... that I shall not sing anymore its nationalist anthem,"
Well nobody likes national anthems except fascists, right? So this supporter of Zionism is with you on that.
" that I shall stand at attention only on the daysof mourning for those fallen on both sides in the wars,"
A fine idea.
" and that I look with a broken heart at an Israel that is committing suicide and at the three generations of offspring that I have bred and raised in it."
Many of us share your broken heart...
Being in despair about what Israel has become and what it is doing does not lead only to a renunciation of "Zionism."
Here's a Zionist proposition... the Jews have a right to be there historically, and regardless of history, because increasingly that is where they were born, and that right is not exclusive to the Jews, but by the same logic extends to the Palestinians as well. I call that a sound Zionist argument and one to which I subscribe.
Sure Zionism has not succeeded... sure Zionism is in a state of failure... but at its core Zionism has never meant more than to claim for the Jews the basic right of national self determination. Anyone who claims that has NECESSARILY meant denial of that right to the Arabs is betraying, to my mind, Zionism.
Zionism is just the Jewish manifestation of the universal principle of national self determination and self defense, a principle that the Palestinians also claim, as well they should. That's all it's ever meant to me.
So far we haven't worked out how to reconcile competing claims, but I'll never surrender my belief in the rights of people's to attempt to exercise those claims, and thus my belief in the legitimacy of Zionism and Palestinian Nationalism.
Zionism isn't the solution, nor is Palestinian Nationalism, but they are the historical streams that will ultimately need to be reconciled and be part of the solution.
My Zionism is founded on universal principles that every liberal and open minded person should subscribe too. The problem is that Zionism isn't enough... no nationalism is. The larger challenge is integrating realized nationalisms into larger inter-ethnic and inter-national communities. That solution will not be "Zionist" and it will not be "Palestinian Nationalist", but it damn well better contain and represent and validate those things or it doesn't stand a chance.
August 5, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a damn thoughtful comment.
As someone who shares a broken heart I'd love to see you expand on that and maybe even take a stab at how to reconcile the competing claims. Do you think that the current state structures of the respective parties allows for the neccessary integration into a larger inter-ethnic community? What would need to change? What could create the impetus to make those changes? I know that's an impossible question but I'd be curious to know your thoughts.
August 5, 2009 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first step towards peace is to forget the issue of states and territories entirely.
Instead consider what the conditions for a stable peace would have to be. Could peace be sustained if the law continues to be different for Jews and non Jews?
In particular, can there be peace if a person with Jewish ancestry has an automatic right to Israeli citizenship while a person born within the territorial boundaries is denied citizenship because they fled in fear of massacre by the Irgun?
Or can there be any hope of peace if Jews are denied the right to live in Bethlehem or Hebron.
If there is going to be peace then both sides are going to have to live within a very narrow territorial district regardless of where the boundaries are drawn. And both sides are going to have to undertake not to visit petty discriminations against the other or any peace will quickly collapse.
Conventional US wisdom is that the borders of the two state solution are the only thing to be discussed. But the borders only matter because of the real fear of discrimination that both sides must face as a minority. And nobody who is caught the wrong side of any proposed border is going to accept it when that means being humiliated as a permanent minority.
The reason Israel supporters are so upset about the focus being put on their petty Apartheid system within their borders is that they know that they cannot defend it. Very few Israelis will even defend it, they attempt to deny it instead or start desperately trying to change the subject, as if the actions of the PLO or the Stern gang or Hamas or the Irgun were not all precisely as bad.
Dismantling the petty injustices must be the starting point for any peace process.
August 5, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
August 5, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good comments, but is so discouraging to see us still 'starting the peace process'.
I hope you take a look at mike2's comments below.
August 6, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been around this mess too long to offer solutions.... but not long enough to believe they might not be found.
Broadly speaking, there will be two states each with majority populations and minority populations, agreeing to disagree over Jerusalem in a way that leaves each sides claims seeming to be realized.
From a position of realized ethno-national states... "a good divorce" (but with shared custody of the "kids"... the minority Arabs in Israel, and frankly at this point in time, necessarily, the minority Jews in the West Bank), it will be possible to begin to build toward the future of a reality of individual rights in the context of the overall binational "regime" in the Land of Israel/ Historic Palestine.
However, I distinguish my approach not as "post-Zionist" or "post-nationalist" but rather as perhaps "trans-Zionist" and "trans-nationalist" in that I believe that the path toward the world of individual rights and real cultural peace flows through the realization of Palestinian Nationalism and Zionism, and not around them or over them.
There is a lot of nonsense floated about a "single democratic state" that is just one sided Palestinian Nationalist Triumphalism, much like many forms of Zionist Triumphalism.
Mutual nationalism, equality of nationalism, is a prerequisite for equality of human beings. That's why I consider myself a Zionist, and why I support Palestinian Nationalism. I want Palestinian Nationalism and Zionism to succeed and achieve two roughly equal states and sovereign entities, so the real work of peace making can then begin.
August 5, 2009 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you get a chance to read Purple State's post.
August 5, 2009 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I don't mean that to be inflammatory, I just meant its a good post with thought provoking questions.
I share with you hope, and I passionately agree with your prescriptions. I am just not sure that with the current political structures that the necessary compromises can be found. How does a structural legal framework arise that would superceed the individual parties?
I guess when it comes down to it I am a fan of Cosmopolitanism and find nationalism grossly overrated. Its good to be proud of your roots- but not so proud that you cannot acknowledge others, or that you naturally lend yourself to fascist parties (if you are raised to think you are chosen and can defeat the entire world- you are going to be arrogant and foolhardy). How then does peace arise?
It is true that there are many examples throughout the world where waring parties were able to settle down and live together with pride. However, none of them had the hopes and dreams of billions of outsiders pushing them to fight. Outside parties stoking the flames for their own petty interests. Whether that be oil rich wahhabists, populist Shiites, American jews, or 'left behind' evangelics. How do you stem that influence?
I too am not old enough to be completely cynical, but many are and they are now in positions of power. What needs to change? How does that happen? Its all well and good to outline possible prescriptions because we want them to happen. But what would MAKE THEM HAPPEN?
That is the question we need to confront. We cannot limb along and hope that tomorrow the parties will realize that everything needs to change. Many on both sides have inured themselves to hope.
I haven't yet, but i would be a liar if I said things looked promising.
August 6, 2009 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think purple state errs in opposing the "two state solution" to a "binational solution": the first simply leads to the next over time.
The two state solution is an essential first step toward a binational solution... in fact as soon as you have two states, each with its own minority and majority populations, there will be a coordinating council where those states meet... because they will be completely intertwined with each other on many many issues. That council is the begining of the binational regime in which the two states will operate.
And a binational solution may over a hundred years evolve into a regime in which individual rights take a greater precedence over national rights.
But nothing gets started until national liberation and national self determination are formally realized by Palestinians, as for Israelis. Those who oppose Zionism want to jump beyond it... I just think that's both unrealistic and counter-productive. The Palestinians need their own "Zionism" - their own national state, so that we can all move forward to the next thing.
I'm familiar with many of the arguments that it is "too late" for a two state solution. I think they are wrong. I think you have to be creative and clever in how you manifest those two states, but I think the need for a Palestinian state as a first step toward deeper peace doesn't go away just because it has become harder to do now that in was in say 1968. There is no alternative, and so a way must be found.
August 6, 2009 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mike2,
That is a most healthy outlook. In a practical sense, I see this emerging first economically, followed by culturally and ultimately politically. Further, so much could be accomplished if the Arab League could bring itself -- and the collective will of its 22 member states -- to exponentially raise the viability of its Beirut Initiative with the relatively risk-free good faith gesture of formally lifting the economic, cultural and political boycott of Israel. If there is any party to the conflict that can raise the confidence and self-esteem of both the Israeli and Palestinian electorates with a metaphorical flick of the wrist, I sincerely believe it is the Arab League. Likewise, it can allow the conflict to smolder and sputter along by its own trepidation, ambivalence and paralysis -- even moreso than the United States.
August 6, 2009 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
thanks
August 6, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're welcome. Nice avatar, too.
August 6, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two ideas "nationalism" (bad) and "national liberation" (good) need to be weighed.
There is a vision of liberal nationalism that I have, and that many people have forgotten.
There have been many cases where nationalism has failed both to be liberal and and liberating. But I am not opposed to nationalism in all circumstances, and in some circumstances I deeply believe that the realization of ethno-national ambitions is essential to stability, order, freedom, human rights, etc.
August 6, 2009 3:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that at this stage it is absolutely paramount that the Palestinians experience some sense of proud liberation. I really hope that some way is found.
2 questions:
1. How do you limit Nationalism from devolving into fascism or terrorism. Are the necessary state, economic, or cultural structures in place? What is necessary? This is not merely a question of land, trade, or human rights- these fanatics are literally fanatics, how do you temper them. What tools are missing (education, bribery, religious interpretations?)
2. How do you neuter the influences of the external players? This is not just god's playground, much of the world has an interest in stewing the pot of discontent. Tragically many have the best of intentions (on both sides).
I sorta like Carey's suggestion. Maybe it can happen naturally, just through time and patience. But I see these two questions as the fundamental roadblocks that have prevented progress for 60 plus years. Until they are sorted, or at least substantially mitigated it is hard to see how the abstract becomes concrete.
August 6, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I don't know how to transform chauvinistic nationalism (unavoidable in a process and struggle of national liberation, such as the Zionists and the young Israel went through, and unavoidable in the Palestinian context today)...
But if you recall the 19th century idea of "Liberal Nationalism", I think at the core there is the idea of mutuality... the legitimacy of my national ambitions implies the legitimacy of your national ambitions.
The transformation from a zero sum nationalism (my gain is your loss) to a positive sum nationalism (my gain is your gain), is what needs to happen. The League of Nations and indeed the United Nations were/are "regimes" in which the legitimacy of nearby nationalisms are recognized... except when they are not. That's the challenge of world peace... and NOT, for example, trying to build a world without nations (at least not yet.)
The world is not, as we sometimes forget, the United States ... the world is the Balkans.
I don't know the answer, but I think we can advocate for "liberal nationalism" and try to articulate what that means both in specific regions and conflict zones and more broadly. It's not pure and idealistic... it's very much grounded in power and recognizes some ugly human emotions... but it is the way the world actually works, as opposed to how we might wish it would work.
I should probably write a book about it... but I guess I decided not to do that when I left academia.
August 7, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mike2,
There continue to be many promising technological advances in the field of self-publishing.
August 7, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
cosign
August 7, 2009 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I notice you didn't address number 2, I hope that is because you are formulating a separate comment.
Even the Balkans have managed to settle down and coexist in peace for vast periods of their history.
August 7, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been listening in here. The statement from Mike2 above: "Broadly speaking, there will be two states each with majority populations and minority populations, agreeing to disagree over Jerusalem in a way that leaves each side's claims seeming to be realized"
is the most sensible projection on what needs to happen that I've ever seen.
But of course Saladin's question: "But what would MAKE THEM HAPPEN?" is realistic, well-intended, and legitimate.
So here is a "what to do:" Take Mike2's statement above ("Broadly speaking...") and post it as a sign, prominently displayed, at every checkpoint between the two states.
That would be a start. Then visulalize the two groups metamorphosing into east-bank democrats and west-bank republicans fifty years hence.
And fifty years is not such a long time. Theodore Herzl predicted the birth of a new nation of Israel in 1898.
August 6, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for sharing. This information is very useful.
Best regards, Katya, CEO of facebook, datacore iscsi
March 25, 2011 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability clusters
April 27, 2011 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
auto transport, car shipping, car transport, car transportation, vehicle shipping, auto transport.
April 30, 2011 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
auto transport, car shipping, car transport, car transportation, vehicle shipping, auto transport.
April 30, 2011 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink