Okay, let’s get this out of the way right now: There is a zionist lobby in America. They work hard to influence policy, they spend a lot of money promoting politicians they like, and they have a lot of influence in the Bush administration.
So what?
Everyone has a lobby. The major media have a lobby. The Chinese government has a lobby. The farmers have a lobby. Why the heck shouldn’t the zionists have a lobby? And of course they spend money and influence policy; that’s the whole point of having a lobby.
This is so obvious, it’s boring.
And yes, they’ve been very successful. So has the insurance lobby, so has the NRA. Inevitably, some lobbies are more successful than others. So what?
Not all zionists are Jewish – but a lot of them are. This is entirely to be expected, and there’s nothing wrong with acknowledging it.
Not all Jews are zionists. But the average Jew is more likely to be a zionist than the average non-Jew; and, more generally, the average Jew is more likely to be interested in Israel than the average non-Jew.
Again, this is so obvious that it’s boring. Jews are more likely to be interested in Jewish issues just as American Indians are more likely to be interested in American Indian issues and just as farmers are more likely to be interested in farming issues.
No one should be called an anti-Semite for saying any of the above. Anti-semitism is hatred of the Jews; you don’t have to hate Jews to believe any of the things I’ve just written.
Yet people who criticize the zionist lobby are often accused of being anti-semitic – merely because they’ve acknowledged the lobby exists. People who criticize the zionist lobby and refer to the obvious fact that zionists are disproportionately Jewish are guaranteed to be labeled anti-semites.
Too many zionists forget that zionism is not Judaism. Not all Jews are zionists. Not all zionists are Jews. Someone who refers to zionism is not talking about “the Jews.” Someone who criticizes zionism is not being anti-Jewish.
Every year, the word “anti-Semite” is degraded more. Accusations of anti-Semitism are flung about far too quickly and easily; zionists are becoming the boy who cried “wolf!” The goal, presumably, is to delegitimize criticism of Israel, by labeling all but the most mild, spineless criticisms “anti-Semitic.” But I’m afraid the result will be just the opposite; calling legitimate criticism “anti-Semitic” will wind up legitimizing real anti-Semitism. And that sucks..
Can you be anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic? In theory, sure.
But things have to be taken in their historical context.
Much of the “Zionist lobby” criticism sounds an awful lot like a rehash of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion: a small, but rich and influential cabal of sneaky Jews has the ear of the easily-manipulated US President, who fights wars for oil profits and spreads globalization to bring the world under the control of the banks and financial markets.
I say the burden of proof is on the anti-Zionists to distance themselves from the anti-Semites, in the same way I’d demand a gay marriage opponent to demonstrate that (s)he isn’t homophobic.
I’d like to nominate the above for duecedly bad analogy of the week. Wowsers.
How ironic. Instead of debating my points, you resort to name-calling. Exactly the behavior this post is all about.
Let me guess … if you agree with them, they can’t be anti-Semitic/racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.
Piffle and spit, and I’d take you more seriously if you actually put a name and a website or email address on your post. I did not call you a name, not at all; you’ll know when I call you a name. I attacked your analogy, which is an impressive straw proxy.
One would be hard-pressed to separate an anti-gay-marriage stance from a broader homophobic attitude–I won’t go so far as to say it’s impossible; one could always be a queer activist who’s adamantly against the whole concept of marriage. But that’s not what you’re on about. Anti-gay-marriage politics and homophobia are not causally linked, but they are fundamentally linked. Being against gay marriage is a pretty decent signifier of homophobia; why else would you be against it? (And if anyone asks me to define “homophobia” or protests because they aren’t really “phobic,” I will get quite cross.)
–On the other hand: the panoply of people who speak out against the Chauvinistic, racist, and oppressive aspects of Zionism are not fundamentally linked to anti-Semitism. One can quite easily be against excessive nationalism, racism, and oppression without being against Jews, Jewry, or Israel. By comparing the two, you’re trying to smear the one by association, and insinuating a fundamental linkage that just isn’t there.
Thus: bad analogy. Take it back to the drawing board. Try again.
In recent weeks I’ve seen a lot of the political commentary shows on the cable news networks (O’Reilly, Scarborough, etc.) and noted that it was impossible to criticize Israeli policy without being labeled an anti-Semite. It doesn’t matter if the show’s guest was saying something like “it’s a bad idea to try to get people to not view you as a malicious occupier by running over their house with a tank” (which I think would be common sense in a world post-Vietnam, or even post-9-11) the speaker was almost invariably labeled as an anti-Semite and, of course, not allowed to finish a sentence in their defence. This mirrors (admittedly in a more extreme manner) a tendency I’ve noticed among conservatives to view criticisms of Israel in terms of the Israeli/Palestinian situation as being inherently anti-Semitic, as though it were impossible to criticize the policies of a nation’s government without bearing a hatred for the people of that nation.
(Then again, that’s the same sort of logic that drives the notion that critisizing President Bush’s foreign policy is somehow showing a hatred for America and Americans, so perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised.)
I did not, in my news watching, see much discussion of the Zionist lobby, although I know from past experience that mentioning the existence of the Zionist lobby, and mentioning that it has any degree of political clout at all, can get one labeled as an anti-Semite. However, as the unnamed poster mentioned a few posts up, many of the comments I heard in regard to the Zionist lobby were made in a very “the Jews are controlling the government” sort of way, so I can understand the unnamed poster’s point of view as well. Still, I think that the tendency to view criticism of Jewish organizations (such as the government of Israel) and predominantly Jewish organizations (such as the Zionist lobby) as being anti-Semitic is ridiculous in the extreme because it’s based on poor reasoning.
I’ll have to disagree with Amp’s conclusion that the rampant accusations of anti-Semitism will pave the way for real anti-Semitism being perceived as legitimate. I think that the widespread use of the term has actually resulted in more people being viewed as genuinely anti-Semitic in much the same way that the labeling of anti-war protestors as anti-American has been accepted as fact by many. Amp brought up the fable of the boy who cried “wolf!” which I think addresses the issue nicely, but I’m afraid that many people are much more willing to believe those cries of “wolf!” for various reasons.
(Apologies for any lack of sense and/or grammatical and spelling errors in this post. It’s been awhile since I last slept.)
Arguably, the major muscle of the “Zionist lobby” these days comes from all the right-wing Christian support it has.
For an interesting example, see this article from Salon (premium content-get a day pass people, all it costs is time) http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/05/14/elon_visit/index.html about the visit of hardline Israeli politician Benny Elon to Washington. The thrust of the article is that Elon ignored Jewish organisations in favor of the Christian fundamentalist politicians on Capitol Hill.
The subtext I got is that he wouldn’t have been welcomed by many American Jews, but the Christian pols fell over themselves to kiss his backside.
I definitely agree that the Christian conservatives are a powerhouse in American politics, I think more so than the zionist lobby could ever hope to be on its own.
Unfortunately, where PinkDreamPoppies disagrees with me, he’s probably right.
Anonymous, I tend to agree with Kip that opposition to equal rights for gays (gay marraige is a subset of equal rights) is a lot harder to disentangle from homophobia, than criticism of Israel is to disentangle from anti-Semitism.
More to the point, though, I disagree with your premise. People arguing against gay marraige are not obligated to prove that they’re not homophobic (it’s not possible to prove a negative, anyhow). If they say something homophobic, then it’s fair for them to be criticized for homophobia; but I don’t think it’s fair or productive to presume homophobia at the outset. It’s kinder to give folks the benefit of the doubt.
After all, as even Kip admits, there are some anti-gay-marraige arguments (for instance, the libertarian argument that neither gay nor straight marraiges should be sanctioned or acknowleged by the secular goverment at all) that are not inherantly homophobic.
Similarly, there are many criticisms of zionism, the zionist lobby’s policy goals, and of Israel which aren’t inherantly anti-Semitic. Critics should therefore be given the benefit of the doubt.
You can be anti-Likud, anti-Settlements, anti-Sharon, pro-Peace, and still be a Zionist (the Shomer ha’Tzair, and most of the rest of the Labour-Zionist Movement, are all of these things).
But I have yet to encounter an “anti-Zionist” who was not also anti-Israel. Maybe such an animal exists, but I have yet to see one.
And, while being anti-Israel is not *logically* tantamount to being anti-semitic, in light of the historical circumstances, it is pretty darn close.
I do, however, frequently see people using the terms Jew and Zionist interchangeably (also Jews and Israelis). So rather than critique the Zionist lobby or the Israelis, they will critique the Jewish lobby or the Jews, but when you call them on that, insist that they really meant the Zionists or the Israelis. So while I completely agree with you that not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews (and it is obvious to anyone that not all Jews are Israelis, less obvious that not all Israelis are Jews), many of the critics don’t understand that. They view Jews as being one big bloc that walks in lock step on the issue of Israel, regardless of how untrue that is. I don’t necessarily characterize that misperception as antisemitic, but I do think it is somewhat prejudicial. It strips us of our individuality, and I don’t cotton much to that.
I also have an issue with those who use the term “cabal,” as that is a historically loaded term.
Yeah, but it’s not just the anti-semites who are also anti-zionists who consider Zionist as synonymous with Jewish, it’s also perpetrated by the pro-zionists trying to score cheap points for their side.
I’d just like to say that I think doubt’s benefit is strained when someone is against “gay marriage,” Barry, as opposed to marriage in general–which is what queer activists and libertarians and other such degenerates are against when they’re taking the time to be against it. Someone says takes the effort to speak out against specifically “gay” marriage, I’m pretty comfortable out there on the limb that says they’re homophobic. Willing to listen, yes, but not easily convinced otherwise. –I’m just prejudicial that way.
I mean: I’d like to say that, but it would risk threadjack. So I won’t. Carry on.
Reality check, folks—-not only are not all Jews Zionist (or vice versa), but some of the most vicious Jew-haters on the planet are staunch supporters of the Zionist state of Israel: Richard M. Nixon, Jerry Falwell and the Christian Right.
Therefore, I’m not gonna apologize for saying that I am anti-Zionist. Hell, I’m gonna say it proudly, for all the world to hear:
****I AM ANTI-ZIONIST!!!!!****
Your argument is a nonsequitur.
Richard Nixon created the EPA. You against that too?
Jacques said, “You can be anti-Likud, anti-Settlements, anti-Sharon, pro-Peace, and still be a Zionist (the Shomer ha’Tzair, and most of the rest of the Labour-Zionist Movement, are all of these things).
“But I have yet to encounter an “anti-Zionist” who was not also anti-Israel.”
I wonder how many people say “anti-Israel” when they really mean “anti-Likud, anti-Settlements, anti-Sharon, pro-Peace.” I know that I myself have done this in the past and so am willing to cut people a bit of leeway as to what they mean about “anti-Israel” until we’re a bit further into the conversation.
It seems that anti-Israel may be a shorthand for being opposed to current Israeli policies regarding Palestine in much the same way that people from other countries I’ve encountered in cyberspace have used the term anti-America to simply mean being opposed to the current American administration’s policies.
I’m curious as to what you meant by “[…] I have yet to encounter an “anti-Zionist” who was not also anti-Israel.” Would you define anti-Israel in the way in which you used it?
You people can all say what you want. We have Israel now mostly because the rest of the world forced us to go and take it. So say whatever you want; I don’t care if in the midst of all your lovely ideas you accidentally do join in a Jew-killing gang in France for example, where “anti-zionism” is really taking off. It doesn’t matter because at this point, most Jews who are left are real survivors, you’d have to be.
So like I say, blame whoever you want for whatever you want. Just don’t think we’ll ever go along with letting you have all the guns while you blame us for your problems again.
Marc
What is “anti-Israel”?
How about “opposed to the existence of Israel as a Jewish state.” (Which is to say, opposed to the fundamental principle of Zionism.)
Jacques:
What is “a Jewish state”?
One where 20% of the *citizens* are non-Jewish (and that doesn’t include the many secular Jews), and Arabs are elected to the Knesset?
“I also have an issue with those who use the term “cabal,” as that is a historically loaded term.”
I tend to agree, though the term was coined to refer to Charles II’s advisors. It’s an acronym. The curious part is, I’m fairly sure the neocons are now using the term to refer to themselves. That could be a bit of preemptive anti-Semitism jujitsu, which I guess is fair enough, though no-one should be above criticism.
I have a friend who says she hates Israel. One of her brothers is a Lubavitcher rabbi in Israel. I quite like Israel, but I have a visceral dislike for Sharon, and I strongly object to the settlement policy. Call me an anti-Semite all you want, it won’t change my opinion. I also have nothing but contempt for Bush, but I’m quite fond of America. I utterly refuse to have an entire country co-opted by whoever happens to be running it this year: it’s a medieval mindset that wants to identify the country with its leader, and it’s not healthy.
Oh – good post, BTW, and interesting comments.
Wait, how are we defining “Anti-Zionist” then? Is “anti-zionist” by definition “anti-Israel”? If so then why make that statement? It’s like saying “I haven’t seen an oak that isn’t a tree”.
Marc, being against Israeli occupation in Palestine is not the same as joining some Jew-killing group. Is that your only answer? Join the Jew-killers or join the Arab-killers?
I was thinking I should have done a post on what “anti-zionist” meant… it seems to me that it can mean two things, either “anti-the-entire-Jewish-state-thing” – that is, the position that Israel should no longer exist – or it could be shorthand for, as Jacques said, “anti-Likud, anti-Settlements, anti-Sharon, pro-Peace.”
But, as Jacques points out, that’s not really an accurate use of the term zionist. Nonetheless, it is how some people out there are using the term (including, more-or-less, me in the post these comments are coming off of), and it’s not an anti-semitic position.
The truth is, I don’t have a good word for my position. I refuse to call myself anti-Israel, because dammit I’m not. Maybe I should just call myself a peacenik.
* * *
Thinking more on the gay rights analogy, I think Kip had the right of it. Some positions ARE by definition bigoted. For instance, there is no such thing as a non-anti-semitic position in favor of kicking Jews out of golf clubs; the position itself is anti-semitic. Similarly, wanting special marriage rights for straights that aren’t offered for gays is a homophobic position.
In contrast, acknowleging that there is a powerful pro-Israel lobby and criticizing it is not an automatically anti-Semitic position.
“What is a Jewish State?”
It is one, in particular, where any Jew, no matter where they may live in the world has the automatic right to immigrate and be granted citizenship.
“…the many secular Jews”
I guess I have to remind you that Herzl was not a religious man and that throughout its history, the Zionist Movement has been a predominantly *secular* (at times, even *anti*-religious) movement.
Amp, while I respect, and probably mostly agree with your “anti-Likud, anti-Settlements, anti-Sharon, pro-Peace” positions, I strongly *disagree* with the flippant decision to recycle the term “Zionist” (which has *long* history, and a well-established meaning) to mean something different.
There are plenty of anti-Zionists who are anti-Likud, anti-Settlements, anti-Sharon AND *anti-Israel* (the first three “anti’s” being sort of redundant).
Do you really wish your position to be confused for theirs?
“Maybe I should just call myself a peacenik.”
Why not? Being *for* something is a much satisfying and, in the long-run, more successful strategy than bein *against* something.
Wow, Amp, I thought you were going someplace completely different with that post!
I thought after all that stuff about how many groups have lobbies, and members of the group care more about the issues of that group, and some lobbies are more powerful than others, you would say something along the lines of
how silly it is to attack Jews/Aipac/Zionism for having a powerful lobby, unless you’re going to attack every group that pools it’s money and hires professionals to work in their interests.
That’s why attacking the Israel lobby, not for its policies, but for the fact of its very existence and effecitiveness, does come across as anti-semitic. Why should all other groups have the right to build as strong a lobby as they can manage, but Jews/Zionists shouldn’t make any organized effort to influence the policy of a democratic state that’s meant to be open to the influence of its citizens?
There are people who are critical of the lobby industry over all, but that’s a very different thing, and it definitely wouldn’t make sense to single out only AIPAC in that conversation.
I can see that it’s not anti-semitic to point out that Zionists have created and sustained a powerful special interest lobby. But if its being pointed out to say that there’s something inherently offensive in Jews/Zionist organizing successfully for their cause, there’s something wrong with that, in my opinion.
I also hear “anti-Zionist” as meaning “anti the existence of a Jewish state in the land of Israel.” There are Jews and Israelis who are anti-Zionist. They would like to see all Israelis and all Palestinians incorporated as full citizens into a secular democratic state.
There are also anti-Zionists who would like to see the Jews out of the Middle East, and support warfare as a means to that end.
I think that Zionist means supporting the existence of a Jewish state in the land of Israel. And then on top of that you can add whatever modifiers you want – labor zionist, eco zionist, religious zionist, secular zionist, or whatever.
That’s just what Zionist means. If we refuse to give in and let the word Feminism mean something it was never meant to mean, let it be defined by people who are actively against it, why would we give up on the word Zionism? What else would you call it? Should we go back and substitute a different word for all the times ‘zionism’ is mentioned in the texts of the last hundred years, texts that support politics and visions from all parts of the spectrum?
I consider myself a Zionist. I don’t concede that that implies any particular set of politics. Most of the people voting for Labor were Zionists too. Most Israelis *are* Zionist, if only practically and not ideologically.
Like PDM, I’m Jewish and explicitly anti-Zionist. I’m not so much anti-Israel as I am simply unconvinced that, as an American Jew, Israel has any special relevance to my life whatsoever. I don’t to see Jews killed, Israeli or otherwise–but then I don’t like to see Palestinians killed, either, regardless of their religion. I don’t like seeing people killed.
I do strongly oppose Israel’s government’s current (and, let’s face it, pretty much since its founding) policies, but feel about Israelis in general as I do about any other nationality–there’s good people (like the refuseniks) and bad people (like the settlement hawks) and in-between people.
But Zionism–now, there’s another story. Zionism has it’s own history, very little of it anything I’ve ever been able to get behind. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, it was by and large disregarded by most Jews. Nobody suggested that Jews such as the Bundists–who were strongly opposed to the seperatism inherent in Zionism–were anti-Semitic. It was not until after WWII and the Holocaust, when Zionism became a convenient “out” for Western leaders anxious about what to do with the state-less Jewish DPs, and a lot of Jewish people had good reason to distrust the intentions of their non-Jewish neighbors, that Zionism began to get any sort of hold in the Jewish mind. Still, while a lot of Jews chose to head to Palestine to form a new state, a lot of them–including the parents and grandparents of most living American Jews–chose not to be part of Israel, and essentially ignored the new state until 1967. They, too, somehow escape the suggestion that they were anti-Semitic. The war in 1967 changed that–suddenly, Israel started to matter to American Jews, and because it started to matter to American Jews, it started to matter to American policy-makers. It should also be noted that the place of the Holocaust in Jewish identity follows roughly the same curve, with little mention before the mid-60s. This is important because the Holocaust is generally thought of as providing Israel its moral authority.
Meanwhile, Zionism fostered an incredible de-diversification of Jewish culture in Israel. Yiddish, considered by Zionists a “ghetto jargon”, was exterminated; Sephardic culture was assimilated; a Zionist cultural identity was fostered at the exclusion of other forms of Jewishness. I recently posted about an essay by Ella Shohat, an Israeli Jew of Iraqi descent, on this topic–her essay, referenced in my post, is an excellent introduction to what I’m talking about. (I’m not sure if I can use HTML here, so I’ll just post the raw
All of this is not to say that Zionism is wrong and I’m right, but that there are and always have been reasons not to buy into the Zionist argument. (Frankly, it’s parallels with pre-Nazi fascist and racist ideology is enough for me.) Not only are there good reasons in general, but there are good reasons for Jews to dislike Zionism. It has only been over the past couple-three of decades that the Zionist position has assumed a central place in Jewish identity outside of Israel, and even now, it still leaves a lot of room for other ideas, other ideologies, and ultimately other identities.
Tara, your constant mentioning of Jew/Zionist is exactly the problem. They are not synonymous, so opposition to Zionism is not opposition to Judaism. Dustin’s post gives good explanation.
In the meanwhile, think we could change the meaning of Zionist to a resident of Zion, the fictional subterranean city in the Matrix movies? That could make this discussion take a turn for the awesomer.
“opposition to Zionism is not opposition to Judaism”
To be anti-Zionist is to be anti-Israel (at least, no one here has been able to explain how one can be one, but not the other). Whether being anti-Israel is to tantamount to being “anti-Jewish” is another question.
To argue against that proposition, one can trot out all the usual rhetorical tricks.
One can point to a segment of ultra-orthodox Judaism which holds that the establishment of the State of Israel was an affront to God’s authority, and that the Jews should not even attempt a return to Zion until the Prophet Elijah appears, riding on a donkey.
One can take Herzl’s premise — that the Jews are a National Group, deserving of a country of their own, every bit as much as, say, the French — and glibly dismiss it as a “fascist and racist ideology”.
(Just to be clear, not all Frenchmen need live in France, just as not all Jews need live in Israel. The important thing is that the option is open to them, should choice or grim necessity drive them in that direction.)
Or one can simply take the privileged position of Jews in America as “proof” that Israel is unnecessary (and hence opposition to its existence, no big deal).
Whatever…
I think such arguments are, at the very least, historically obtuse.
But don’t let me stop you.
“I also hear “anti-Zionist” as meaning “anti the existence of a Jewish state in the land of Israel.” There are Jews and Israelis who are anti-Zionist. They would like to see all Israelis and all Palestinians incorporated as full citizens into a secular democratic state.”
That’s what I would like to see, a secular state incorperating both the current state of Israel and the occupied territories, where Jewish and Palestinian citizens have the same rights. At present, this is somewhat of a pipe dream, to put it mildly.
I’m anti-zionist in the sense that I think nation states founded on ethnicity are a bad idea in principle, therefore I’m not keen on a Jewish state, just like I don’t think a Kurdish state is a good idea.
My real sympathies lie with the common people of Israel and Palestina, the people who have little say in this.
This is an extremely interesting and revealing discussion.
“Anti-semitism” is an actually existing position held by some extreme right-wingers. Unjustified accusations of anti-semitism (against people who are not anti-semites) are a tactic used a) by extreme right-wing supporters of the Jewish occupation of Palestine and b) by self-righteous nationalistic Jews, in both cases in order to silence opposition and avoid having to present or defend an argument.
This leads to silly positions in which anyone critical of Zionism is accused of being a potential Hitler, while anyone defending Zionism (and it is defensible, though I strongly disagree with it and believe that the Israeli state should be abolished) is accused of complicity in the killing of Rachel Corrie.
In debates like this one needs to be extremely honest and think very clearly (and above all, not brag about Israeli firepower, as Marc Siegel was doing — that annoys people without being in the least relevant to ethics). I’m glad something like this is happening.
(Incidentally, as a South African I’m painfully conscious of racism and stereotyping — but I can’t forget Israel’s long history of support for the apartheid government and its army.)
I’m glad M Blatchford brought up the South Africa parallel, because that is a separate argument why being Anti-Israel is not the same as being Anti-Jewish.
Simply stated, the nation of Israel exists as a group of foreign individuals laying claim to an area of land that was already inhabited by an indigenous group of people. Their methods of doing so were adapted from methods that had been tried and succeeded in the colonization of South Africa, indeed adopting an apartheid-like system. (I know of a source for this, but it’s late and I’m lazy so I’ll leave it as an assignment for other people reading this)
But the proof of this isn’t the point of the argument here, only that the argument can be made, so there’s a reason for disliking Israel that has nothing to do with liking or disliking Jews.
I guess the most compelling argument for the existence of Israel is that Jews are a historically discriminated against group of people, the holocaust being unique only in its extremeness (if that is a word). But Jews aren’t the only groups in fear of discrimination or overt hatred, and there are other nations to take sanctuary in.
Tara, I’d agree that anyone arguing that there’s something wrong with Jews or Jewish-related causes in particular having a lobby, but doesn’t object to anyone else having a lobby, is probably anti-Semitic.
But I think that people are often accused of being anti-Semitic merely for criticizing what the Jewish lobby does. And that’s not anti-Semitism.
* * *
You know, despite what I wrote before, I’m not “anti-Likud, anti-Settlements, anti-Sharon, pro-Peace.” Or I am, but I’d have to add “anti-Barak” and a few other “antis” to that list. Just as I pretty much loathed both Clinton and Bush, I pretty much loathe both Barak and Sharon (although I admit that both Bush and Sharon are worse).
In the U.S., at least, the real division is between people who are “anti-occupation” (that is, who think the occupation is both unjustifiable and immoral) and those who are “pro-occupation.”
I guess the most compelling argument for the existence of Israel is that Jews are a historically discriminated against group of people, the holocaust being unique only in its extremeness (if that is a word). But Jews aren’t the only groups in fear of discrimination or overt hatred, and there are other nations to take sanctuary in.
Suppose gays and lesbians in the 7,000,000-strong San Francisco Bay Area were to displalce the heterosexual population and proclaim a Queer Nation—complete with the right of any homesexual to become a citizen. Would the U.S. government tolerate such a nation carved out of California?
I think not—in fact, the government would most likely bomb the Bay Area back to the Stone Age. After all, is the gay mecca of San Francisco not called—CASTRO street (cue comedy drum riff)?
Wow, I see so many different versions of history here.
Dustin, it’s nice that you have an essay by an Israeli, does that you mean you believe there is one authentic version of events and point of view?
There have always been Jews living in the land of Israel, and there have always been Arabs living in the land of Israel. At the beginning, and throughout the 20th century, both of their numbers greatly increased.
Jews began immigrating to Israel about forty five years before the Holocaust. Fewer, yes, not unrelated to the fact that many Jews still hoped to live peacefully in Europe, access to Israel was much more difficult, and life in Israel was really difficult. However, the majority of Jews in Israel are NOT of European descent.
People are more likely to move when things are worse in the place they’re in then in the place are going to. Wow, obviously that shows that Zionists are hypocrites.
Despite the fact that most American Jews did NOT move to Israel, to say they weren’t interested in Zionism is not quite credible. They provided great amounts of support, money, and political influence to Israel.
More than half the Jews living in Israel are NOT of European descent. Many are/were refugees forced out of Arab countries. Many of the ones of European descent came because they had nowhere else to go.
Yiddish is more alive in Israel than anywhere else in the world, except parts of New York city, as is ladino.
All citizens of Israel, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Bahai, Druze and so on, have and have had since the founding of the state the right to vote, own land, run for political office (there are always Palestinian representatives in the Knesset, have socialized health care and benefits, and in the last election, even in the midst of the Intifada, there were three Palestinian parties running). Unlike Jews, Muslim citizens are not required to serve in the military, although a few choose to. Arabic is an official language. That was, in fact, Herzl’s vision of Zionism.
All this doesn’t mean that there is or has ever been de-facto peace, equality, and harmony, in Israel. There is a lot of room for improvement. On the other hand, it’s hard to think of any country on earth that actually has peace equality and harmony.
The situation of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and West Banks is different. They are not citizens of Israel or of any other country. Until the beginning of the Intifada, there was a limited degree of autonomy and self rule, including having their own court systems, prisons, schools, universities, political systems, police forces, and, for a really short time, airport.
That’s where the problem is. And it’s a big one and a complicated one. It seems like every one is so sure that things have drastically changed since 1967 and 73, and that there’s no reason to think that the Arab nations surrounding Israel might again be a threat to it, that there’s no reason for Israelis to be wary about an Arab (probably Muslim) state across the street, that Israel no longer has anything to worry about from the dozens of Arabs states that officially deny its right to exist at all, whose most powerful religious and political officials regularly call for the killing of Jews, and whose governments unofficially support terrorist groups that call and work not just for the liberation of the territories but for the destruction of the Jewish state and the expulsion of Jews from all of the Middle East they weren’t already expelled from.
Maybe, yes maybe, if Israel immediately withdrew from the territories, the Palestinians and the Arab world would recognize Israel’s existence and put an end to official and unofficial violence against it. It’s certainly what a lot of people believe and a chance many Israelis are willing to take.
And it’s also a legitimate argument that people and countries must do the right thing even if it means annihilation and destruction.
But I also don’t think it makes anyone a Nazi or a fanatic to prioritize the preservation of their lives. It’s a very human thing to do. Clearly it’s not the right thing to publish info about sexual predators who are officially ‘rehabilitated’ and have served their time. But people want it anyway.
Plenty of people think that Israel is overstating the danger to itself. That’s definitely possible. But it is far from impossible that it’s not. And if it’s not, do you think the rest of the world would step in and say, “Hey you guys finally did the right thing, there are two states, and we’re going to make sure it stays that way by sending our troops and resources to help you fight your attackers?”
That’s part of why I think it’s really complicated, and I have sympathy for almost every position from all sides of the spectrum. People don’t KNOW. Nobody can KNOW. We’re all just guessing and hoping, and a minority of the people doing the guessing will live or die with the consequences.
“”What is a Jewish State?”
It is one, in particular, where any Jew, no matter where they may live in the world has the automatic right to immigrate and be granted citizenship.”
Am I wrong, or is there a move by the current Sharon government to revoke this right, which I think is fundamental, for secular Jews? If so, that seems like a pretty serious reneging of the principles on which Israel was founded in 1948. Kind of like Ashcroft tearing up the Bill of Rights, only more so.
So: is Sharon anti-Zionist? If he’s doing this, I think the only conclusion is yes. Herzl would have been appalled.
“Am I wrong, or is there a move by the current Sharon government to revoke this right…?”
No, there is no such move. The “Who is a Jew?” question (ie, who qualifies for this right) has been a perennial one in Israeli society. The Orthodox have typically pushed for a more *restrictive* definition and would have denied the Falashas from Ethiopia, and large numbers of Russian Jews the right to immigrate. In both cases, they were overruled.
Though it’s discomfitting, it’s salutary to see the anti-Zionists arguing that, unlike the French, the Jews do not deserve a country of their own. And it is doubly salutary to see the same high-minded “principle” applied to the Kurds as well.
At least we’re getting somewhere…
Oh, and Amp? You’re probably tired of being reminded of “the ‘perfect’ being the enemy of the ‘good'”.
But, really, *loathing* Barak and Clinton?
Gotta keep some perspective here.
Amp, if I may add a corollary: One context in which the charge of anti-semitism has arisen a lot lately (legitimately, in my view) is as a response to the notion that prominent Jews are necessarily working on behalf of Israel and/or the “Zionist lobby.” In other words, as a response to commentators who forget or ignore the the good point in your post that “Not all Jews are zionists.”
There is nothing anti-semitic about describing the Bush administration Iraq policy as being controlled by a network of neoconservatives. However, if one goes on to suggest that that network is composed of individuals with Jewish names (Wolfowitz, Perle, etc.) and further to suggest that these people are setting policy in order to serve the best interests of Israel and not the U.S., then one’s critique may legitimately be subject to a charge of anti-semitism, in my view. Just because a prominent politician is Jewish does not mean that his or her policy views are driven by zionism or even by Judaism.
Raznor, you wrote:
“Simply stated, the nation of Israel exists as a group of foreign individuals laying claim to an area of land that was already inhabited by an indigenous group of people.”
The same is true, though, for any number of nations. The U.S., Canada, Mexico, and probably every nation in the Western Hemisphere fits that description. Likewise Australia and New Zealand. Also England (where the Celts were displaced), France (where the Gauls were displaced), Italy (Etruscans), Russia (conquered and inhabited by Viking tribes). Japan took Hokkaido from the Ainu people, I think. The Nordic countries rule large territories populated by Lapps (Saami?). China famously rules the Uighurs and the Tibetans. I know less about the history of other parts of the world, but I suspect that there are very few places on earth where an indigenous people has never been pushed out at least once in recorded history.
One difference in Israel’s case, however, is that the Zionists sought world approval for the founding of their state, by way of the UN. Certainly, that was probably the last pro-Israel resolution ever passed by the UN, but the fact remains that, as a matter of international law, Israel’s right to exist (i.e., Zionism) is arguably stronger than that of any other nation.
If, one, there were any regard at all in our culture for critical thinking and the rules it applies to what does and does not constitute a sound claim; and two, if we were not a culture dreadfully inclined toward thinking that the application of a tidy labels is somehow more ultimately revealing than the sentences, paragraphs and actions to which the label has been applied, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
k was lucid and correct when pointing out the difference between opposition to gay marriage and opposition to Zionism regarding assumptions one can make about the person making the claims. However, it was also an unwitting defense of name-calling. The application of derogatory label is an ad hominem pure and simple whether that label is accurate or not. It may be more respectable in polite society to trot them out when they’re true (such as in the gay marraige example) but it is no more technically sound in support of a claim or counter-claim. The whole practice should be discredited. If in a discussion you allow yourself to be suckered into defending your motives, you’ve already lost. The onus on both parties is to prove the soundness of their claims. Period. It doesn’t matter what the motive is when the policy-maker says gay marriage will erode society. What matters is that his claim is bogus and easily refuted. The same is true regarding most defenses of the atrocious policies of Israel.
Tom T: I appreciate your candor on the matter of Israel’s essential similarity to other genocidal colonial expansions. Such candor is rare in the pro-Israel set as is your faith in the U.N. as the final arbiter of what constitutes a right. Israel needs more advocates of your sort.
if one goes on to suggest that that network is composed of individuals with Jewish names (Wolfowitz, Perle, etc.) and further to suggest that these people are setting policy in order to serve the best interests of Israel and not the U.S., then one’s critique may legitimately be subject to a charge of anti-semitism,
If the claim is based wholly on their Jewish names, you would be correct, although you still wouldn’t be saying anything substantive about the topic. Most of the claims made about dual-loyalty in this case are, however, predicated not on names, but what these gentleman have said and done over the years in previous roles. It is exactly the same type of scrutiny to which the oil, Bechtel and Halliburton interests are subject. The latter group, however, do not have the luxury of ending the discussion by screaming about ethnic bias. Instead, they must trot out the ‘conspiracy theory’ canard.
You know, I do think there is a pro-Israel, pro-occupation group influencing policy in the White House, and that most (not all) of them are Jewish.
But it’s not a “conspiracy.” Conspiracies are secret. The folks in the White House are perfectly open about their support of Israel; some of them have even written policy papers on the subject.
I think the “dual-loyalty” charge is silly, and possibly anti-Semitic. It’s very clear that someone like Wolfowitz considers Israel’s and the US’s well-beings to be complimentary; there’s no question, in his mind, of favoring one above the other. Helping Israel’s interests IS helping the US’s interests, in their view.
I think the “dual-loyalty” charge is silly, and possibly anti-Semitic.
Then, please, deal with the silliness first and its motive second, if at all. In a few short posts, you’ve become what you critiqued at the top.
The whole Administration is full of dual loyaltists. Bush clearly has dual and triple loyalties in regard to Saudi Arabia and his oil cronies. Cheney has dual loyalties in regard to Halliburton. Looking around it does not appear in these cases that American interests (being the security and prosperity of the country’s people) count for much at all. Why do the rules change when the potential conflict of interest is Israel rather than Saudi Arabia or a corrupt American corporation?
BTW — Who the hell the hell said anything about conspiracies.
I’m so sick of that word anyway. It’s another one that gets bandied about whenever someone would like to stop someone else from thinking or talking. Sometime bad people organize to do bad things. Osama Bin Laden’s plot to fell the towers was a conspiracy.
However in this particular case, the folks calling the shots in the Administration have been pretty open at one time or another about where their interests lie. Unsurprisingly, it colors the way they do policy.
That said, those who dislike the influence that Israel brings to bear on American foreign policy (as they dislike the influence brought and bought by Haliburton and Bechtel) should fight the policies themselves rather than attempting to divine their motives.
MG. as I understand it, the “dual-loyalty” charge is an accusation of a conflict of interest. It relates to whether they are fufilling their duties to the USA in good faith. However, in the case of people who appear to see no difference between what’s good for Israel and what’s good for America, I think it’s a silly accusation, because they simply don’t perceive any conflict of interest. Someone who perceives Israel’s and the US’s interests as not being in conflict – indeed, as being in harmony – is not acting in bad faith by favoring Israel as a US official.
As for if it’s anti-Semitic or not, that would depend on the specifics of the accusation. If someone argued that Jews in high office in general or by definition suffer a conflict of interest, that would be anti-Semitic, in my view.
On the other hand, one could argue that a specific Jew had a conflict of interest problem, and that wouldn’t be anti-Semitic. However, I don’t think this argument applies to the Bushies; they really do, in good faith, seem to believe that the US and Israel’s interests are in harmony.
in the case of people who appear to see no difference between what’s good for Israel and what’s good for America, I think it’s a silly accusation, because they simply don’t perceive any conflict of interest.
Well, not being a mind reader, I can’t assume how they make their calculations or what they perceive any more than I know if Rumsfeld and Cheney are really convinced that no-bid contracts for their corporate cronies are good for the country at large. Corruption is lubricated, in part, by a common human tendency to equate pursuit of one’s own particular passions with some higher good. Nixon probably really did believe at some point that ‘national security’ was at stake when he was subverting democracy on his own behalf. The degree to which the corrupt individual is deluded as to his motives, however, has absolutely no bearing on the degree to which compromising interests are at work.
If someone argued that Jews in high office in general or by definition suffer a conflict of interest, that would be anti-Semitic, in my view.
I agree entirely. That’s not what’s being discussed in regard to the policy hawks. It’s irrelevant.
I haven’t read every post here, so maybe someone has already pointed this out, but at least some ultra-Orthodox sects of Judaism (such as the Hasidic Jews) are anti-Zionists and do not believe there should be an Israeli state. They believe that God will provide that through the messiah (or that’s my understanding). I don’t think the Hasids can be accused of being anti-Semitic.
I don’t think the Hasids can be accused of being anti-Semitic.
Or can they? Ooooh, think about that. (cue dramatic music)
Anyway, as to the actual issue in question here . . .
To counter Tara’s argument, Israel is getting plenty of aid from the US, to the extent of I believe $300 billion a year (I may be wrong about the exact figure). And they don’t need it anymore. This aid has made them the only first-world nation in the region, with the only modern military. If their neighboring nations decided to attack again, they would lose as they have every other time they attempted to attack Israel.
As for the terrorism, it’s a problem, and it’s a tragedy. But I think we tend to overemphasize the effectiveness of terrorism. It kills innocent lives, but it doesn’t put the government or nation in danger of upheaval on its own. Mind you, too, terrorism in Israel has sky-rocketed since Sharon decided to take a much more militant approach to the occupied territories, so it’s not illogical to assume the converse, that a non-occupation policy by Israel would greatly diminish terrorist attacks.
This might seem a little off topic…okay, because it is. When I saw the title “zionist lobby” I immediately thought, “In the Zionist lobby, there is a plaque naming the donor–maybe Barbra Streisand–and the person in whose memory the lobby was erected.”
is that an inside joke?
MG: Certainly, no one’s history is pure. My point in my earlier comment, however, was meant to suggest that Israel sometimes seems to be singled out by its critics for being uniquely reprehensible among the family of nations, either for its founding or its current policies, when in fact history suggests that any number of nations could be tarred with the same brush. This singling-out of Israel for criticisms that are not routinely leveled against other nations with the same vehemence, can be taken to such an extreme as to be anti-semitic under some circumstances, in my view.
This singling-out of Israel for criticisms that are not routinely leveled against other nations with the same vehemence, can be taken to such an extreme as to be anti-semitic under some circumstances, in my view.
Maybe so, but not with anything provable. And you’d be deeper in the realm of false arguments, this time adding ‘two wrongs’ to name-calling.
If one were, however, going to offer this as an actual argument in favor of Israel or against one of its detractors, one should be prepared for your opponent to get down in the mud with you. Such an opponent might ask you to name a similar colonial project that 1) is happening now 2)enjoys billions in annual taxpayer support and 3)enrages millions of individuals with whom we’d be much better off getting along.
Such an opponent might ask you to name a similar colonial project that 1) is happening now 2)enjoys billions in annual taxpayer support and 3)enrages millions of individuals with whom we’d be much better off getting along.
Ummm, the US in Iraq? But then that’s entirely different, loaded discussion and I would hate to turn this one on a tangent.
Really I would.
Don’t respond to specifically this post.
Don’t.
In Israel, the definition of who is a Jew (or Jew enough to have the right to live in Israel) is adopted straight from Hitler – anyone who has at least one Jewish grandparent.
So not only does one need to be religious, one doesn’t even need to be halachically Jewish. According to Jewish law, a person is Jewish only if they were born to a Jewish mother.
As far as I know, there has been absolutely no move to prevent secular Jews from coming to Israel. That would really be in nobody’s interest. You may be thinking of the conversion issue.
That only applies to people who have no Jewish grandparents. The current and historic policy of Israel has required conversion to be done by an Orthodox rabbi and an orthodox court, in order for the person to have the right to immigrate as a Jew (obviously, you can immigrate not as a Jew in a similar process to most other countries). As opposed to getting more rigid, there is a growing movement in Israel to expand the recognition of conversions.
The other issue that conversion has affected is people currently living in Israel, either with at least one Jewish grandparent or without, who aren’t halachically Jewish. Until recently, the identity certificate that each person had included the category of religion. Mostly due to disagreements over whether an Israeli citizen converted by a non Orthodox court in Israel could put Jewish on their card, the category for religion was completely dropped.
Raznor – a lot of the ‘aid’ that Israel is getting from the US is a form of trade. Israel provides technology and training to America. Also, Israel is not the only country in the region that receives aid on that scale. Egypt does as well.
It’s surprising to me that you’re so sure that Israel could defeat invading Arab armies, especially if Arabs used chemical or biological weapons. Not every one is so sure, and even people who are pretty sure that Israel could ultimately defend itself recognize that it will come at a huge cost in lives. Incidentally – probably for the invading armies as well. I am thinking that it is better to avoid a war situation where thousands of more people will die, even if I had your complete faith that Israel as a state would survive.
Also, as far as the ultra Orthodox and the existence of a Jewish state. I think there are a lot of muddled ideas here.
While there are sects of ultra Orthodox (and not all of them feel this way), that do not believe in a Jewish state until the messiah comes, they definitely believe in the commandment of living in the land of Israel. And they do.
In the mean time, they receive considerable benefits from living in a Jewish state, which they do not refuse on ideological grounds. If push came to shove, I’m not so sure they would be so readily willing to give it up.
Also, is Israel a Jewish state? Someone addressed that already. In modern terms, to me it definitely seems to be a Jewish state. In Jewish religious and legal terms, I’m not so sure, and again, if push came to shove, I don’t think the ultra-Orthodox would be so sure either. The Jewish state that they believe will come with the Messiah for sure looks a lot different than modern Israel.
Lately, since the start of the Intifada and especially after the two terrorist attacks in ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods last year, an unprecedented number of ultra orthodox youth are enlisting in the military and police forces. It’s still not a lot compared to other communities, but it is definitely something revolutionary. I think the ultra-orthodox communities are neither so homogenous nor so stagnant as some people seem to think.
Raznor, your speculation that non-occupation would reduce terrorist attacks. It might be true. Hopefully it is, since I do believe that Israel will withdraw. But that is certainly not what happened on the Lebanon border. After Israel withdrew, attacks and missiles continued, and the rhetoric got even stronger. The Hezbollah considered it a tactical victory that Palestinians would do well to emulate, i.e. keep on escalating the violence until you can cow the Israelis into backing out of the territories, and don’t stop til there’s nothing left of Israel.
RA, I definitely appreciated the Zionist Lobby joke!
I imagine the plaque on the wall in the Zionist lobby would be erected in memory of the six million Jews killed in the Holocaust.
“I haven’t read every post here, so maybe someone has already pointed this out, but at least some ultra-Orthodox sects of Judaism (such as the Hasidic Jews) are anti-Zionists and do not believe there should be an Israeli state.”
My friend’s brother the Lubavitcher rabbi – now that sounds like the start of a joke – emigrated to Israel but believes Israel should not exist (yet).
I like Raznor’s reply.
Some speculation’s being thrown about here in regard to U.S. aid to Israel and Egypt. Here are the actual numbers from the Council on Foreign Relations which I offer for purely educational purposes:
[Israel] is the number-one recipient of American foreign aid, receiving some $2.1 billion in military financing and $600 million in economic aid per year. The number-two recipient is Egypt, which annually gets $1.3 billion in military financing and $615 million in economic aid, an arrangement that began in the late 1970s as a reward for Egypt’s becoming the first Arab state to make peace with Israel.
Israel is a Jewish democracy because they refused to let 600,000-700,000 Palestinians back into their homes after the 1948 war was over. Many of those refugees were deliberately driven out. Others fled. In either case, they had the right to return home, but weren’t allowed back. People who tried to come back were either expelled again or shot.
After the 1948 war, many Jews living in Arab countries fled to Israel because of Arab persecution.
A genuinely fair solution would allow both sets of refugees to return home, or if they chose not to, then it would compensate them for their losses. A genuinely fair solution probably isn’t achievable, of course, which is why I favor the two state solution, but I don’t feel the obligation to pretend there was anything particularly fair or noble about Zionism, any more than I think there’s anything noble about the way the United States managed to take 3 million square miles from the original inhabitants.
I agree, Donald, both acts of expropriation were wrong, though the US one had no pressing necessity behind it, took more land and killed more people. And I think the Israeli one was condoned by the UN. I imagine therefore that you’ll also be making your voice heard to return the United States to the Native Americans, or get them some compensation. If you live in America, that might even seem more urgent.
Just to be clear: I want the West Bank and Gaza for Palestine.
the US one had no pressing necessity behind it
My understanding is that while the Jews certainly needed a haven, the appropriation of Arab lands in Palestine for this purpose was not a necessity.
I imagine therefore that you’ll also be making your voice heard to return the United States to the Native Americans, or get them some compensation.
There is an obvious distinction between claims made by specific individuals to whom a wrong was and continues to be done and claims made by subsequent generations based on vaporous notions of “collective” guilt and suffering. In the case of the Palestinians, the timeframe is such that claims for a right of return (which is still being denied) or some payment in lieu of same, are of a very different character than those that might be made on behalf of modern Indians who are full citizens of the United States. This is not to say that arguments couldn’t made on behalf of reparations to Indians but only to say that it’s not a very persuasive analogy for your purposes.
Ummm, the US in Iraq? . ..Don’t respond to specifically this post.
That’s cheeky. Free-floating sarcasm followed by a dictate to shut up. But no worries. I haven’t a clue what your point is.
Not really. It was more out of tiredness, and just noting that the current US occupation of Iraq is happening now, is receiving billions of taxpayer money and is happening to enrage the same individuals who are already enraged by Israeli occupation of Palestine, thus meeting all three of your criteria.
My point in saying not to respond to that post was because I didn’t want to turn this into a debate about Iraq.
Raznor, I thought your Iraq joke was funny.
* * *
Tom wrote:
My point in my earlier comment, however, was meant to suggest that Israel sometimes seems to be singled out by its critics for being uniquely reprehensible among the family of nations, either for its founding or its current policies, when in fact history suggests that any number of nations could be tarred with the same brush. This singling-out of Israel for criticisms that are not routinely leveled against other nations with the same vehemence, can be taken to such an extreme as to be anti-semitic under some circumstances, in my view.
So if an activist happens to be passionately focused on the issue of Chinese aggression against Tibet – to the point where they “sometimes seem” to talk about it as if it were “uniquely reprehensible” – do you take that as evidence of anti-Chinese racism?
In the 1980s, many American activists were overwhelmingly focused on opposing the white apartheid government of South Africa, even though other governments in the world were as bad. Many of were so passionate that it could “sometimes seem” that they thought the situation in S.A. was “uniquely reprehensible.” Is it your view that those activists were motivated by racism against white people?
One more example: From the mid-1990s to the US invasion of Afghanistan, the Feminist Majority Foundation focused its international activism far more on Afghanistan (and the Taliban) than on any other country in the world. Was that anti-Arab racism?
This argument – that a passionate focus on one country’s sins indicates bigotry – is one I’ve never seen brought up in any context but Israel, even though it in theory applies to any country in the world that has ever been a focus for activists. That it is only used to defend Israel makes it seem more like, well, special pleading.
Activists cannot be expected to give “equal time” to every bad nation in the world. No one has time to focus on ALL the evil in the world; there’s too much of it. In activism like in any other field, some degree of specialization is necessary in order to accomplish anything.
There are many legitimate reasons to focus on Israel rather than other countries (the perception that Israel is particularly vulnerable to international pressure, the belief that Israel/Palestine is a lynchpin of other international tensions, opposition to current perceived colonialism, the massive amount of US aid Israel receives, Israel’s responsiveness to US pressure, the way many Diaspora Jews, me included, were raised to expect better from Israel, etc etc). The assumption that a passionate focus on Israel indicates anti-semitism is, in my view, both unsupportable and unfair.
It’s not my analogy, MG, it’s his. I also don’t find it a very good one. That was kind of my point. If he thinks the two are equal, he should be making his voice heard. If he thinks the Palestinian case uniquely demands compensation (for which a case can certainly be made), he should say so.
Tara wrote:
It’s surprising to me that you’re so sure that Israel could defeat invading Arab armies, especially if Arabs used chemical or biological weapons. Not every one is so sure, and even people who are pretty sure that Israel could ultimately defend itself recognize that it will come at a huge cost in lives. Incidentally – probably for the invading armies as well. I am thinking that it is better to avoid a war situation where thousands of more people will die, even if I had your complete faith that Israel as a state would survive.
Tara, I’m a little unclear on who is invading in this example.
Are you saying that a newly formed state of Palestine would invade Israel? That’s extremely unlikely; at the negotiations at Taba (which Israel, not Palestine, cut off), Palestine was willing to agree to limits on its military capacities and other measures to protect Israeli security.
If you’re worried about other countries invading Israel, then I don’t see how holding the occupied territories guarantees such an invasion will not take place. Arguably, the continued occupation provides a focal point for anti-Israel sentiment that makes aggression against Israel more likely, not less.
Israel has access to more and better weapons than any Arab country, even Iran; Israel would also have the support of the US military in the case of an Arab invasion of Israel. Apparently you don’t think even Israel’s overwhelming military and nuclear superiority – not to mention Israel’s demonstrated ability to win every single war it’s ever been in, in years when its military capacity wasn’t nearly as strong as it is today – is enough to justify a claim that Israel is strong enough to withstand an invasion.
With all due respect, what would you consider enough? Does every Arab nation have to disarm entirely before Israel can be considered safe enough from invasion to stop destroying the Palestinian people?
* * *
It’s possible that ending the occupation will, somehow, trigger a war that will cause loss of life; but it’s also possible that continuing the occupation will, somehow, do the same thing.
Against that, we have to consider the massive cost to ordinary Palestinians of continuing the occupation. It seems to me that when either continuing or ending the occupation has risks, we should decide in favor of the solution that reduces a massive human rights atrocity. And don’t fool yourself – the occupation is a horrific policy, which cruelly punishes 99.9% of Palestinians for the actions of a tiny minority.
You say – and I’m not sure this is true – that withdrawing from Lebanon hasn’t reduced terrorism at all (the mid-eighties partial withdrawal led to a large reduction of Hezibollah suicide attacks, actually). But what most anti-occupation activists call for is a negotiated withdrawal to agreed-upon lines, not a unilateral withdrawal to lines that Israel says is a complete withdrawal, but Syria and Lebanon say is not. That alone makes the two situations non-comparable.
* * *
By the way, Tara, I want to thank you for your very polite and nice posts here. I really appreciate it, even though I disagree with you on some points.
Amp, I don’t disagree with anything you said; I just think you may be painting me with too broad a brush (and I was trying hard not to be categorical in my remarks). Certainly, one can focus one’s critical energies solely or primarily upon Israel for any number of legitimate reasons; all I’m saying is that I believe there are also some people who focus their criticisms uniquely upon Israel because of anti-semitic motives.
(Let me be clear that I am not accusing any participant in this discussion of anti-semitism. When I say “some people,” I simply mean “some people in the world at large.” I absolutely am not trying to use that formulation as any sort of innuendo against anyone here).
Also, I don’t think the analogies to protesting against South Africa or China quite fit. No one is claiming that the founding of the Chinese state itself (as opposed to its occupation of other areas) was illegitimate, yet Israel is still often called upon to defend its founding. As for SA, I think it’s legitimate to be more vigilant for anti-semitic motives among opponents of Israel than for anti-white motives among opponents of South Africa, since anti-semitism in the West has had a long history, both as private prejudice and public policy, whereas anti-white racism would be more of a historical anomaly.
Well, yeah, it’s true that certain people will reject Israel because of anti-semitic motives, and in particular an anti-semite of the non-Evangelical Christian extremist variety, will likely be anti-Israel, but I really don’t see why these facts are really significant.
In the meanwhile, I’ll repeat Amp’s comment in general that I think it’s so damn cool that such a loaded topic is debated in such civil terms. Good going, us!
I found THIS on one of Atrios’s blogads:
http://babylonianmusings.blogspot.com/
Yet another example of a Zionist apologist trying to smear all anti-Zionists as anti-Semitic whackos. But the thing is, why is he advertising on Atrios when he knows the reader base?
It’s not a Palestinian invasion that is threatening, at least, not at the beginning of a new state. I mean, an invasion through Palestine. It will be even easier for other Arab countries to ship weapons, conventional and non conventional, into Palestine, which would be kind of smack in the middle of Israel. In the case of another war, the loss of that land would make it much harder for Israel to defend itself. Imagine if Washington DC, in the middle, was Palestinian, the Metropolitan suburban area around it, was Israeli, and Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, Tenessee, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania, were Arab.
I’m not sure whether not holding the territories would make invasion less likely and peace more likely. Like I wrote befor, I hope so, since that’s what I think should happen. But I suspect it could also be seen as a massive victory over Israel and a impetus to using more violence against Israel to completely re-take what many Arabs see as Arab land.
I do think that Israel is strong enough to withstand almost any invasion. That doesn’t mean I think it should have to, or that the human costs wouldn’t be enormous.
And I’m not so sure that Israel could withstand strong biological/chemical and especially nuclear warfare. It’s so small. Sure, it could blow huge parts of the Middle East up in retaliation, but by then it would be too late.
I mean, what does it mean to say that Israel has won every single war so far? We don’t need to be concerned about its being attacked in the future? The United States, also, has never lost a war on its own territory, nor have a lot of other countries, especially if you only consider wars in the last, say, 150 years, as opposed to the 55 in which Israel has existed. That doesn’t mean that it’s okay if they’re attacked.
The last part of this is what you say most anti-occupation activists are calling for. I believe you that that’s true about anti-occupation activists in North America. But I doubt that these are the majority, or even close to half, of the anti-occupation activists in the world. If you count anti-occupation activists in the Arab world as anti-occupation activists, a lot of times what they mean by occupation is the existence of Israel itself.
Also, even if what North American anti-occupationists envision as proper negotiations and treaties for leading to sustainable peace would, in theory, really lead to sustainable peace, does not mean they would in practice. It is not exactly a fertile environment from peace.
I don’t know why you ask if every Arab government has to be disarmed for Israel to stop destroying the Palestinian people. Even the Palestinian people aren’t disarmed, and Israel often participated in the arming of them.
On the other hand, I wouldn’t consider it unreasonable to say that every Arab government, or at least the ones in it’s immediate and secondary proximity, has to recognize Israel’s existence, be willing to sign non-aggression treaties, stop supporting terrorist organizations, stop supporting and dispersing anti-Israel and anti-Jewish propaganda, and support the right of Israel’s existence as a state.
I spent 20 years in England, and I heard a lot of people who were ferociously against the Israeli occupation of Palestine (including me). But I had to come to the US to hear the idea that Israel should not exist.
The thing is, Tara, you’re speaking of a hypothetical human cost of a potential invasion if Israel draws back, but say nothing of the tangible human cost of the current Israeli occupation. Sure most Arab nations are corrupt, and they use Israel as a distraction from their corruption, but I don’t see why the Palestinians should suffer for that. Also although both sides are to blame for what’s going on, I never find blame to be a very effective tool, either politically or socially. What matters is accountability, and it’s more practical to assign accountability to the side that is backed by a large and powerful military.
Raznor,
I hear what you’re saying and to a large extent I think you’re right.
On the other hand, it’s not only accountability that matters. It’s also real life results and outcomes.
I think I mentioned in an earlier comment that people, as individuals and as societies, will refrain from doing the right thing if it comes at too high a cost for them.
Whether we’re okay with that or not depends on the details. Many men support patriarchal systems because they see the development of power among women as too much of a threat to them and their way of life, ie, too high a cost.
The example I gave of when many of us would agree that it’s better to refrain from doing the right thing because of possible, and not even certain, danger, is sex-offender registries.
You’re right, of course, there is no reason why the Arabs should suffer for the threat posed by other Arab countries. On the other hand, there are people (in this case the important ones being voting Israelis) who believe that the emancipation of the Palestinians would lead to them colluding in and increasing the threat, and that continuing the occupation provides some additional security against the threat. I wrote before that I don’t think this is an irrational or necessarily wrong belief.
So I guess that I’m not saying it’s enough to convince people that a certain action is “right,” they have to also believe that it’s safe.
In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian situation, I think this is a relatively easier task than in the case of patriarchal men in patriarchal societies.
As has been pointed out, there is already strong support in Israel for ending the Occupation. Furthermore, since Israel is a democracy, there is no need for either %100 support among the people, or the convincing of any one particular dictator.
Since I personally believe that the people who don’t believe it’s safe currently have a reasonable position, I can say that, like the situation of sex offenders, this may be case where safe can, at least for a while, supersede right. And of course every individual has their own threshold level for when the situation will feel safe enough to do what’s right.
And there are some people who honestly think it’s not only expedient, but right, for Israel to include the West Bank and Gaza.
And there are people who think it would be right, but it’s not expedient or safe under the current circumstances, and support either immediate or future Israeli withdrawal.
People who don’t think it’s a reasonable position are, it seems to me, forced to conclude that the current majority of voters who are not calling for immediate withdrawal must be either stupid, fearing something unreal, or evil, not wanting or caring at all about doing the right thing. I’m pretty certain that that’s not a productive stance to take, and also pretty certain not an accurate one.