Israel is suppressing a secret it must face
by Johann Hari
Independent UK
4/30/08
How did a Jewish state founded 60 years ago end up throwing filth at cowering Palestinians?
When you hit your 60th birthday, most of you will guzzle down your hormone replacement therapy with a glass of champagne and wonder if you have become everything you dreamed of in your youth. In a few weeks, the state of Israel is going to have that hangover.
She will look in the mirror and think - I have a sore back, rickety knees and a gun at my waist, but I'm still standing. Yet somewhere, she will know she is suppressing an old secret she has to face. I would love to be able to crash the birthday party with words of reassurance. Israel has given us great novelists like Amos Oz and A.B. Yehoshua, great film-makers like Joseph Cedar, great scientific research into Alzheimer's, and great dissident journalists like Amira Hass, Tom Segev and Gideon Levy to expose her own crimes.
She has provided the one lonely spot in the Middle East where gay people are not hounded and hanged, and where women can approach equality.
But I can't do it. Whenever I try to mouth these words, a remembered smell fills my nostrils. It is the smell of ****. Across the occupied West Bank, raw untreated sewage is pumped every day out of the Jewish settlements, along large metal pipes, straight onto Palestinian land. From there, it can enter the groundwater and the reservoirs, and become a poison.
Standing near one of these long, stinking brown-and-yellow rivers of waste recently, the local chief medical officer, Dr Bassam Said Nadi, explained to me: "Recently there were very heavy rains, and the **** started to flow into the reservoir that provides water for this whole area. I knew that if we didn't act, people would die. We had to alert everyone not to drink the water for over a week, and distribute bottles. We were lucky it was spotted. Next time..." He shook his head in fear. This is no freak: a 2004 report by Friends of the Earth found that only six per cent of Israeli settlements adequately treat their sewage.
Meanwhile, in order to punish the population of Gaza for voting "the wrong way", the Israeli army are not allowing past the checkpoints any replacements for the pipes and cement needed to keep the sewage system working. The result? Vast stagnant pools of waste are being held within fragile dykes across the strip, and rotting. Last March, one of them burst, drowning a nine-month-old baby and his elderly grandmother in a tsunami of human waste. The Centre on Housing Rights warns that one heavy rainfall could send 1.5m cubic metres of faeces flowing all over Gaza, causing "a humanitarian and environmental disaster of epic proportions".
So how did it come to this? How did a Jewish state founded 60 years ago with a promise to be "a light unto the nations" end up flinging its filth at a cowering Palestinian population?
The beginnings of an answer lie in the secret Israel has known, and suppressed, all these years. Even now, can we describe what happened 60 years ago honestly and unhysterically? The Jews who arrived in Palestine throughout the twentieth century did not come because they were cruel people who wanted to snuffle out Arabs to persecute. No: they came because they were running for their lives from a genocidal European anti-Semitism that was soon to slaughter six million of their sisters and their sons.
They convinced themselves that Palestine was "a land without people for a people without land". I desperately wish this dream had been true. You can see traces of what might have been in Tel Aviv, a city that really was built on empty sand dunes. But most of Palestine was not empty. It was already inhabited by people who loved the land, and saw it as theirs. They were completely innocent of the long, hellish crimes against the Jews.
When it became clear these Palestinians would not welcome becoming a minority in somebody else's country, darker plans were drawn up. Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, wrote in 1937: "The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war."
So, for when the moment arrived, he helped draw up Plan Dalit. It was - as Israeli historian Ilan Pappe puts it - "a detailed description of the methods to be used to forcibly evict the people: large-scale intimidation; and laying siege to and bombarding population centres". In 1948, before the Arab armies invaded, this began to be implemented: some 800,000 people were ethnically cleansed, and Israel was built on the ruins. The people who ask angrily why the Palestinians keep longing for their old land should imagine an English version of this story. How would we react if the 30m stateless, persecuted Kurds in the world sent armies and settlers into this country to seize everything in England below Leeds, and swiftly established a free Kurdistan from which we were expelled? Wouldn't we long forever for our children to return to Cornwall and Devon and London? Would it take us only 40 years to compromise and offer to settle for just 22 per cent of what we had?
If we are not going to be endlessly banging our heads against history, the Middle East needs to excavate 1948, and seek a solution. Any peace deal - even one where Israel dismantled the wall and agreed to return to the 1967 borders - tends to crumple on this issue. The Israelis say: if we let all three million come back, we will be outnumbered by Palestinians even within the 1967 borders, so Israel would be voted out of existence. But the Palestinians reply: if we don't have an acknowledgement of the Naqba (catastrophe), and our right under international law to the land our grandfathers fled, how can we move on?
It seemed like an intractable problem - until, two years ago, the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research conducted the first study of the Palestinian Diaspora's desires. They found that only 10 per cent - around 300,000 people - want to return to Israel proper. Israel can accept that many (and compensate the rest) without even enduring much pain. But there has always been a strain of Israeli society that preferred violently setting its own borders, on its own terms, to talk and compromise. This weekend, the elected Hamas government offered a six-month truce that could have led to talks. The Israeli government responded within hours by blowing up a senior Hamas leader and killing a 14-year-old girl.
Perhaps Hamas' proposals are a con; perhaps all the Arab states are lying too when they offer Israel full recognition in exchange for a roll-back to the 1967 borders; but isn't it a good idea to find out? Israel, as she gazes at her grey hairs and discreetly ignores the smell of her own stale **** pumped across Palestine, needs to ask what kind of country she wants to be in the next 60 years.
BBB
This article contains the information that makes me so angry and disappointed with the Israeli right wing government.
Some people have accused me, and others who know the truth, of being anti-semitic, which is stupid if anyone knows my background. The Israeli government cries anti-semitism any time Israel is criticized for it's actions and the U.S. government apes them.
The right wings of both the Israeli and U.S. governments refuse to admit Israel's persistent role in preventing a peace settlement with the Palestinians. Even now, Israel has resumed building Israeli housing on Palestinian land. I know the argument that Palestinians are bombing Israeli towns near the border. They are fighting the country that is occupying their country's land as any rebels would. I remember how the Israelis terrorists fought the British when they occupied the land the Israeli's wanted for their homeland. Such behavior is the result of occupation, as the U.S. is currently learning in Iraq.
The only exceptions are Liberal Israels (both Israel and U.S. Jews) who want to trade land for peace, and Israel's Labor Party, whose leader was murdered by an Israeli right wing radical because he was trying to negotiate a peace agreement. When that happened, I gave up on seeing a two state peace agreement during my lifetime.
BBB
0 Replies
BumbleBeeBoogie
1
Reply
Sat 3 May, 2008 09:38 am
Israel Urged to End Blockade of Gaza as Talks Begin in Lon
Israel Urged to End Blockade of Gaza as Talks Begin in London
By Ian Black
The Guardian UK
Friday 02 May 2008
Israel will be urged today to ease its blockade of the Gaza Strip to avert a humanitarian disaster as the Middle East "quartet" meets to consider the state of the faltering peace process.
Oxfam and five other UK aid agencies are calling for the quartet to end its "complacency" by putting the "highest diplomatic pressure" on Israel over its strategy of isolating the Islamist movement Hamas at meetings in London on the Annapolis negotiations and Palestinian economic development in the West Bank.
"The collective complacency of the quartet is putting the future of the people of Gaza on the line," said Oxfam GB director Barbara Stocking. "We need the fuel, humanitarian supplies and essential equipment withheld by Israel for more than nine months to ease this human suffering and avert a disaster.
"It is well within the power of the EU and the US to make this happen ... They should insist on an immediate end to Gaza's suffering."
But there is no sign that the quartet - the US, Russia, the EU and the UN - will drop the principle of boycotting Hamas while Israeli officials and some western diplomats blame the group for attacking the Gaza crossing points and not distributing available fuel. The EU recently noted Hamas's "share" in the crisis.
Salam Fayyad, the western-backed Palestinian prime minister, warned separately yesterday that Israel must freeze all settlement activity and ease restrictions on movement in the West Bank if peace talks are to have any chance of succeeding. Fayyad also called on Israel to alleviate the "catastrophic" crisis in Gaza.
"Unfortunately, in the five months since Annapolis, Israel has done little, most significantly with its continued noncompliance with the obligation to freeze all settlement activity in the occupied Palestinian territories," Fayyad said. "The language is very clear: it says 'not one more brick,' and we have witnessed expanded settlement activity."
If that did not change quickly the peace process would be "devoid of any meaningful content," Fayyad added.
Israel and the Palestinians pledged at the US-hosted summit last November to reach agreement by the end of 2008. But there is profound and growing scepticism on all sides.
Fayyad's uncharacteristically sharp remarks will add to pressure on Israel. Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, and from Saudi Arabia and other Arab states are expected to urge Israel to ease the Gaza crisis by opening border crossings to food and fuel deliveries.
Egypt is leading intensifying diplomatic activity to bring about a six-month ceasefire between Israel and Hamas as well as smaller factions such as Islamic Jihad which have been firing rockets across the border. Israel expects any package to include the release of Gilad Shalit, a soldier who was captured by Palestinian fighters nearly two years ago.
Some Israeli officials argue that the siege is working, that Hamas is under pressure and that Israel should not "reward" it. "The situation is catastrophic and everything that can be done should be done," said Fayyad. "The alternative to a ceasefire is 1.5million Palestinians continuing to live in a state of utter despair. The dynamic has to change otherwise we are in the realm of instability that will produce nothing but disaster."
Tony Blair, the quartet's envoy, has tried to reduce the number of Israeli roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank but the latest UN figures show Israel has removed just five of nearly 600 obstacles.
Fayyad, a former World Bank economist, is favoured by the west and Israel for his commitment to improve governance and boost the economy with the help of $7.7bn pledged at a Paris conference Blair convened last December. But he said Israeli military incursions were undermining the ability of Palestinian security forces, trained in Jordan, to control the West Bank - as Israel ostensibly wants.
"It's a dreadful situation but there are things we can do to improve the context in which we are operating. The economic leg is hugely important. But this is a political conflict that requires a political solution."
0 Replies
Kayyam
1
Reply
Sat 3 May, 2008 09:41 pm
Re: Israel is suppressing a secret it must face
Johann Hari wrote:
Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, wrote in 1937: "The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war."
Hi BBB,
That quotation is probably fabricated. It doesn't square with what we know of Ben-Gurion and has been flatly dismissed by Benny Morris.
/Kayyam
0 Replies
InfraBlue
1
Reply
Sun 4 May, 2008 02:37 am
Johann Hari is quoting a line from Ilan Pappé's book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine which the latter took from Ben-Gurion's Diary, 12 July 1937, found in the Ben Gurion Archives [BGA] of the Ben-Gurion University Libraries.
0 Replies
BumbleBeeBoogie
1
Reply
Sun 4 May, 2008 07:46 am
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine This is the source.---BBB
New Book by Israeli professor: The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine will be published Oct. 19.
The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war. -- David Ben-Gurion writing to his son, 1937
There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist. -- Golda Meir, statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969
As Israel stands accused by Amnesty International of committing war crimes in Lebanon following its almost five-week bombardment of that country, which left over a thousand civilians dead and almost a million displaced, a prominent Israeli historian at Haifa University revisits the formative period of the State of Israel to investigate the treatment of the indigenous Palestinians.
In this controversial new book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Ilan Pappe uses recently declassified archival sources to investigate the fate suffered by the indigenous population of 1940s Palestine at the hands of the Zionist political and military leadership, whose actions led to the mass deportation of over a million Palestinians from their cities and villages, over 400 villages wiped from the map, and hundreds of civilians dead.
Exploring both the planning and the execution of the Jewish operations during the British Mandate period and the run-up to independence, Pappe focuses in particular on the activities of the Hagana, the Irgun, and the Palmach. Drawing on such meticulously-researched documents as the minutes from meetings of Ben-Gurion's unofficial "war cabinet" as well as the personal diaries and memoirs of a large number of key officials in all sectors of the Jewish leadership of the day, Pappe pieces together and re-examines the attitudes and motivations that influenced the conduct of the Jewish community towards the indigenous population. He goes on to offer a detailed account of the events of 1947-8 that eventually led to one of the biggest refugee migrations in modern history. This is no moral rant against the past, but a passionate plea to acknowledge the Nakba, as Palestinians call the catastrophe that befell them in 1948, as the root cause of the ongoing Palestine-Israel conflict.
Many political commentators and historians trace the roots of the recent stages of the conflict back only so far as Israel's occupation of the West Bank following the 1967 war, rightly regarding the occupation, the settlements and the Security Barrier as a violation of international law. The first and second Intifadas may be seen as protests against the continuing occupation and a reflection of the deep despair of the Palestinians, who feel they have been severely let down by their own leaders, by Israel, by Arab states, by the United Nations, and by western powers.
Pappe argues persuasively, however, that the continued denial of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 and the consequent dispossession of a million native Palestinians from their homeland represents a gross injustice that requires redress. The refusal to acknowledge this event, and allow those dispossessed the right of return to their ancestral lands and homes, are not only an abuse of their human rights, but a rejection from the peace process of the essential foundation for a lasting peace in the Middle East and beyond.
An incisive, important and timely book, on an issue of continuing global concern.
Ilan Pappe is a senior lecturer of Political Science at Haifa University. He is also Academic Director of the Research Institute for peace at Givat Haviva, and Chair of the Emil Touma Institute for Palestinian Studies, Haifa. His previous works include the bestselling A History of Modern Palestine, The Modern Middle East and The Israel/Palestine Question.
ADVANCE PRAISE FOR THE ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINE
"Ilan Pappe is Israel's bravest, most principled, most incisive historian." John Pilger
"The first book to so clearly document the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 of which the massacre at Deir Yassin was emblematic. Political Zionism has always been premised on the elimination of non-Jews who even today account for more than half of the population living within the borders controlled by Israel. Will the West continue to ignore this textbook example of ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity?" Daniel McGowan, Executive Director, Deir Yassin Remembered, Hobart and William Smith Colleges
"Ilan Pappe has written an extraordinary book of profound relevance to the past, present, and future of Israel/Palestine relations." Richard Falk, Professor of International Law and Practice, Princeton University
"This is an extraordinary book - a dazzling feat of scholarly synthesis and Biblical moral clarity and humaneness." Walid Khalidi, Former Senior Research Fellow, Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Harvard University
"An instant classic. Finally we have the authoritative account of an historic event which continues to shape our world today, and drives the conflict in the Middle East. Pappe is the only historian who could have told it, and he has done so with supreme command of the facts, elegance, and compassion. The publication of this book is a landmark event." Karma Nabulsi, a research fellow at Nuffield College, Oxford University
"If there is to be real peace in Palestine/Israel, the moral vigour and intellectual clarity of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine will have been a major contributor to it." Ahdaf Soueif, author of The Map of Love
"Fresh insights into a world historic tragedy, related by a historian of genius. George Galloway MP
"Groundbreaking research into a well-kept Israeli secret. A classic of historical scholarship on a taboo subject by one of Israel's foremost New Historians." Ghada Karmi, author of In Search of Fatima
"Ilan Pappe is out to fight against Zionism, whose power of deletion has driven a whole nation not only out of its homeland but out of historic memory as well. A detailed, documented record of the true history of that crime, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine puts an end to the Palestinian 'Nakbah' and the Israeli 'War of Independence' by so compellingly shifting both paradigms." Anton Shammas, Professor of Modern Middle Eastern Literature, University of Michigan
0 Replies
BumbleBeeBoogie
1
Reply
Sun 4 May, 2008 07:53 am
Re: Israel is suppressing a secret it must face
Kayyam wrote:
Johann Hari wrote:
Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, wrote in 1937: "The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war."
Hi BBB,
That quotation is probably fabricated. It doesn't square with what we know of Ben-Gurion and has been flatly dismissed by Benny Morris.
/Kayyam
Kayyam, welcome to A2K. I also was surprised by the quote so I searched and found and posted the source of the statement. The author appears to be a credible Israeli source.
BBB
0 Replies
Kayyam
1
Reply
Sun 4 May, 2008 11:40 am
InfraBlue wrote:
Johann Hari is quoting a line from Ilan Pappé's book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine which the latter took from Ben-Gurion's Diary, 12 July 1937, found in the Ben Gurion Archives [BGA] of the Ben-Gurion University Libraries.
How do you know, did you ask Johann?
/Kayyam
0 Replies
BumbleBeeBoogie
1
Reply
Sun 4 May, 2008 11:47 am
Kayyam wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
Johann Hari is quoting a line from Ilan Pappé's book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine which the latter took from Ben-Gurion's Diary, 12 July 1937, found in the Ben Gurion Archives [BGA] of the Ben-Gurion University Libraries.
How do you know, did you ask Johann?
/Kayyam
Are you going to be silly or serious? Instead of trying to challenge me, try offering proof that the statement is not true.
BBB
0 Replies
Kayyam
1
Reply
Sun 4 May, 2008 12:32 pm
Re: Israel is suppressing a secret it must face
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Kayyam, welcome to A2K. I also was surprised by the quote so I searched and found and posted the source of the statement. The author appears to be a credible Israeli source.
BBB
BBB,
Thanks for the welcome.
The fact that Ilan Pappe is an educated man or a (former?) Israeli does not mean that he should be given the last word. At the risk of repeating myself, Benny Morris also passes your credibility test and he vigorously contests what Pappe has written about Ben-Gurion. Indeed I would not bat an eyelid if it were asserted that such a statement came from the likes of Menachem Begin or Yitzhak Shamir.
One thing that strikes skepticism in me is Pappe's peculiar penchant to draw conclusions that are broader than the scope of the research.
Here are some snippets from non-blog reviews
Quote:
Some commentators, most stridently the journalist John Pilger, seem to believe that Pappe's is the definitive account, the last word on 1948. It isn't: both his overall argument, and much detail, will undoubtedly be subject to sharp critique. And although some of that will be politically motivated, even malicious, some will be careful and honest. But if not the last word, this is a major intervention in an argument that will, and must, continue. There's no hope of a lasting Middle East peace while the ghosts of 1948 still walk.
But Pappe makes one egregious mistake. He never bothers to ask the same question of the Arabs he does of the Jews: What about their lists, their intelligence reports and their ethnic-cleansing plans? What were Arab intentions in the five months between the passage of the UN partition plan on November 29, 1947, and the birth of Israel?
Seth Frantzman link
/Kayyam
0 Replies
georgeob1
1
Reply
Sun 4 May, 2008 02:06 pm
Re: BBB
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Some people have accused me, and others who know the truth, of being anti-semitic, which is stupid if anyone knows my background. The Israeli government cries anti-semitism any time Israel is criticized for it's actions and the U.S. government apes them.
The right wings of both the Israeli and U.S. governments refuse to admit Israel's persistent role in preventing a peace settlement with the Palestinians. Even now, Israel has resumed building Israeli housing on Palestinian land. I know the argument that Palestinians are bombing Israeli towns near the border. They are fighting the country that is occupying their country's land as any rebels would. I remember how the Israelis terrorists fought the British when they occupied the land the Israeli's wanted for their homeland. Such behavior is the result of occupation, as the U.S. is currently learning in Iraq.
The only exceptions are Liberal Israels (both Israel and U.S. Jews) who want to trade land for peace, and Israel's Labor Party, whose leader was murdered by an Israeli right wing radical because he was trying to negotiate a peace agreement. When that happened, I gave up on seeing a two state peace agreement during my lifetime.
I share your general view of the situation in the Middle East, but with a few exceptions.
Kayyam above suggested that the source you cited was selective in the aspects of the historical issues he chose to investigate and continued to be selective in reporting his findings, omitting the Arab side of the 1948 (and prior) conflict. I believe that is correct - there is more to the story than your reference has portrayed: good and evil intent and actions occurred on both sides of this historic Middle Eastern dispute.
Second, support or rejection of the excesses of Israel with respect to the Palestinians is not the simple Left vs. Right issue you have portrayed it to be - either here or in Israel.
Harry Truman announced our recognition of the newly declared state in Israel before any other nation - literally within minutes of the Israeli declaration itself, and did so just as the very hard -fought (and close) presidential election campaign of 1948 (against Dewey) began. The significant contribution of this action to Truman's victory in the election a few months later is undeniable and the internall discussions of this aspect of the decision within the Truman Administration are well-documented in the historical record.
In those early years, U.S. support for Israel was centered chiefly in the Democrat Party and among the "liberal" component of the American political spectrum. Reservations about our unqualified support for Israel were mostly among Republicans, as was demonstrated in the subsequent Eisenhower Administrations.
As time passed the increasingly pervasive power of AIPAC and other Zionist lobbying groups in this country made support for Israel a "third rail" issue in American political life. Congressmen of both parties increasingly went to great lengths to demonstrate their unbounded acquiescence to this powerful lobby - and did so in a series of legislative actions that established for Israel better terms of trade with the U.S. than any other country in the world (Israeli goods and services are treated literally as though they originated here, though we have no comparable reciprocal rights in Israel); and granted huge defense credits and economic aid programs (both in billions) for Israel, even with the unusual proviso that the funds so granted would be instantly transferred to the Israeli account on the first instant of the fiscal year, regardless of the administrative budgeting practices of the U.S. government department involved.) The few Congressmen who voiced opposition to Israel in these or any other issue found themselves confronted with well-financed opponents and a hostile press in the next election. Most quickly lost.
Since 1960, both Democrat and Republican administrations have been equally supportive of Israel across the whole spectrum of issues involving her. Reagan was the first Republican president to adopt the Israeli support policies of his Democrat predecessors. Interestingly there is a growing resentment for Israel within the bureaucratic elements of the U.S. government - below the level of political appointees - mostly resulting from reactions to previous excesses in the unqualified support we provided and occasional Israeli abuses of the trust it enjoyed with us. (That explains, for example, the very hot resistance to the release of Johnathan Pollard, an American who acted within our Defense Department as a paid spy for Israel. Israel and her U.S. support groups continue to campaign for Pollard's release, but he will likely die in Federal prison.)
I don't see any evidence whatever for the disaffection for Israel's excesses you infrer exists among American Jews, who are, as you noted, mostly liberal in their domestic politics. My strong impression is that, though they are very liberal in their views of domestic affairs and on many international issues as well, they are oddly reactionary in their consistent support for whatever is the current mantra of Israeli Zionism.
In Israel, both the Labor and the Likud party have been consistently united in their intent to keep substantial territory in the former West Bank, and in the fiction that their promise of "Land for peace" is something more than a lame rationalization for the ethnic cleansing they both advocate. The only difference I can see between them is how much additional West bank territory they want for future settlements. Both are equally committed to a permanent Jewish theocracy in Israel and continued different, second-class status for non Jews in their country.
0 Replies
InfraBlue
1
Reply
Sun 4 May, 2008 04:11 pm
Kayyam wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
Johann Hari is quoting a line from Ilan Pappé's book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine which the latter took from Ben-Gurion's Diary, 12 July 1937, found in the Ben Gurion Archives [BGA] of the Ben-Gurion University Libraries.
How do you know, did you ask Johann?
/Kayyam
Hari used that quote in an earlier article about two years ago inwhich Benny Morris attempted to discredit it saying that it was a complete fabrication by him or whomever he was quoting, and then suggested Pappé. Whatever the source of Hari's quote, Pappé had referenced it in the book I mentioned.
Sure, Pappé's book can be construed as one-sided, but that opinion of the book does not negate the legitimacy of the direct quote he uses from one of Gurion's diaries.
0 Replies
Kayyam
1
Reply
Mon 5 May, 2008 10:53 pm
Right, but I think the point that Benny Morris is trying to make is that it is not a direct quote from the diary. Is there anyone else out there who has read this gedarned diary so we can find out who is right? BTW how did a letter to his son get into his diary?
Second, support or rejection of the excesses of Israel with respect to the Palestinians is not the simple Left vs. Right issue you have portrayed it to be - either here or in Israel.
It is and it isn't. You are right that Israel has enjoyed bipartisan support throughout its history and now. You could say that it a plank in both party platforms to give unqualified support for Israel. No mainstream politician dares touch the third rail, however we did have two Democrats (Gravel and Kucinich) and one Republican (Paul) who criticized US policy on Israel.
But strong criticism of Israel does come more from the left. This is generally married to a general disillusionment with US policy around the world - i.e. home grown anti-americanism. Noam Chomsky is a good example and he has a lot of admirers.
Meanwhile strong criticism of the Palestinians and support for Israel tends to come from the right in the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh (two of the most popular commentators in the country).
So in this case I would say that the parties do not reflect the image of their constituencies.
Now in Israel I think it is a bit different. Likud is definitely a more hardline party and historically it has its roots in a militant organization. Likud, as far I know, has not eliminated the one-state solution from its party platform.
Then if we think of the left in Israel, it includes a whole bunch of secular and non-religious people so I don't agree with your characterization of them as theocrats.
Good discussion though...
/Kayyam
0 Replies
Foofie
1
Reply
Fri 9 May, 2008 03:58 pm
The logical reason to believe that criticism of Israel equates to anti-Semitism, is not because any specific individual is anti-Semitic, but that there was no "real effective" collective criticism of the Nazis implementing the Final Solution. So, it is natural to think that the one country that won't persecute Jews (Israel) is criticized collectively by the mindset that wouldn't criticize the Nazis. In other words, criticism of Israel will always be suspect, since the same evolved brain that can today criticize Israel, is the same evolved brain that found criticism of the Final Solution of little import. So no one is an anti-Semite for criticizing Israel, but I believe Israel supporters tend to think that criticism of Israel comes from the historical acceptance of anti-Semitism.
If the Jewish Holocaust never happened there might not be an Israel; however, since there was a Jewish Holocaust, and Britain and the United Nations were able to give the displaced persons a home (and later the Middle Eastern Jews), the author of the article here should not say the problem can only be solved by going back to 1948, but by going back to at least 1941/2. Then it would sound to me more intellectually honest.
Perhaps, the real problem to finding a solution to the antagonisms is that those that support Israel, and those that criticize Israel, are on two different calendars. One begins in 1941/2; the other begins in 1948.
In my own opinion, I wonder if those westerners that criticize Israel, being on that calendar that only begins in 1948, are unconsciously aware of that, since otherwise there might be some guilt for then realizing that there own western morality cared little about the Final Solution in 1941/2. Then many people, not just Germans, would have to wrestle with the guilt of the Jewish Holocaust. Perhaps, some criticism of Israel is an unconscious, self-serving, psychological mechanism?
And there's one solution that no one ever mentions, but the Spanish Inquisition was the precedent; Palestinians return and immediately study for their Bar Mitzvahs.
Other than that, focussing on the scatalogical goings on in Israel is sort of nauseating. This is not a thread to read, and then have dinner.
0 Replies
georgeob1
1
Reply
Fri 9 May, 2008 06:24 pm
Re: BBB
Kayyam wrote:
No mainstream politician dares touch the third rail, however we did have two Democrats (Gravel and Kucinich) and one Republican (Paul) who criticized US policy on Israel.
Precisely - "no mainstream politicians .." There were a few who prominently tried, but they were promptly swept from the political scene.
Kayyam wrote:
But strong criticism of Israel does come more from the left. This is generally married to a general disillusionment with US policy around the world - i.e. home grown anti-americanism. Noam Chomsky is a good example and he has a lot of admirers.
I agree with the details, but not with your apparent conclusion. Note that the left here is quite adept at making a big deal about Chomsky's criticisms, but quickly forgetting the parts involving Israel. Liberal spokesmen in their pronouncements appear amazingly able to denounce all the general principles behind Israeli strategy (without of course ever mentioning their applicability to Israel) and remain supportive of whatever Israel wants - like the Manchurian Candidate they wind up in rote recitations of the standard mantras about our undying support, etc., etc.
Kayyam wrote:
Meanwhile strong criticism of the Palestinians and support for Israel tends to come from the right in the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh (two of the most popular commentators in the country).
Agreed. This is a fairly new phenomenon that I suppose is associated with the growing prominence of organized loonie Evangelicals in Conservative circles - an unhappy, unnatural combination - at least on a theoretical plane.
Kayyam wrote:
So in this case I would say that the parties do not reflect the image of their constituencies.
I don't agree, in that I would include (for example) the Evangelicals among the Republican constituencies and Liberal Jews among the Democrat. Though I am often amazed at the contradictions implicit in the pronounced support of American Jews for "progressive" liberal social & economic policies here, while simultaneously supporting Israel's policies in the occupied territories since 1967 (Their basic support for Israel is entirely understandable, but the contradictions involved in the post 1967 occupation are so stark as to compel some reaction - at least as I see things.)
Kayyam wrote:
Now in Israel I think it is a bit different. Likud is definitely a more hardline party and historically it has its roots in a militant organization. Likud, as far I know, has not eliminated the one-state solution from its party platform.
Then if we think of the left in Israel, it includes a whole bunch of secular and non-religious people so I don't agree with your characterization of them as theocrats.
Perhaps so, but, since the assasanation of Rabin, the Israeli left has become simply a minor key version of the Likud - at least with respect to the occupied territories and efforts so far to create/permit a Palestinain state (more accurately with respect to what they have proposed, Palestinian Bantustands) within the occupied territories.
0 Replies
georgeob1
1
Reply
Fri 9 May, 2008 06:37 pm
Foofie, your arguments are somewhat appealing, and I can inderstand them in part as they might appear from your perspective.
However on a moral plane, your argument above fails on a crucial point. I was neither a participant nor a silent observer to the Holocaust, and I am not guilty of those crimes.
Like the European persecutors of Jews in the Middle Ages, some of whom believed that contemporary Jews comehow bore guilt for Christ's death, you are pronouncing a sentence of guilt for the Horrors of the Holocaust on those who, today decry, the injustices inflicted on the Palestinians.
The pervesely ironic truth here is that the principles which the advocates of expansionist Zionism use to rationalize their actions are precisely those that persecutors of Jews in the past used to rationalize their misdeeds.
0 Replies
Foofie
1
Reply
Fri 9 May, 2008 07:32 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Foofie, your arguments are somewhat appealing, and I can inderstand them in part as they might appear from your perspective.
However on a moral plane, your argument above fails on a crucial point. I was neither a participant nor a silent observer to the Holocaust, and I am not guilty of those crimes.
Like the European persecutors of Jews in the Middle Ages, some of whom believed that contemporary Jews comehow bore guilt for Christ's death, you are pronouncing a sentence of guilt for the Horrors of the Holocaust on those who, today decry, the injustices inflicted on the Palestinians.
The pervesely ironic truth here is that the principles which the advocates of expansionist Zionism use to rationalize their actions are precisely those that persecutors of Jews in the past used to rationalize their misdeeds.
I think I left something out of my earlier thoughts, since you are talking about yourself as a contemporary person, and having no personal experience of WWII.
I'm saying that those that are western, of European descent, may very well have a need to criticize Israel, since it implies they need not identify with those that thought the Final Solution was as important as last year's snow back in the early 1940's. Criticizing Israel as a cause celebre allows a person to neatly ignore what transpired before 1948 which really caused Israel to exist.
Anyway, wasn't there a peace proposal that Arafat turned down, that would have given part of Israel to the new Palestinean state? That's what you call expansionist?
Part of the problem is that those who choose to take one side or the other on this issue might be overwhelmed, unknowingly, with so much propaganda from both sides, it almost seems like it has turned into a sporting event where one has a favorite team, and nothing can change a fan into the fan of an opposing team.
What I think is also happening is that Israel has turned into a silicon valley of sorts, and as that process increases, western nations, or developing nations, will value Israel's technology more than the rights of any Palestinean people. And, what will the economy of a Palestinean state be based upon? Welfare from the EU and the U.S.?
Notice how the Europeans countries, that prior to WWII had a Jewish population, are never questioned for their anti-Semistism which resulted in Britain realizing no one wanted, nor would accept, the Jewish displaced people after WWII. How come Europe gets a free pass on the morality of their position post WWII?
And, what part of the U.S. would like a few million Israelis dumped in their backyards? None, I'd guess. So, Israel exists in a world that prefers exclusive neighborhoods, or only a few successful/professional Jews, if any.
By the way, weren't Arabs originally from Arabia? What got them so spread out, and their faith so pervasive in that part of the world? Did they use missionaries that fed the starving, and healed the sick, like a certain faith that's two-thousand years old? Get my point? Israelis are dealing with a tough neighborhood, and many unfriendly neighbors, even before 1948.
0 Replies
georgeob1
1
Reply
Fri 9 May, 2008 08:15 pm
The history of mankind is a history of migration, conquest and reconquest, and of successive waves of peoples of different cultures emerging mostly from central Asia and spreading out across Europe and other places - as you well know. In that light I suppose there is little new in the back-migration of Jews from Europe to Palestine and a reconquest of their territory.
The issue today is that this violates the "rules" of behavior developed (and, as well, repeatedly violated) during the late Middle Ages and on into the modern era.
Anti semitism was a mostly episodic phenomenon, all across Europe from the Middle Ages to today. However those and other periods of European history (and the histories of other regions as well) saw numerous, but similar, persecutions directed at others as well. Albagensian or Gnostic heretics in France, Protestant and Catholic Christians in different areas of Europe, Catholic celtiberians and Moslem Berbers & Moors in Spain - at different times, the victims of each other - and many others, including in different locales neighboring peoples who had strayed across old boundaries -- all were at various times persecuted with the same ferocity as was inflicted on the Jews. Intolerance and competition for land and resources are common elements in our history, though in the modern era we seek to overcome and prevent these things.
I do agree with you about the "silence" of Europeans after WWII and the general reluctance of Europeans to accept (much less welcome) displaced Jews back to homes and property now in someone else's hands. This indeed was the driver for the explosion of hundreds of thousands of Jews emigrating from Europe to Palestine that began very soon after the end of the war. I find no basis for faulting these actions of the displaced Jews and the early Zionists.
However, merely acting to oppress yet another set of victims and to rationalize that with tales of a previous cycle of oppression is not acceptable in my view. We must instead break the cycle and find justice for both. That is the standard I apply to Israel. No Western country has fully met that standard in the past and Israel doesn't meet it today - however we are all held to it today.
The wealth the Jews have created in Israel is testimony to their energy and creativity. There is (in my view) no possibility of that long cohabiting the region alongside the severe economic and political oppression (and relative poverty) of the Palestinians -- cohabiting, that is without conflict and repeated bloodshed. The only way (again in my view) the Israelis and the Palestinians (either separately or together) can hope to realize their aspirations for themselves is for both to unite in a single country that will provide equal justice for all. A long road perhaps to that outcome, but I can see no other possibility short of the complete annihalation of one party or the other.