Return to: Home | World Affairs

49 comments from readers

john problem
24 January 2008 at 11:14

The 'charter that calls for the destruction of the state of Israel in the long term' is a wonderful excuse for some aggressive Israelis and a silly piece of posturing for some Arabs. As is to be expected - and as now demonstrated by the buying trip into Egypt - the ordinary people just want to have an ordinary life with the usual goodies that make life comfortable and hopeful. Commerce is the key to a solution to the problem - we have seen that all the political initiatives have simply failed. What the Palestinians need is a big annual injection of cash to help them set up an economy, just as the US gives to Israel. The hugely rich countries of Islam should step forward. Honor is important to them.. Where is the honour in letting Palestine continue to starve?

ikotubo
24 January 2008 at 12:09

And herein lies the problem: the deliberate portrayal of the situation, by mainstream journalists, as one brought about by age-old intransigence on BOTH sides - rather than the consequence of a most vicious occupation formerly supported only by the United States, but now encouraged by the so-called Quartet. Notice, for example, the obligatory reference to the suffering in the Israeli town of Sderot. If Israel truly wants is to end, why isn't it willing to accept a ceasefire by Hamas (the surest guarantee of peace for its people in that town)? No, instead of peace, we have yet another excuse.

Not long ago, Arafat (remember him?) used to be the only obstacle to peace. Then it was the pathetic Palestinian Authority - reduced to rubble (quite literally) by Ariel Sharon, the celebrated war criminal par excellence. Then it was the absence of a democratic government - well, until Hamas got elected in an election universally acknowledged as free and fair. And now, it is that democratic mandate that is "the problem." And Israel truly wants peace - according to our mainstream journalists. Shame on you all!

EvaSK
24 January 2008 at 12:53

Israel will continue its policy of mistreatment of Palestinians because they can. United Nations, exasperated by the Israel and USA stand on the issue of the apartheid wall, asked the World Court of International Law (there is no higher legal authority on the planet) in 2004 for the opinion on the issue. Court's ruling was, swift, unanimous and cristal clear: Gaza, West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are all territories acquired by war, occupied by hostile foreign troops. Moving Israeli population to settlements, which are territories acquired by war is illegal. Apartheid wall is illegal. And what? Israel doesn't care two hoots about international law, as long as USA doesn't care either. The acts of legitimate resistance are branded terrrorism. Quassam rockets killed 11 people since year 2000. Israeli killed 78 palestinian children in 2007 alone.

ikotubo
24 January 2008 at 16:55

To EvaSK: Thanks for a most courageous contribution - though you must be prepared for a barrage of abuse from the Israeli embassy before long. If nothing else, you'll be labelled "anti-Semitic." Just watch.

Avihu
24 January 2008 at 18:10

Jeremy Bowen writes: "If you start from the position, as Israel and the Palestinians of Fatah do, that Hamas is an illegitimate organisation that needs to go….."

Actually, both Israel and the Palestinian Arab Presidency have joined Arab states and the entire international community, i.e. UN, EU, US and Russia in its call to Hamas join the family of nations and the peace process by simply adhering to three simple basic requirements: 1) Recognize in principle Israel's right to exist, 2) Adhere to agreements with Israel already signed by the parties, and 3) Cease all acts of terror and violence against Israel. Hamas of course has rejected all three demands in word and deed and chose to adhere instead to its Charter that calls for the dismantlement of any Jewish entity between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea and to do so through violence, or what they call euphemistically "resistance".

In light of the above and in light of the latest developments in the Gaza Strip the following must be said:

1) Israel has the full right and responsibility to protect its citizens from the daily rocket attacks at its civilian population in the working class towns of S'derot, Ofaim and Ashqelon and in the socialist collective farms (kibbutzim) of the western Negev, and do all that it finds appropriate in order to minimize and if possible stop these attacks that have been conducted daily for the past seven and a half years.

2) That which Egypt refused to accept in 1979 based on agreement it will be forced to receive now, based on Hamas's military force, but this development can and should be turned into positive results for all.

Until 1967 the Gaza Strip was a territory under Egypt's control. As a result of the Six-Day War of 1967 Israel gained control over the entire Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip. During the first Camp David Agreement that ushered the peace between Israel and Egypt the Egyptians refused to take the Gaza Strip, despite the fact that it had been under their control.

Now that the territory broke away from the Palestinian Authority in June of last year and finding itself disconnected not only geographically and politically from the West Bank but also continues to be disconnected from Judea, Samaria and the Jordan Valley historically, socially and religiously the Gazans clearly appear more connected to its southern neighbor, Egypt, than to any other territory and state.

If managed positively this new situation could turn into a major step out of the Arab Israeli conflict.

The only way to overcome the inherent predicament of Gaza is to improve the economic state of the Gazans. The way to do it is by enabling large numbers of them to resettle in the Sinai Peninsula, primarily in its northern part. This can be done by Egypt if and when it assumes control over the Gaza Strip, and with the assistance of Arab states and the international community apply its sovereignty over the territory. During this process Egypt will receive a substantial package of economic, financial and consulting assistance from abroad, including from its northern neighbor, and will begin to develop the Sinai-Gaza territory into a successful agricultural, industrial, fishing, mining and tourism location.

Such a move will of course be of much assistance to the population of the Gaza Strip, but equally important it will eliminate a major source of regional subversive activities against the Egyptian regime as well as other Arab regimes in the region.

This is a win-win-win approach that must be taken, and the recent events in the Gaza Strip should only provide an incentive to those who actually want to bring to the region an accommodation of peaceful co-existence between the warring parties.

Pencils
24 January 2008 at 19:30

Avihu - it was predictable that a response like that would crop up, but the following is puzzling:

"The only way to overcome the inherent predicament of Gaza is to improve the economic state of the Gazans. The way to do it is by enabling large numbers of them to resettle in the Sinai Peninsula,"

While I can see that Israel would be happy to reduce its 'demographic problem' by transferring Gaza to Egypt, and I even accept that there is a good case for that, why are you suggesting that the solution is in the Gazans settling the Sinai desert? Do you envisage transferring the Gazans to Egypt, but Israel keeping the territory of Gaza? That would be, at least, consistent with Israeli behaviour to date.

Avihu
24 January 2008 at 19:51

No, I do not envisage the territory of the Gaza Strip being part of any political entity but Egypt.

Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip until 1967 and for the various reasons that I listed above should assume control of the Strip at this point as well,

In order to bring this move about for the benefit of ALL, Egypt, with the economic, financial and professional consulting assistance of the international community, Arab states and Israel, and that of many, not all, of the Gazans themselves, can and should turn the underpopulated Sinai Peninsula, an extention of the Gaza Strip of course, into an economic success story.

I am writing the above patially based on Israel's experience in the Peninsula during which time it began the extensive development of the Sinai's agricultural potential, industrial potential and of course mining and tourism. The same potential still exists in the combined Sinai-Gaza territory.

The only question is: Is there a will out there to turn the human resources available to peaceful and cnostructive direction while using creative thinking or rather to continue using this mass of humanity towards distructive goals.

I think the former is possible and certainly preferable.

idunno
24 January 2008 at 20:50

Hi Avihu.

"Israel has the full right and responsibility to protect its citizens ... and if possible stop these attacks that have been conducted daily for the past seven and a half years."

"Palestinians have the full right and responsibility to protect their people ... and if possible stop these attacks that have been conducted daily for the past forty and a half years."

When does Israel intend to comply with international law, the Geneva Conventions and the spirit of the 1993 Oslo Accord, by removing its 400,000 colonists (squatters) from the West Bank? Only asking, because, much as I agree that Israel has a right to defend itself, it seems to me that the Palestinians also have a right to defend themselves against Israeli occupation, ethnic cleansing and war crimes that have been going on for over 40 years. If you occupied my country and treated my people the way you treat the Palestinians, you could expect to receive some of your own medicine from time to time. Maybe if you stopped creating terrorists, you'd find yourselves having to deal with fewer terrorists?

Wishing peace and security to all the people of Israel and Palestine.

willoyen
24 January 2008 at 21:13

"Rocket attacks make life miserable and dangerous. One Israeli survey says that 74 per cent of children aged between seven and 12 in Sderot suffer from anxiety"

Well, at least they don't suffer from death, that well-known complaint which is much more common among Gazans at Israeli hands, than among the immigrants to Israel who live in Sderot. I believe the figures show a diminution in number of Palestinians killed in 2007; down to 360 or 380, or something. Israelis killed in 2007 by rocket attack: 7.

ikotubo
24 January 2008 at 23:45

To idunno and willoyen:

Thanks for being so brave and articulate - for daring to call a spade by its name. But do be prepared to be labelled "anti-Semitic" by the Israeli embassy before long.

Avihu
25 January 2008 at 10:33

Any productive and creative contributions to the predicmant faced by the people of the region instead of using the self-accusation of "anti-Semitism"?

Why, for instance shouldn't Egypt open up the Sinai Peninsula to its Arab brothers and sisters in the Gaza Strip and enable them to begin cultivate the land in the northern Sinai, develop the tourism industry in the peninsula and begin, after several decades of non-productive life, produce and in the process develop self-pride in their own ability to sustain themselves instead of relying on UN contributions?

Instead of contributing negativism let us try to be creative and positive about the future of the Strip.

writeon
25 January 2008 at 19:20

Avihu,

I don't think the Egyptian regime is interested in using the Palestininians to develpe Sinai. The Palestininians know they have more or less been betrayed and abandoned by the Eygyptian ruling elite, and the same elite has no desire to see Hamas extend its territory and influence into Sinai. Ideally the Egyptians would like to see Hamas crushed before they become even more of a threat in the area.

Ideally, I think a one state solution to the question of Palestine/Israel is the best longterm solution to the conflict over who rules the lands between the River Jordan and the sea. One country, with two peoples living side by side in peace. Granted this seems wildly idealistic, given their recent histories. On the other hand I'm not sure that the present situation of domination and almost total subjugation is stable either.

What about the two state idea? Well, I think it's a kind of confidence trick. There won't be two 'states' at all. Gaza coupled with the various pockets of what's left of Palestine isn't really a viable entity. It would be under Israeli control and still subjugated.

Then of course we have the problem of Israel's security. It has to have secure borders and a defendable hinterland of sufficient size, at least that's the argument; of course one could argue that this also applies to any Palestinian state too.

Then there's the demographic problem of Israel's population being overwhelmed by the Palestinians over time. Well, to be very, very, blunt; the Israelis should perhaps have thought about these questions; security and demographics, before they launched their campaign to create the state of Israel in the heart of the Arab world!

Israel will always be a small state in the Middle East, and the Jews will always be yet another ethnic minority in the region, I don't see how one can get around these fundamental facts. One could argue that Israel has always refused to acknowledge these facts, but has been so successful militarily that 'reality' was pushed aside, at least in the short term, at least as long as Israel was so strong, but what of the long term? Will one always be the dominant military power in the region? Will Israel always have a nuclear arsenal and the Arabs nothing?

Will the Israeli policy of divide and rule always work? Will the strategy of a big war against its neighbours every generation, to teach them a strategic lesson, always work? Doesn't Israel's policy of expansion, domination, and humiliation of the Palestinians and the Arabs, have potentially very negative consequences for Israel and the Jewish people?

Does a state like Israel really have a longterm future in what will always be an overwhelmingly Arab Middle East? One can choose to ignore the reality of Israel's position, it can even last for fifty years, but what happens in a hundred years?

Surely Israel must become far more pragmatic and accept eventually the Jewish people have to become a fully integrated part of the rest of the Middle East, or face a very uncertain future indeed. The policy of crushing their neighbours and crushing the Palestinians isn't really viable over the longterm. In fact it's probably highly counter-productive and terribley dangerous, as it's provocative in the extreme and well of anger and hatred of Jews and Israel is growing bigger and more intense with each successive generation. The Arab street is dreaming of the coming of a new Saladin, not a Ghandi!

I think it would be in Israel's interests to make a deal with the Arabs now, before it's too late and all that's left is blind hatred and the prospect of war, eternal war which can only have one outcome - Israel loses and is pushed into the sea. The nightmare becomes a terrifying reality generations from now.

But Israel has the support of the United States, but will this last for ever, not matter what happens? Israel has over two hunderd nuclear weapons, enough to flatten every Arab city and quite a few in Europe too, if the worst came to the worst! Yet is this a realistic or moral alternative for a Jewish state, of all people's. What of the moral and religious consequences of possessing and using nuclear weapons? Why does Israel have nuclear weapons at all? Some say they are an 'insurance policy' against military defeat, against being pushed into the sea. But could Israel ever really use them on the battlefield or against Cairo, or Baghdad, or Beirut, or Damascus? If the occupation of Palestine is morally and legally problematic in the eyes of the world, what are the moral consequences of using nuclear weapons, especially for Jews?! Aren't nuclear weapons used against cities a form of genocide, a warcrime, a holocaust? It's bad enough that the Jews living in Israel have become such a militerised socieity, but that the Jewish people are apparently willing to contemplate unleashing a nuclear holocaust against another people, after what they have experienced, is truly shocking, but perhaps understandble; tragically, massively, wrong; but understandable. Is this really a desirable or rational way to plan for the future of Israel? The Sampson option. And after that what? What kind of society would Israel be in the aftermath of such a war, a war of annihilation? Wouldn't Israel have twisted and perverted itself into something truly terrible, truly morally corrupt, a country and people forever shunned by civilization? Wouldn't Israel, of all peoples, have turned themselves into Nazis?

ikotubo
25 January 2008 at 22:11

To writeon:

At first sight, your contribution appears pretty nuanced and fairly balanced. But I can't help thinking you've allowed yourself to become sucked into the usual position held by many observers of the region, namely, that Israel needs to stop its daily atrocities against a desperate and helpless people, not because it is inherently right to do so, but because of Israel's own image (and/or) interest. This reminds me of the argument that Israel needs to stop its atrocities because it plays into the hands of al-Qaeda. These arguments are quite dangerous because they imply - quite directly - that the Palestinians are otherwise unworthy of enjoying peace and justice - like any other people. I'm almost certain that this is not what you mean, but just couldn't resist drawing your attention to such a dangerous suggestion.

Avihu
26 January 2008 at 06:54

Ikotubo,

Don't the Israelis have the right to enjoy peace and justice, as you put it, like any other people?

And if they do, why promote the dismantling of the only nation-state this people has?

Why negating the universally accepted right of all peoples to national self-determination and independence only when it comes to a particular people, a particular race as it were, the Jewish people?

Again, I suggest a bit of introspection, just a bit!

ikotubo
26 January 2008 at 12:12

To Avihu:

I was once told by an elderly Jewish friend whose parents were murdered by the Nazis: "One of the hallmarks of a committed Zionist is his remarkable ability to twist, distort and misrepresent a very basic fact." And, although e did cite quite a few examples, I did not appreciate the full meaning of his statement until I started contributing to these blogs. And you have certainly not disappointed me, in suggesting that my rejoinder amounts to "[promoting] the dismantling of the only nation-state [that the Jews have]." If you had any measure of decency, you would offer an unreserved apology; but I'm not expecting one, alas.

Avihu
26 January 2008 at 12:59

Ikotubo,

I shall be delighted to apologize for any statement that I have made erroneously regarding the issue at hand. To ensure that I have not erred, may I ask you to simply agree with me with Israel's right to exist – not only with the fact that it exists – as the nation-state of the Jewish people. And while I look forward to your answer in the affirmatives, without any ifs, ands or buts, I shall also share with you and other readers the most relevant text to the Arab Israeli conflict. Indeed, reading it may provide you with some comfort that your recognition of Israel's right to exist within recognized and secure boundaries is shared by the vast majority of the world's public as represented at the UN.

The following is the most relevant document to the resolution of the Arab Israeli conflict. The peace agreements between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan were based on it. All discussions between Syria and Lebanon and Israel and the PLO/PA and Israel were also based on this document.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, 27 November 1967:

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with

Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

ikotubo
26 January 2008 at 13:43

To Avihu: I was going to thank you for what looks like an apology at first sight, but for your question, which still suggests that I have questioned Israel's right to exist. I simply do not wish to stoop to this level of "debate." If you wish to engage in a constructive debate, you must stop suggesting that anyone who questions Israel's conduct does not want it to exist. This is the tired old "anti-Semitism" slur, and, believe me, it is fast losing its impact with many (including me) through overuse.

Riaz Ahmad
26 January 2008 at 14:41

The idea that the State of Israel be destroyed is an unrealistic pipe dream, the philosophy of the fools. Israel has a right to exist as a nation and a state like any other nation in the world. Going by how the Jews suffered persecution for centuries at the hands of the Europeans, there is the overwhelming need to create the state of Israel if none had existed. But the settlements and the occupied territories or ill-legal as defined by international law and UN resolutions. Israel aided and abeted by USA and Britian shows two fingers to international law. It is a cause for shame that these two permanent members who themselves violate UN resulations and aid and abet others like Israel to do the same are still hounarable permanent members. Even hypocricy has its limits. Underneath all the prepoganda and concern for security is the blue print of Greater Israel being implemented with all its cunning and vigour for the last 50 odd years. Even a fool can see it sticking out like a sore thumb. Untill such time the implementation of the blue print is complete, we will see many posturing attempts by USA and Britian to bring about peace. Over and above the rest, it is another camaflauge and disguise designed for the completion of Greater Israel project. As for USA solving the problem, the whole idea is laughable. USA is not the solution, it is THE problem. It is natural and human that Israel will not give up its advantage at any cost, unless somehow forced to do so, and it has all the backing from USA to do anything legal or ill-legal. Only collective pressure from Arab states can solve the problem, but it is not Israel who is too strong and clever, the fact is that the Arab states are too stupid and weak. They only believe in Rolex watches, diamond rings and oppressing their masses; sadly it is the realty of Islamic states in the middle east. I am extremely sorry for using such harsh language, which I have borrowed from Isreali vocabulary, but I cant find alternative befitting word to paint the reality. I end by saying that truth no doubt hurts, but it also serves as a wake up call.

Cybertiger
26 January 2008 at 14:43

@writeon

"But Israel has the support of the United States, but will this last for ever ...???"

Peace remains a dream: the Americans remain the nightmare. Look to history: Americans are the powerful masters of betrayal. One day, America will betray the Jews of Israel. Sometime soon, the betrayer will finally pull the rug ... out from under the Jewish homeland. Before the end comes, the wise and the clever Israelite might think of climbing aboard Aladdin's magic carpet ... and thereby waft serenely to a land of milk and honey, the green and pleasant land, the deserted moral wastes ... of Texas. I believe that Israel has every right to exist ... in Texas.

Avihu
26 January 2008 at 14:43

Ikotubo,

I have not accused you of "anti-Semitism", or have I? And if I have not, why are you being defesive about this issue?

All that I asked was to recognize my right to exist and that of my country's. Is it really that difficult for you to simply agree with me that Israel's right to exist is not in dispute as far as you are concerned? And if you can not agree with me about such a simple matter, what makes you think that you will ever agree with me, or alternatively I shall agree with you about anything?

Incidentally, if it makes you feel better, I do accept the right of all member states of the UN to exist, all of them, including yours.

I hope you actually read UNSC Resolution 242 and have had some time to reflect on it.

writeon
26 January 2008 at 16:32

I sometimes wish one could turn back time and start again, only one can't, and attempting to do so can lead to disaster.

Personally, I think that giving Europe's Jews a region of Germany; for example, Bavaria, might have been more appropriate and morally justifiable, than supporting the creation of Jewish state in the heart of the Middle East after more than two thousand years.

I wish that taking sides in the conflict and condemning people really helped or was a way forward towars peace. It's probably the reverse.

I can understand why Israel demand that the Arabs 'recognize Israel's right to exist'. But this apparently obvious, and simple statement, is nothing of the sort. Why isn't it enough for the Arabs to 'recognize that Israel exists'? Why is the word 'right' so important? The Arab leaders have recognized that Israel exists, they can hardly do otherwise given realities on the ground. All Israel has to do is withdraw to its pre-1967 borders and 'peace' is perfectly possible. This seems like a good deal for Israel. Israel would still be secure, with an effective army and dozens of nuclear weapons, Israel would still have the unconditional support of the Unite States.

The Palestinians could have the West Bank with a corridor linking it to Gaza and East Jerusalem as its capitol. This seems like a reasonable compromise, not perfect, not ideal, but it could work. It's realistic. Is holding more and more Palestinian land, opressing the Palestinians, eternal conflict; really more 'realistic' or desirable, or morally justifiable?

But it's up to Israel to compromise and make painful choices and sacrifices, after all they are ones with all the power. Only those who have something to give, can give. The Palestinians, on the other side, have nothing more to give anyone. Almost everything they had has gone. If we demand that they 'give' anymore they risk disappearing altogether, and maybe that' the point. There are people in Israel that have perverted dream that somehow the Palestinians will vanish from history and only Israel will remain. This is not only an impossible dream, it's also morally wrong. It's as crazy as the desire some have of wipping Israel off the map.

So it's really up to Israel. Does Israel really want peace, or is controlling Palestinian land more important?

Avihu
26 January 2008 at 17:22

Why we insist on the recognition of Israel to exist and not only the recognition of the fact that Israel does:

For a simple reason, the Arab world during the past 60 years has attempted to dismantle the state of Israel in many and various ways. Despite the fact that Israel was proclaimed based on, among other reasons, a UN decision, the Arabs have attempted through the use of full scale wars – 1947-49, 1967, 1973 - to see to it that it does not exist. They have attempted to choke Israel to death through the on-going use of economic boycott, through the use of international political and legal means, through demographic means, and of course through slowly bleeding our society to death as a result of a continuous terror campaign against our civilian population. They have failed in all attempts. But they have not stopped! Who is to assure us, Jews in general and Israelis in particular, that they will not attempt once again in the future to dismantle our state having done it so many times despite UN resolutions? In fact, the very refusal to accept in principle Israel's right to exist, and in so doing implicitly negating its right to be, is a cause for us to suspect whether the Arabs prepare themselves for the next opportunity to eliminate our state, something that will be much easier psychologically and political from their perspective if they negate the legitimacy of our very existence.

Just move to the 1967 border and all be fine, goes the argument. Well, we were there until June 1967. Indeed, we were all the way to the UN patrician plan of 1947 and our neighbors were not pleased with it! Note, Arafat established the Fatah in 1964 and began with his terror attacks against our civilian population in 1965, two years before the Six-Day War, before territories were taken over and occupied by Israel in a defensive war. Before a single Jewish settlement was established in those territories! And the above was done after the Arabs broke the armistice agreements which brought about the Green Line in the first place. So who is to guarantee to us the Arabs will not do the same again while they have been attempting to do is relentlessly for the past 60 years and they still refuse to acknowledge the right of our state to exist?

And while I am at it, a poster who refuses to accept Israel's right to exist spews the nonsense propaganda about the "chosen people". Well, let me translate for you from Hebrew what I read in my siddur (prayer book) every single morning shortly after I enter the synagogue: "Bless be you god, king of the universe who has chosen us from all other peoples and gave us his Teachings. Bless be you the giver of the Teachings". This is the context within which one is to see the concept of "choseness", the idea of a unique people having received the Torah from its god, and others would rightly add, and is obligated to fulfill god's commandments.

So, I hope this nonsense about this concept will finally be put to rest by those refusing to recognize our people's right to its state, but would find every possible way to discredit our people. I wonder why…..?

Pencils
26 January 2008 at 18:46

I'm disappointed by the response of some otherwise well-intentioned posters above to the question of Israel's right to exist. Israel is by definition a Jewish supremacist state, with maybe 4 million legal (under international law) residents refused their right to live there while nominal 'Jews' can enter at will, and its non-Jewish population is discriminated against in every way. The right of this entity to exist as such is only recognised by the entire 'international community' if you accept that the 'international community' means the USA.

As to ' recognised borders' - remind me where these are again.

writeon
26 January 2008 at 20:21

I don't only reject the idea and principle that Israel has a 'right' to exist as a state, I pretty much reject any states 'right' to exist. Languages, cities, states, tribes, peoples, countries, civilazations, even empires, come and go over time. Nothing is sacred, not even Israel. It's probably extremely dangerous to believe otherwise. Nothing we create last for ever, not even our myths, they to change, mix, and evolve.

Change is life's characteristic. There is no reason to believe Israel is any different. Israel is an inherently unstable construction by its very nature, and the choice Zionists made to create their state in heart of the Arab world is highly problematic.

The absurd demand by some Israelis that the Arabs recognize the ligitimacy of Israel, it's 'right' to exist, is really asking the Arabs to accept their utter and total defeat and humiliation by Israel. It's very arrogant and deeply provocative and counter-productive. Surrender on our terms, and thank us for it!

Even if the Arabs were to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, that is, accept that Israel lawfully occupied Palestine and has right to control its territory and drive hundreds of thousands of its people into exile, confiscate their property, level their villages, deny them the right to return to their homes... how would this recognition change anything? Could Israel ever trust the Arabs, just because they utter a meaningless phrase? It's like asking the victim of torturer to recognise the torturer's 'right' to torture him! How likely or desirable is that?

As the phrase is totally unacceptable to most Arabs why bother to press it so vehemently? The next, more powerful generation of Arabs might withdraw this 'recognition' and what would the 'recognition' be worth then? This is very strange reasonng indeed, odd considering the cultural sophistication and intelligence and talents of the Jewish people.

Also dragging Jewish mythology into the debate is also disturbing. The Jewish tribes are not the chosen people of God. God didn't choose them. On the contrary, they chose God. The Bible, old and new testament isn't the word of God. It wasn't written by God. God didn't make man. Man made God. The is no God, in the primative sense of a vengful, sectarian, war-God, a being we could recognize as a father. The Bible is compendium of stories, myths, laws... written by men. The idea that these old, old, strange, and difficult texts give Israel some mystical 'right' to conquer, subjugate, and attempt to destroy the Palestinians is ridiculous. Very dangerous nonsense, but useful as an excuse and ligitimizer.

Two thousand years ago, desert tribes might have believed this kind of thing, that their war-God had chosen them for great things; but in the modern world such primative attitudes are rightly regarded by most intelligent and educated people as being close to rascist.

There's definitely something creepy and disturbing about the ultra-right in Israel. A perverse, historical irony is at work here. Theore ideas resemble those of other Fascist movements in history; militarism, uniqueness, ultra-nationalism, destiny, the right to conquere and rule over racially inferior 'others', the need for secure borders, room to live, fanatical belief in mythology, it just goes on and on, and it's very depressing. It's like we've learnt nothing about the dangers of the racial, blood myth, forged with militeristic nationalism.

If we are serious about peace in the Middle East, the ultra-right in Israel have to be confronted and opposed. Their strangle-hold over Israeli society needs to be broken. Not only for the sake of the Israelis and the Palestinians, but for our sakes as well, as we are being dragged into the conflict against the will of most of us. The exspantionist war against the Arabs is the Israeli Right's fantasy project, not ours! Perhaps what we really need is regime change in Israel, then maybe we'd get some compromise and progress?

ikotubo
26 January 2008 at 23:37

To Pencils and Writeon: I commend your ability to expose these people for what they are. Your ability and willingness to voice these opinions clearly demonstrates that their "anti-Semitism" slur is no longer an effective tool in silencing those of us who oppose their gratuitous barbarism against a longsuffering and helpless people.

Phædrus
27 January 2008 at 16:00

One or two contributors here have the courage to stand outside the usual mudslinging, the rest, however well-intentioned and well-informed, merely contribute further to the massive accumulation of superfluous piffle that is so valued by the chattering classes.

This notion of the right of a country to exist - or was it the right of a people to build a state? - is simply a diversion. Just like defending in anticipation against accusations of anti-semitism. Blah blah blah blah. It is what happens in discourse when there is some fundamental contradiction being inadequately articulated.

Pencil above sums up the matter succinctly, but perhaps stops short of the crux. The state of Israel was born from of the terror and horror of the holocaust, after centuries of oppression discrimination and torture of Jews by Christians. And it has since been supported in every move it makes by powerful military/financial interests based in the USA.

Given such a swift shift in the balance of power, is it at all surprising that that which the people suffered will be projected out onto others? If this were a human being who had been abused for many years and who then found herself in a position of power, who would be surprised if she did to others what had once been done of her?

ikotubo
27 January 2008 at 19:26

Phædrus:

It seems to me that you're guilty of the same misjudgement that you've accused some of us of: You've repeated the same old mantra (and I'll resist the temptation to adopt your strong language here) that others have used over the years in a shameless attempt to justify the most odious crimes against humanity. How can the terrible crimes that defined the Holocaust become an excuse for serious atrocities against a helpless and longsuffering people who had nothing to do with the Holocaust, in any event?

Yours, I regret to say, reminds me of the paedophile's classic "excuse" for abusing children: "Oh, I was also abused as a child." To which I (and most decent people) often respond: Shouldn't that be a reason for NOT abusing other people's children instead, if only because you, of all people, should know (better than anyone else) what it means to be abused?

In any event, don't you find it curious that many of the Israeli officials who commit these crimes were never direct victims of the Holocaust themselves?

Phædrus
27 January 2008 at 19:37

Ikotubo

I am guilty of nothing.

And you are confusing explanation with justification, if you think my remarks were intended to excuse the behaviour of the Israeli state. It may well be true that an history of abuse should in fact be a "reason" for not further perpetuating abuse, but "reason" is does not often have such power. More commonly abuse is simply repeated because this is what has become the norm.

And no, I do not find it in the slightest but curious that those individuals who have committed crimes against Palestinians were not direct victims of the holocaust.

Phædrus
27 January 2008 at 19:45

Please excuse my sloppy editing.

In my previous contribution, there is a superfluous "is" after the second ""reason"", and I have written a "but" where I intended "bit".

ikotubo
27 January 2008 at 20:12

Phædrus:

The distinction between "explanation" and "jusfication," as you should know, is often a very fine one indeed. For example, in some Western societies today, the main reason why criminals are no longer punished for their crimes is because we all elect to accept the "explanations" offered by the growing army of social scientists amongst us; then we all agree to "understand" why they commit those crimes. And before you can pronounce the word "punish," we're all blaming their crimes on poverty and social deprivation (in effect, justifying them) - the fact that the vast majority of those living in those conditions are never tempted to commit crimes seemingly of no importance.

So, I wasn't expecting you to be repentant at all. It is, after all the case (if a depressingly ironic one), that Hitler's staunchest supporters began their odious political lives by "explaining" the "Jewish problem." Damn you and damn your abhorent worldview - therefore!

Cybertiger
27 January 2008 at 21:56

@Phaedrus

"Given such a swift shift in the balance of power, is it at all surprising that that which the people suffered will be projected out onto others?"

Yet another 'never again' promise? I wonder what compensation the international community will offer after the Palestinian Holocaust?

PS. Today is Holocaust Day - and obviously a day to remember the suffering of all the Palestinian people.

Phædrus
27 January 2008 at 23:10

Ikotubo

While accepting that the difference between justification and explanation is often muddied in the normal course of events and by society at large, and concurring that armies of postmodern social scientists have indeed turned this confusion into an intellectual orthodoxy, I have no doubt in my own mind that justification is one thing and explanation another. While the former invokes moralities of one sort or another to evaluate events, the latter is based on the attempt to set aside what is good and what is not good, and to simply document or account for events as they have happened.

Moral outrage at the course that events have taken does not alter the course of events. The holocaust was an obscenity. What has been happening in Israeli occupied Palestine and the Gaza Strip for the last thirty or forty years is an obscenity. But these are just a couple of instances of man's inhumanity to man during the last two or three of millenia.

Cybertiger

After the dust has settled, when the Israeli state has withered away as the power of its sponsor wanes, the international community (consisting by this time of a precarious alliance of China Europe and the maffia) will indeed accept that the Palestinians have the right to set up their very own state in Palestine. Whereupon the whole sordid dialectic will be repeated. War has after all always been very good for business.

What bothers, and at the same time, intrigues me most about Palestine, is the extent to which it becomes, when discussing the matter, almost impossible not to be drawn into either one or other side, and to thus become part of the conflict itself. It is apparently a place where intellectual pluralism cannot exist.

Avihu
28 January 2008 at 07:30

I wonder if there is any other member state of the UN that is a subject in certain circles of free discussion about how to go about dismantling it while ignoring the universally accepted right of peoples to national self-determination and independence but the Jewish state of Israel? And I wonder why singling out this particular state to be a "righless" entity in these neo-socialist circles but for the fact that it is indeed the nation-state of a particular people, the Jewish people!

Jews of Britain, please take a note of your fellow neighbors.....!

writeon
28 January 2008 at 08:56

Perhaps one of the reasons why the issue of Israel/Palestine is so controversial, contentious, and emotional; is because it contains many of the characteristics of 'drama'. We watch 'history' being played out.

For most of us, it's almost like we're watching tableau or epic play being enacted on a stage. We are observers, not participants. We are passive, not active.

The tears and 'stage blood' aren't ours.

According to which particular 'version' of the play we are watching the heroes and villains change, there is violence, lust, betrayal, redemption, tragedy, farce, perversity, hope, dispair, fear, intrique, cant, hypocracy, bravery, self-sacrifice, power, love, hate, money, injustice...

And these elements apply to both sides in the conflict, and in wildly fluctuating degrees of applicability, which once agains adds to the 'drama'. For many people in the west, at least the ones with long memories, Israel's 'role' has changed dramatical over the decades, almost like a character in a soap! Victim, avenger, victor, hero, tyrant, villain. Our perceptions regarding the Palestinians have also changed massively. Their obvious weakness in the face of overwhelming power has given them the status of righteous victimhood, the role of the underdog, which so many of us naturally support in our culture. Intrestingly and ironically, the dramatically usful and culturally significant role used to be Israel's, and here we have a dramatic shift and reversal of roles. For decades Israel played the role of victim and milked it for all it was worth, Israel was little David, alone with a slingshot, facing the evil, giant, Goliath, who was armed to the teeth! Now, the roles have been reversed.

So, the dramatic conflict, containing so many contradictory elements, and clashing viewpoints and naratives; doesn't only fascinate and interest us rationally and intellectually; it also appeals to our sense of what's right and wrong, what's true and false, what's good and bad, what we love and hate. Our emotions; on very deep and intense level are invested, and involved, too!

Keeping a cool head, not getting involved, being sober and rational, balanced... It's very difficult, if not almost impossible, when watching such a drama unfold. Drama, after all, is designed to affect and appeal to our emotions, as much if not more, than our intellects. Does the head or the heart rule the body?

Of course it's all so much more complicated for those people who are actually involved in the 'reality' of what's happening in the Middle East, they must 'feel' and 'understand' events far more intensely than the rest of us. For many of them maybe it's very simply to understand the play, and know instinctively who is right and wrong, who the bad guys and good guys are? Who the strong and weak are. Whose cause is just or unjust.

writeon
28 January 2008 at 09:25

My appologies if I appear, in the above post, to have taken on the role of God, or the great author in the sky, looking down on the 'little people' going about their little lives and understanding only a fraction of what's happening to them. As I write so much fiction for a living, it's a professional habit, sorry.

Another reason why the Middle East conflict is so divisive and controversial and arrouses such strong emotions, is because it has taken on an intensely political significance in western countries which often has little relevance to what's actually happening in the Middle East.

On a symbolic level the conflict between the Isaelis and Palestinians has come to symbolize the conflict between the Left and Right in our own societies. The Left supports the Palestinians, the Right the Israelis.

The conflict becomes a kind of symbolic or surrogate for our own internal 'class conficts' over the distribution of wealth and power in society. We seem to do this a lot in our culture. Find symbolic battlefields where we can fight one another over power without threatening the underlying structure of society.

Think about the enormous ammount of Parliamentary time that was devoted to debating the issue of fox hunting compared to the decision to invade Iraq! Fox hunting cannot be regarded as more important than Iraq, when we went off to 'hunt' a whole country and real people, yet Iraq received only a tiny fraction of the time devoted to fox hunting over the last twenty years!

One could also mention the violent and intensely symbolic debate in the nineteenth century about the economic institution of slavery. That debate has many parallels to equally complex and emotional issue of Israel/Palestine. A debate that goes right to the core of who we think we are, and what values we cherish most highly, and what it really means to be human.

Phædrus
28 January 2008 at 10:07

Writeon

Thank-you for your second post !

I was going to mention class, but I would not have put it in 'scarequotes' ...

... not only does the conflict in Palestine symbolise our class issues and allow them to be expressed without disrupting our own class structures, the class relations at work in Palestine are fairly unambiguously Israel/capital Palestinians/labour. The conflict is in this sense just an element of the class war.

Avihu
28 January 2008 at 10:16

Writeon, with all due respect to you and your posts, as a non-European Jew I must tell you that I think you miss two fundamental points: 1) If the Arab Israeli conflict (and it is a conflict between the Arab world and Israel, not just between Palestinian Arabs and Israel!) were a conflict between Arabs and another people, e.g. Kurds, Assyrians, I doubt you would pay much attention to this conflict. The fact that the conflict involves the Jewish people makes it fascinating in the eyes of Europeans. I wonder why….! And, 2) It is sad that essentially what Europeans do while viewing this bloody and long lasting conflict and essentially turning it into your pastime entertainment activity is virtually fighting it to the last Arab and Jewish living person. I simply don't think it is ethical; don't you agree?

writeon
28 January 2008 at 12:54

Avihu, Shalom!

In my opinion you make some valid points. But I wish you would finish some of your arguments instead of repeatedly saying 'I wonder why...' You seem to be implying something here, what is it? Are you really wondering, or is it merely rhetorical device? I honestly don't know what you mean, but I wonder! Are you trying to imply that there is form of inherent anti-semitism at work here, anti-semitism that lies behind the criticisms of Israel? That Europeans critics of Israel aren't really or primarilly interested in Israeli policy towards the Palestinians, but are cynically using this conflict as an outlet for deep-rooted anti-semitism?

I think anti-semiticsm is a foul, vile, thing. The history of the Jews in Europe contains countless acts of sensless, perverse, terror and violence. But then Europe's history is very violent and bloody. It's understandable that Jews concentrate and remember the terrors enacted opon them in Europe. They should never be forgotten.

On a personal note, my own grandmother and her two teenage daughters, my aunts, were shot by Fascists in 1944 and dumped in ditch by the side of muddy, country road, where there little handcart still tood, because they smuggled; food, messages, money and valuables, for Jews who were in hiding in the countryside. Finally their luck ran out. My father's closest friends were nearly all Jews. They nearly all died, along with hundreds of others when the SS came to the town. So, I too know something about the consequences of the sickness and curse that is anti-semitism!

The point is Europeans have excelled in killing lots of different ethinic groups down through the ages, not only Jews! There have been countless episodes of horrific violence and destruction. One only has to consider the religious wars, the civil wars, the nationalist wars, the persecution of 'witches'... I could go on and on. One of the darkest periods in European history was the change over from fighting 'about religion', which is highly complex and problematic, to fighting about the nation, that is the rise of the nation state and the rise of nationalism. Reaching it's culmination in the absurd, mythical and fantasy world-view of the Nazis, who then mixed 'race' and 'culture' into the deadly nationalist brew.

What concerns me now is that we appear to be moving towards a potentially even more dangerous mix, mixing religion and nationalism together once more. This is a recipe for disaster if we aren't careful.

You may well be right in thinking that if the conflict was taking place inside a Arab country and between Arabs and some other ethnic group, it would receive less coverage. Only it isn't. It's taking place between Palestinians and Jews. That is the whole point and reason it's so intense. The Arabs think they have been invaded by foreigners. The Jews think they are going home. Two peoples with dramatically different perspecitves who both claim ligitimate rights going back thousands of years to the same peice of land!

I don't believe I wrote that I thought the conflict was a passtime or entertainment for us, though in the modern media world it's debatable, after all didn't we all turn the Holocaust into 'entertainment'? What was Shindler's List? Doesn't the Israeli Right, 'use' and abuse the Holocaust too for political purposes? I don't given my family's history find this especially ethical either.

I think it would be a terrible tragedy if the Jews and Arabs fought each other down to the last man. A human tragedy for all of us, because we are all involved and are becoming more involved, almost inexorably, sliding towards almost unimaginable horrors.

What appears to be happening is the conflict between Israel and the Arab world is spreading. It's now Israel against the Muslim world. And some Israelis think it's really Israel against the whole world, because anti-semitism lies just below the surface.

The United States and Europe are increasingly becoming actors in this conflict. So don't we risk a war between the US/Israel and the Muslim World a war that could last a hundred years. There's definitely a 'cultural war' a 'war of civilizations' between the West and 'Islam' developing. Do we really want it to escalate into a real war?

Cybertiger
28 January 2008 at 13:18

@writeon

"What appears to be happening is the conflict between "Israel and the Arab world is spreading. It's now Israel against the Muslim world. And some Israelis think it's really Israel against the whole world, because anti-semitism lies just below the surface. "

I agree. I suspect both the Jews and the Americans want the Europeans to atone for the sins of the Holocaust - which is why Europe is being dragged inexorably into a bloody conflagration.

Avihu
28 January 2008 at 14:09

Writeon: "Are you trying to imply that there is form of inherent anti-Semitism at work here, anti-Semitism that lies behind the criticisms of Israel? That European critics of Israel aren't really or primarily interested in Israeli policy towards the Palestinians, but are cynically using this conflict as an outlet for deep-rooted anti-Semitism?" You got it! Israel has become yesteryear's Jew since Israel is – whether people like it or not – the nation-state of a particular people, the Jewish people. And since being openly anti-Semitic is not PC yet in certain circles, hence the substitute "Israel" and "Zionists"!

You write: "So don't we risk a war between the US/Israel and the Muslim World a war that could last a hundred years. There's definitely a 'cultural war' a 'war of civilizations' between the West and 'Islam' developing. Do we really want it to escalate into a real war?" The clash of civilizations is a very real matter but one in which Israel is a tiny player. The intent of al-Qaeda to take over the lands previously controlled by Islam, i.e. Spain and Portugal in the West and up to Austria in the "East", is an Islamist desire! The attacks on US embassies in Africa has nothing to do with Israel. Islamist terrorism in London is not related to Israel either, unless of course one wishes to rely on the "Protocols" and assume the whole world is controlled by us, Jews.

Avihu
28 January 2008 at 14:22

Writeon,

To illustrate my point, follows is a short post I attempted to have appear in one of the Guardian threads of CiF. Mine is a reply to Mr. Ernst Junge's short comment. My post was published and taken off the air shortly after while his remained. Could you tell me that this is not an illustration of blunt anti-Semitism on the part of both the poster and the Guardian's?

ErnstJunge writes: "We know that the Zionists control the US, GB, France and now the EU. Tomorrow the world?"

You actually meant to write: We know that the Jews control…, etc? Haven't you?

writeon
28 January 2008 at 15:49

Avihu,

I can't answer for the Guardian and their policies. Ernst Junge seems rather extreme to me. I don't believe in a Zionist conspiracy to control the world, or that the Jews control the world. In a way I wish it was true, that the Jews controlled the world, it might actually be an improvement!

I actually think you may have misinterpreted the reaction from the Guardian and there motivation. I don't think it's an illustration of blunt ant-Semitism, I think it may, in fact, be the exact opposite. That you're post, without knowing it was written by you, actually sounds and reads like you are agreeing with Ernst Junge, only you don't think his statement was extreme enough. You recommend substituting 'Zionist' with 'Jews' and busy moderator at the Guardian reads it once and thinks, "I'm not having more Nazi propagada on here thanks, out you go!"

I've met lots of different types of Jewish people. They were as different as the British are, as the Americans are, as the Arabs are. Last summer I met a small band of young Israeli anarchists. Old Skool anarchists, dressed in black. Oddly some of them were at the same time very religious. They dispised the class nature of Israeli society, the corruption, and injustice, the vast differences in wealth and power in modern Israel. One girl, who said her father was an influential rabbi, regarded the modern Israeli state as a religious abomination, almost a form of heresy against the Jewish faith. I was quite surprised at her attitude. She thought that Israel had been hi-jacked by a group of antheist, passionately nationalistic, right-wing, militarists; who hated absolutely everyone who didn't 'believe' like they did; Arabs, Gentiles, Africans... even other Jews, they hated everyone equally.

I'm not sure what this tells one. Only that Israel is an extremely complex society, aren't they all?, and to state that Israel is the nation state of a particular people, the Jewish people, is patently an oversimplification. There are many different types of Jewish people inside and outside Israel. There are even 'Jews' living in Israel who are less 'Jewish' than I am. Given my family background I would have no trouble at all in defining myself as Jewish and moving to Israel. According to Nazi racial mythology I qualify as a Jew, which is somewhat ironic, as I used to look like the ultimate Aryan poster boy!

Even though I could move to Israel, I doubt I'd have much in common with some of the so-called 'Jews' from Russia, for example, the skinhead, Nazi types, who attack Black Jews.

All I am trying to say is that there is an enormous difference between being a cultural, religious, or nationalist, or totalitarian, Jew. Just to start with.

And what about the arab citizens of Israel? Don't they ammount to approimately 15% or is it 20% of the population of Israel? How can one ignore them? Are they somehow not really part of Israel? Where do attitudes like this end? The idea of Israel being the particular property of exclusive people is a very dangerous ideology indeed. It reminds me of the same 'blood and soil, blood and folk, blood and race' nonsense that the Nazis spouted. That Jews, of all people, should use the same kind of language, logic, and ideas, is shocking and deeply tragic. But maybe there are traditions and mechanisms in extreme nationalism that trancend time, and place, and people?

Avihu
28 January 2008 at 16:02

Writeon, you write: "I actually think you may have misinterpreted the reaction from the Guardian and there motivation".

My post, Writeon, was not the only one deleted. I believe all posts responding to the anti-Semitic/"anti-Zionist" one are gone by now! Furthermore, the Guardian appears to thrive on articles that generate support from readers such as the one I quoted and they do so fairly often. This one was far from being an exception.

End of day for me.

Be well from Jerusalem, Israel

Avihu
28 January 2008 at 18:47

Anti-Zionism = Anti-Semitism / By Martin Luther King, Jr.

". . . You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth.

"Antisemitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so.

"Why is this? You know that Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land. The Jewish people, the Scriptures tell us, once enjoyed a flourishing Commonwealth in the Holy Land. From this they were expelled by the Roman tyrant, the same Romans who cruelly murdered Our Lord. Driven from their homeland, their nation in ashes, forced to wander the globe, the Jewish people time and again suffered the lash of whichever tyrant happened to rule over them.

"The Negro people, my friend, know what it is to suffer the torment of tyranny under rulers not of our choosing. Our brothers in Africa have begged, pleaded, requested--DEMANDED the recognition and realization of our inborn right to live in peace under our own sovereignty in our own country.

"How easy it should be, for anyone who holds dear this inalienable right of all mankind, to understand and support the right of the Jewish People to live in their ancient Land of Israel. All men of good will exult in the fulfilment of God's promise, that his People should return in joy to rebuild their plundered land.

"This is Zionism, nothing more, nothing less.

"And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe. It is discrimination against Jews, my friend, because they are Jews. In short, it is antisemitism.

"The antisemite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice. The times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred of the Jews. This being the case, the antisemite must constantly seek new forms and forums for his poison. How he must revel in the new masquerade! He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-Zionist'!

"Let my words echo in the depths of your soul: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--make no mistake about it."

From M.L. King Jr., "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," Saturday Review_XLVII (Aug. 1967), p. 76.

Reprinted in M.L. King Jr., "This I Believe: Selections from the Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

ikotubo
28 January 2008 at 20:06

Avihu: I'm not sure you've given any serious thought to the position you've expressed here, to wit, that anti-Zionism is indistinguishable from anti-Semitism. First, let's be sure of one thing: that Martin Luther King said so doesn't necessarily mean it is beyond debate. He also famously foresaw an America in which colourn race and creed would cease be of any importance. Today, I need not remind you that many parts of America are more segregated than in his days. But this is perhaps my weakest point, I readily concede.

The stronger point is that there are very many Jews worldwide who have openly dissociated themselves from the abhorent attitudes and beliefs of the Zionists. Are these Jews also anti-Semitic? I know they have been called "self-hating Jews" (however silly and ludicrous that may sound to all rational people!) by the Zionists, but I haven't yet heard anyone call them anti-Semitic. Or have you?

Thirdly, I'm not sure you need to be reminded that the longsuffering Palestinian people, like the Jewish people, are ALSO of Semitic stock - well, except if, like the Zionists, you don't consider them human.

The fourth point is that the "anti-Semitism" slur has, in any event, lost its meaning due to overuse by people like yourself. So, it's probably time to think of some other silly slur.

The Palestinian people have suffered enough; set them free!

writeon
28 January 2008 at 23:44

Do we really need to dig up the words of Martin Luther King? Are they really relevant? Aren't we reading them out of their historical, social, religious, and political context?

This text needs to be seen in it's correct context, which is problematic, controversial and complex. One could argue that the text is really more relevant to the internal political dynamics of the United States, rather than the Middle East.

A lot has happened in the last forty years, not only in the United States, but also in Palestine/Israel, attitudes have changed, as have the nature of the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Forty years of occupation and subjugation cannot be ignored, and King had no idea Israel would choose this unfortunate path. Perhaps King would have changed his mind and modified his views, which are coloured by his faith in the validity of Biblical texts, rather than empirical observations and analysis of the realities of life in the disputed territories.

King may well have been a great American civil rights leader, but he clearly didn't know very much, or understand the complexities or history of the Middle East.

writeon
29 January 2008 at 00:24

As this series of posts is becoming so 'fundamental', and interesting, and revealing, maybe we should consider the validity of the nation state itself. Are all ethnic groups really deserving of their own independent and sovereign state? Why do they believe that a state, with one dominant and exclusive ethnic group, is the answer to all their problems? Couldn't one describe this as the founding myth of nationalism?

The nation state is now so much a part of our lives and culture that we have a tendancy to believe that it has always occupied a central position in human history. This is very far from the truth. The modern, recognisable, nation state, first came to prominance in the period of the Napolionic Wars, two hundred years ago. Before this, the nation barely existed. War was the mother of the nation state. Napoleon needed an enormous army, the biggest the world had ever seen, in order to pursue his imperial project. Such an army was impossible to raise without the creation of a centralized state, and a centralized ideology of nationalism. Other nations, seeing what such an army could achieve followed and adapted the French model all over Europe and eventually the entire world.

We developed a nationalist culture. The entire country was turned into a powerful machine for success and eventually war. Rival nationalist cultures almost destroyed European civilization and fought themselves to a virtual standstill and total exhaustion and financial ruin. And all this in the name of a ideological myth - the 'purity' of the nation, the purity of the national blood, the purity, importance and primacy of our race compared to others, a 'truth', a 'faith', worth killing and dieing for! Start small and locally, and graduate to millions and continents, and all for a great big lie, the myth of nationalism. So much killing for a confused, contradictory, and ridiculous, fairy tale!

And afterwards, when the killing, levelling of cities, and the rivers of blood stopped flowing, and the exhausted survivours crept out from their holes, how much had really changed or been gained, and at what cost? The rich and powerful were prett much still in charge and owned the wealth of the nation and most of the land, or they had been substituted for another group of rulers, but the important thing was that the rulers were still in charge and the ruled and landless had done the dieing and killing, really for nothing of value. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. There is no Left or Right, only rich and poor.

mazaluk
08 February 2008 at 21:49

Ikotubu, "I was once told by an elderly Jewish friend whose parents were murdered by the Nazis: "One of the hallmarks of a committed Zionist is his remarkable ability to twist, distort and misrepresent a very basic fact."

How disingenous! I was once told by an elderly Arab refugee, "We are going to drive them damn Jews into the sea!"

Now I wonder who I should believe.................

Peter Smith
09 February 2008 at 10:22

Everyone appears to have missed one vital point. According to the definition of both the US State Department and the United Nations, (and these definitions have been used by the Anti-Zionist Professor Ilan Pappe to affirm the Palestinian Arab right of return), the Arab and Moslem world has practiced ethnic cleansing against the Jews of Israel / Palestine for over a thousand years. Self-determination is a right for all peoples, including Jews. The fact that it is inconvenient does not negate its validity. Israel exists, as a nation, by right. That the UNO formalized that right to exist is missing the point.

And yes, in an ideal world there would be no borders and no nation states and no government. But please don't ask the (Jewish) State of Israel to live out others ideals. A momentary look at the neighborhood we call Planet Earth would reveal intolerance to be the greatest threat to global survival today, for all species.