1) One flavor is the "God Promised it to us," which seems to have been visible in some movies about the Occupied Territories, though I've never seen that point of view expressed online.
2) Another flavor is the "It was our country since Moses, and then it was wrongly taken away by the Romans and others later." I saw a variant of this on display in a comment to an article at the New York Times. The article concerned the declaration of Netanyahu to annex more of the West Bank if he is elected. The first comment was that it was about time, "Israel has always included Judea and Samaria," and then dismissing the "Palestinians" as fake.
One doesn't see this kind of ancient entitlement claim in mainstream media, who are generally too sophisticated for such a populist appeal. But I think it exerts a strong hold on the minds of many Zionists, who feel that a longstanding rightful claim has finally been honored in the creation of the Zionist State. Meanwhile, as I am a left popular front kind of person, I take these right populist appeals perhaps stronger than I should. They rattle me seriously. I feel strongly that the "ancient claim" of exclusively "Jews" on the "Land of Israel" is bogus on many levels, as I tried to summarize conservatively in a comment to the above comment (of which there were many others I would agree with, but none trying to be as comprehensive):
Another argument might be that the Zionist settlement of Israel and state-building was enabled by unethical collusion (such as the Balfour Agreement, and it's ultimate interpretation) and illegal violence (such as the bombing of villages and the King David Hotel). The problem with these arguments is that then the Zionists will claim we're being selective in applying such ethical constraints. The European conquest and settlement of North America was far more genocidally violent and unethical. If the argument were then made that we simply don't do those things anymore, then the Zionists will claim we set the sunset selectively just to punish Jews, when their state building was finally possible. I believe the Zionist arguments here are false, but they are difficult to refute. One point is the violent settlement of North America is not only long over, Native Americans were finally (over 100 years ago) granted full US citizenship, including rights to own property and not be discriminated against. So, in the USA, the pre-1905 Genocide and Apartheid State has been replaced by a more legal regime. But the Apartheid State with Slow Genocide in Israel continues, with Arab settlements still being illegally uprooted and replaced by Zionist settlements, including as in Bibi's latest promise.
Some, who consider the theft of Palestine to be a more serious issue than I do, will have to go farther, which may be possible.
My feeling is, that given the status quo anti, the only remaining solution is a state that is completely race blind, and admits all the Palestinian refugees as full citizens. Therefore we don't have to get bogged down in the question whether Israel represents an untimely theft that used to be "OK" and that others have gotten away with. I'm not attempting to kick Zionists out of Palestine, to which the "theft" question would be germane. They simply have no special right to operate an apartheid state NOW which excludes and collectively punishes half the rightful population. Nobody does, or if they are, they should be subject to BD just like Israel. I'm very angry about how the US has covered for Israel in security council resolutions. Even if the UN is toothless, that's how the reform needs to start. That, and ending the free US military support, and pulling US out of all regional wars and forswearing future ones, whether they were started "because Israel" or not.
That being said, displaced people should get their homes back too. Loss of homes is morally acceptable even if we accept that capital or unsettled land is social. And in the case of small farmers, their farms as well. Even Lenin did not collectivize small farms. Should we expect less of Israelis?
3) Another is the "Jews need a Homeland because of endless anti-Semitism and Dreyfus Affair," attributed to Hertzl.
This by itself doesn't sound like it could nearly justify making a native population into refugees.
4) The most commonly expressed now is the "Jews need a Homeland because of endless anti-Semitism and the Holocaust."
This sounds big enough to mandate a forced resettlement process, though one could still argue the Holocaust was not at all the Palestinians fault, and the Palestinians had been promised a homeland for some time, so perhaps by rights Israel should have been carved out of part of Germany, and the sacrifice borne by the perpetrators of the Holocaust as much as possible.
My position remains, diaspora is the best and generally safest way to live, and the best thing to do is confront anti-Semitism as it arises, words with other words of less intensity, actions with litigation, wrongful litigation with peaceable mass action, at all times with unquestionable fairness--above and beyond fairness to others when possible--because we that is who we are--the peace makers whose ultimate mission is peace, liberty, and justice for all. We may be persecuted viciously, but we will survive through solidarity rather than violence, learn, and always press fowards for everyone, making ourselves ultimately loved everywhere. (I'm often amazed at how many children of Holocaust survivors become the most ardent anti-Zionists.) Of course this is the message of Jesus--who was a Jewish rabbi, and who was representative of first century rabbinic Judaism. What differentiates us from Christians is that we don't buy all the platonic claptrap and authoritarian centralism that arose during the broader dissemination and ultimate repurposing of Jesus' message to an imperial enterprise (not unlike Zionism). And a bunch of historic practices and rules which are mostly honored in the breach (and perhaps more should be--thinking of you, circumcision).
2-4 are apparent in this illuminating comment stream, which was posted in response to this article about the resignation of Valerie Plame resigning from the Plowshares Fund because of an alleged anti-Semitic remark.
Regarding endless anti-Semitism
One of the other commenters presents an article which alleges that DW Griffith's Birth of a Nation was financed and distributed and heavily promoted by Jews who were well aware of its content, and in some cases strongly approving of it. Louis B Mayer made enough money distributing the film to start MGM soon afterwards. I believe these claims, however, the fact that it is "Nation of Islam Research" reporting them earned some tough words from one Zionist commenter:
That was in response to the claim that Zionists are pushing for US involvement in middle east wars, essentially the same as what forced Valerie Plame to resign. The Zionist commenter dismisses that completely claiming that Zionism is not about war or pushing the US to do anything. Zionism is simply the belief that Israel has the right to exist and to be safe. "To be safe" seems rather like it might involve pushing the US to wars, as did the Neocon Zionists, a great example being the recently fired John Bolton, a well known Neocon Zionist who was known for pushing war with Iran, which was reportedly why he was fired.
Now, imagine for a moment a person who is opposed to US military involvement in the middle east, and to supporting Israel militarily and with political collusion at the UN and elsewhere, AND also a Zionist. Does such a person exist? Is such a person even possible? Meanwhile, Zionists argue that anti-Zionism in not a Jewish position, despite endless evidence (outside the mainstream anyway) to the contrary, most anti-Zionist organizations in the English-speaking world are full of Jews and most often created by them!
So while the claim could be made that abstract "Zionism" is not about war or pushing the US to do anything, it seems in practice many Zionists do just that, and it also seems to follow from the "to be safe" condition, that the many "enemies of Israel" which the Zionists are often decrying, may need to be kept under control by force and the threat of force, which is indeed often happening.
Most of my favorite websites and comment sections routinely assume that Zionists and especially Zionist Neocons are pushing the US to war, and there is endless evidence of this. Often, Jews are also protesting against US wars, but those Jews often seem to be the lefter anti-Zionist ones.
In many cases such as this spread of comments, it's transparent how lacking in self-critical ability the Zionist commenters are--routinely applying the kind of extreme rhetoric they accuse their relatively soft spoken interlocutors of. One doesn't need to be an expert in character analysis, or even understanding of the situation in the Middle East to quickly get the drift. Only a fairly open mind to watch it all play out.
Seeing all this, it's clear to me there should never be a restriction on free speech outlawing sentiments opposed to people of any race or political views. If there were, the Zionists would be the first ones locked up--except that they have now successfully argued in many cases that such rules should only apply to their critics, as vile a position as it gets. The hypocrisy alone is self-damning, let alone the hysteria. And I'm being kind compared with other anti-Zionist Jews.
2) Another flavor is the "It was our country since Moses, and then it was wrongly taken away by the Romans and others later." I saw a variant of this on display in a comment to an article at the New York Times. The article concerned the declaration of Netanyahu to annex more of the West Bank if he is elected. The first comment was that it was about time, "Israel has always included Judea and Samaria," and then dismissing the "Palestinians" as fake.
One doesn't see this kind of ancient entitlement claim in mainstream media, who are generally too sophisticated for such a populist appeal. But I think it exerts a strong hold on the minds of many Zionists, who feel that a longstanding rightful claim has finally been honored in the creation of the Zionist State. Meanwhile, as I am a left popular front kind of person, I take these right populist appeals perhaps stronger than I should. They rattle me seriously. I feel strongly that the "ancient claim" of exclusively "Jews" on the "Land of Israel" is bogus on many levels, as I tried to summarize conservatively in a comment to the above comment (of which there were many others I would agree with, but none trying to be as comprehensive):
There have been so many generations since Ancient Israel that anyone from it who has descendants alive today would also be an ancestor of most people alive today, Jewish or not. Only a fraction of the Israelis left the Levant in the first and second centuries, with some ultimately becoming the ancestors of those who are now Palestinian Arabs. Jews were not ever the only ones in the region, and Ancient Israel itself only existed during a relatively short period of time in the human populated past, and had sovereignty during even less time. The region was conquered and re-settled by many different empires, but for the majority of the past 3000 years it has been called Palestine, including when it was also called Israel.It might just be simpler to point out the hypocrisy of honoring one tribe's claim on the land and dismissing all others, as another commenter did.
Another argument might be that the Zionist settlement of Israel and state-building was enabled by unethical collusion (such as the Balfour Agreement, and it's ultimate interpretation) and illegal violence (such as the bombing of villages and the King David Hotel). The problem with these arguments is that then the Zionists will claim we're being selective in applying such ethical constraints. The European conquest and settlement of North America was far more genocidally violent and unethical. If the argument were then made that we simply don't do those things anymore, then the Zionists will claim we set the sunset selectively just to punish Jews, when their state building was finally possible. I believe the Zionist arguments here are false, but they are difficult to refute. One point is the violent settlement of North America is not only long over, Native Americans were finally (over 100 years ago) granted full US citizenship, including rights to own property and not be discriminated against. So, in the USA, the pre-1905 Genocide and Apartheid State has been replaced by a more legal regime. But the Apartheid State with Slow Genocide in Israel continues, with Arab settlements still being illegally uprooted and replaced by Zionist settlements, including as in Bibi's latest promise.
Some, who consider the theft of Palestine to be a more serious issue than I do, will have to go farther, which may be possible.
My feeling is, that given the status quo anti, the only remaining solution is a state that is completely race blind, and admits all the Palestinian refugees as full citizens. Therefore we don't have to get bogged down in the question whether Israel represents an untimely theft that used to be "OK" and that others have gotten away with. I'm not attempting to kick Zionists out of Palestine, to which the "theft" question would be germane. They simply have no special right to operate an apartheid state NOW which excludes and collectively punishes half the rightful population. Nobody does, or if they are, they should be subject to BD just like Israel. I'm very angry about how the US has covered for Israel in security council resolutions. Even if the UN is toothless, that's how the reform needs to start. That, and ending the free US military support, and pulling US out of all regional wars and forswearing future ones, whether they were started "because Israel" or not.
That being said, displaced people should get their homes back too. Loss of homes is morally acceptable even if we accept that capital or unsettled land is social. And in the case of small farmers, their farms as well. Even Lenin did not collectivize small farms. Should we expect less of Israelis?
3) Another is the "Jews need a Homeland because of endless anti-Semitism and Dreyfus Affair," attributed to Hertzl.
This by itself doesn't sound like it could nearly justify making a native population into refugees.
4) The most commonly expressed now is the "Jews need a Homeland because of endless anti-Semitism and the Holocaust."
This sounds big enough to mandate a forced resettlement process, though one could still argue the Holocaust was not at all the Palestinians fault, and the Palestinians had been promised a homeland for some time, so perhaps by rights Israel should have been carved out of part of Germany, and the sacrifice borne by the perpetrators of the Holocaust as much as possible.
My position remains, diaspora is the best and generally safest way to live, and the best thing to do is confront anti-Semitism as it arises, words with other words of less intensity, actions with litigation, wrongful litigation with peaceable mass action, at all times with unquestionable fairness--above and beyond fairness to others when possible--because we that is who we are--the peace makers whose ultimate mission is peace, liberty, and justice for all. We may be persecuted viciously, but we will survive through solidarity rather than violence, learn, and always press fowards for everyone, making ourselves ultimately loved everywhere. (I'm often amazed at how many children of Holocaust survivors become the most ardent anti-Zionists.) Of course this is the message of Jesus--who was a Jewish rabbi, and who was representative of first century rabbinic Judaism. What differentiates us from Christians is that we don't buy all the platonic claptrap and authoritarian centralism that arose during the broader dissemination and ultimate repurposing of Jesus' message to an imperial enterprise (not unlike Zionism). And a bunch of historic practices and rules which are mostly honored in the breach (and perhaps more should be--thinking of you, circumcision).
2-4 are apparent in this illuminating comment stream, which was posted in response to this article about the resignation of Valerie Plame resigning from the Plowshares Fund because of an alleged anti-Semitic remark.
Regarding endless anti-Semitism
One of the other commenters presents an article which alleges that DW Griffith's Birth of a Nation was financed and distributed and heavily promoted by Jews who were well aware of its content, and in some cases strongly approving of it. Louis B Mayer made enough money distributing the film to start MGM soon afterwards. I believe these claims, however, the fact that it is "Nation of Islam Research" reporting them earned some tough words from one Zionist commenter:
You are either a Muslim with a fake profile, or a poorly educated black person who needs to read the history and role of Islam in the Black Slave Trade. ...Two unfounded slurs and a non-sequitur. To be fair, the Zionist commenters do not often begin with a racial slur, but they do denounce any criticism of Zionism in the strongest terms, and often begin by denouncing their interlocutors such as with:
100% WRONG.
100% LIES.
100% FAKE NEWS.
That was in response to the claim that Zionists are pushing for US involvement in middle east wars, essentially the same as what forced Valerie Plame to resign. The Zionist commenter dismisses that completely claiming that Zionism is not about war or pushing the US to do anything. Zionism is simply the belief that Israel has the right to exist and to be safe. "To be safe" seems rather like it might involve pushing the US to wars, as did the Neocon Zionists, a great example being the recently fired John Bolton, a well known Neocon Zionist who was known for pushing war with Iran, which was reportedly why he was fired.
Now, imagine for a moment a person who is opposed to US military involvement in the middle east, and to supporting Israel militarily and with political collusion at the UN and elsewhere, AND also a Zionist. Does such a person exist? Is such a person even possible? Meanwhile, Zionists argue that anti-Zionism in not a Jewish position, despite endless evidence (outside the mainstream anyway) to the contrary, most anti-Zionist organizations in the English-speaking world are full of Jews and most often created by them!
So while the claim could be made that abstract "Zionism" is not about war or pushing the US to do anything, it seems in practice many Zionists do just that, and it also seems to follow from the "to be safe" condition, that the many "enemies of Israel" which the Zionists are often decrying, may need to be kept under control by force and the threat of force, which is indeed often happening.
Most of my favorite websites and comment sections routinely assume that Zionists and especially Zionist Neocons are pushing the US to war, and there is endless evidence of this. Often, Jews are also protesting against US wars, but those Jews often seem to be the lefter anti-Zionist ones.
In many cases such as this spread of comments, it's transparent how lacking in self-critical ability the Zionist commenters are--routinely applying the kind of extreme rhetoric they accuse their relatively soft spoken interlocutors of. One doesn't need to be an expert in character analysis, or even understanding of the situation in the Middle East to quickly get the drift. Only a fairly open mind to watch it all play out.
Seeing all this, it's clear to me there should never be a restriction on free speech outlawing sentiments opposed to people of any race or political views. If there were, the Zionists would be the first ones locked up--except that they have now successfully argued in many cases that such rules should only apply to their critics, as vile a position as it gets. The hypocrisy alone is self-damning, let alone the hysteria. And I'm being kind compared with other anti-Zionist Jews.
No comments:
Post a Comment