Al Nakba Remembered in Philly: 60 Days of Action to Coincide with the 60th Anniversary of the Palestinian Catastrophe
Al Nakba Remembered in Philly: 60 Days of Action to Coincide with the 60th Anniversary of the Palestinian Catastrophe
By Nathaniel
Defenestrator.org
(photo by Candace Saunders)
This spring marks the 60th anniversary of Al Nakba, “the catastrophe,” the little known side of Israel’s creation that murdered thousands of Palestinian civilians in 1948 and drove over 700,000 others into exile after a terror campaign by the nascent Israeli state. Philly SUSTAIN (Stop US Tax-funded Aid to Israel Now!), Temple and Penn Students for Justice in Palestine and the AL Nakba Committee are responding to the call made at the US Social Forum for 60 days of action to coincide with what will likely be a self congratulatory celebration of Zionism.
Philly’s Palestine solidarity movement insist Al Nakba not be forgotten with a series of events every day from March 16th to May 15th. Defining occupation broadly to include the gentrification of Philadelphia neighborhoods through eminent domain and white colonization, solidarity activists plan to work with various groups in the city to insure Al Nakba and all occupations are remembered.
Billions of dollars each year go from U.S. taxpayers to the Israeli military, funding the destruction of Palestinian homes, agriculture and infrastructure. At the same time, people in the U.S. -- including Philadelphia -- face crises around health-care, housing and education. Federal taxes need to come home to support our communities instead of a militarized racist foreign policy in Palestine, Iraq and around the world.
Some events to look forward to are a mini Palestinian film festival, a mjeddera dinner (traditional dish eaten by poor Palestinians) and music night, folk dance, agitprop theater (“Café Intifada,” an occupation themed puppet show and checkpoint street theater), a photo exhibit, a Palestinian political prisoner event and various decentralized actions throughout Philadelphia.
If you want to become involved we’d love your help and input. You can contact Philly SUSTAIN at sustainphilly@gmail.com or visit our myspace page http://myspace.com/sustainphilly for up to date information.
Query
Why is it progressive to stand in favor of terrorist killings of Jews + in opposition to the only vaguely progressive democracy in the middle east? Let's count the total number of Arab Muslim democracies, shall we... that's right, none (don't say 'Turkey'- if you call a Turk an Arab, he'll probably slug you).
All nations of the world have contributed something or another to the culture of the world. The sole contribution of Palestinian Arabs appears to be suicide bombing. Congratulations.
Zorro is a proud, religious Zionist Jew, and will stand for Israel in all things. Let's review a few uncomfortable facts about the 'catastrophe,' shall we?
Before I begin, please note that the land of Israel has *never* been a major center of Arab population. In addition, Jerusalem, the holiest city in Judaism, is *not* the holiest city in Islam, but the third (after Mecca + Medina).
1917: in the Balfour Declaration, Great Britain declares "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
1918: At the end of WWI, Great Britain + France divide much of the Ottoman Empire's former holdings in the middle east. The British mandate is known as British Mandatory Palestine.
1922: The portion of British Mandatory Palestine east of the Jordan river, and home to the overwhelming majority of Palestinian Arabs, is declared to be the independent country of Transjordan (now Jordan), and placed under the rule of a Hashemite family. One major problem: the Hashemites hate the Palestinian Arabs.
1947: The UN votes on the creation of two states in the portion of British Mandatory Palestine west of the Jordan River. The larger portion is to become an independent Palestinian Arab state, while the smaller portion is to become the promised Jewish state. Jewish residents accept this compromise, but the surrounding Arab states do not, and the Israeli War for Independence begins.
1948: Arabs living in the Palestine Mandate (today's Palestinians) and the Arab States refuse the two state compromise and declare war on the new Jewish State. Armies from Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt attack Israel. Note: the Palestinian Arabs *rejected* their state the moment it was handed to them. This would not be the last time. The nacent IDF, composed heavily of survivors from the Holocaust, defeat their attackers. In the war, Jordan captures the West Bank of the Jordan river, including the Old City of Jerusalem. No attempts were made by Jordan to create a Palestinian Arab state in the West Bank during this time. Jews were forbidden to ender the Old City of Jerusalem to pray at holy sites there, + synagogues + Jewish cemeteries were desecrated by the Jordanians during this time.
Beginning in 1948, more than 600,000 Jewish residents of Arab nations are forced out by their neighbors, their property confiscated, + resettled into Israel. This is in marked contrast with the Palestinian Arabs of Israel (interestingly, roughly 600,000 as well), who were told by their own Arab brethren to leave their land, and then not resettled by their own people. Note, also, that while Israel was able to settle more than 600,000 refugees in a region roughly the size of New Jersey, the Arab nations were unwilling to do so for their own Arab brothers in their own nations, taking up area roughly the size of the entire continental United States.
1967: The Six Day War. Egypt closed the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping and began mobilizing its forces to attack Israel. Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq also mobilized and sent troops. In response, Israel launched a strike. Starting June 5, the Israeli air force destroyed Egypt's planes on the ground. Enabled by air superiority throughout the region, Israeli tank columns and infantry captured the Sinai Peninsula in three days. Elsewhere, the Israelis overran the Golan Heights, the West Bank, including the Old City of Jerusalem, and Gaza.
After the capture of the Old City of Jerusalem, the Israeli government made it know that no-one would be barred from entry for religious reasons. Even more, they placed the Temple Mount- former site of the Holy Temples, and the single holiest place in all Judaism- under governance of the Muslim Wakf (Trust), due to the presence there of the Dome of the Rock and Al Aksa Mosque. This is in marked contrast to the way the Jordanians treated Jewish holy places between 1948 and 1967.
Note, here, that the common accusation that anti-Israeli terrorism is due to the capture of the West Bank (historical Judea and Samaria) and the Gaza strip is shown as a lie due to the fact- not claim, but fact- that the surrounding Arab states were no more accepting of Israel before the Six Day War than afterwards.
As for claims that Israel needs to return all 'Arab lands,' such claims are particular galling from Americans, given that 100% of the United States originally belonged to someone else. As a Philadelphian, I can guarantee you that there are Lenape Indians who are *really* interested in this particular land. And look at Europe, if you could. Most of its history consists of one country capturing land belonging to another.
What I find extremely irritating about the entire situation in the middle east is that, if you take even a cursory look at Western history, you'll see that Jews + Muslims have gotten along *far* better than Jews + Christians. If the Arab states would accept Israel's existence, they would find that it's far better to make money and prosper *with* the Jews than to raise your own children to want nothing more than to kill them.
But, as Golda Meir once said, there will be no peace in the middle east until the Arabs love their own children more than they hate ours.
The People of Israel live, and doesn't that just gall the hell out of you,
-Z
Here's the kind of statement
that makes me feel so bleak about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict:
I've got news for you, Z, I don't stand in favor of terrorist killings of Jews, but I am also highly critical of the Israeli government's policies re: the Palestinian conflict.
And it is my opinion there will be no peace in the Middle East as long as a significant number of Israelis and American Jews continue to promote the hateful philosophy so well represented in your post.
Hateful?
What's hateful about wanting there to be one small Jewish country in the world, alongside of dozens of officially Christian + Muslim nations? Or is the mere fact that we demand to be treated as equals in the family of nations what is hateful?
-Z
Nothing . . .
IMO, there is nothing hateful about a Jewish state, the want of a Jewish state or the perpetuation of a Jewish state.
My impression is that the majority of Israelis simply want to live in peace and do not want to destroy their neighbors.
The simple fact is, we can't erase 2000 years of history. There is a Jewish state. It is time that we realize it isn't and shouldn't go anywhere. Similarly, the primary responsibility of the Israel is to defend Israelis. Just like the primary responsibility of the American state is to defend Americans.
Atrocities are reprehensible. But, let's not pretend that they are being committed solely by Israel.
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
Oh, Gaetano, how I have missed disagreeing with you
I don't know that I would say inherently "hateful", but it is at the absolute very least deeply problematic to have a ethnic-religiously defined state. At least when that state lays claim to being democratic, and at least when "democratic" as Americans want to understand it means that the state does not structurally privilege one ethnicity or religion above others.
Choice of the Israeli's . . .
Not mine.
What about the Arab nations in the region? Some seem to be pretty "problematic" (Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.), yet are less democratic than Israel. What about in Saudi Arabia where Christians are not allowed to worship in public without fear of punishment? Or in Egypt where they have to have soverign approval to build churches? Those are pretty problematic to me.
Israel may not be perfect, but the world isn't perfect either.
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
Yeah but I feel a particular responsibility
to Israel, that shapes my positions, because as an ethnic Jew unlike others--Palestinians in the territories or in exile, you--I have the right to citizenship in that country, should I want it, because of my blood.
And it was your opinion about the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish-defined state ("IMO") that I was responding to.
I understand. I am working
I understand.
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
Religiously-defined states
Most nations in the history of the world have been religiously-defined, at least at some point. Would anyone deny Saudi Arabia's right to be officially Islamic? Or the Vatican City's (or Italy's) right to be officially Italian? Or Great Britain's right to be officially Anglican?
Again, let's not hold Israel to a higher standard than the rest of the world throughout human history.
-Z
Hey, Vatican City is quite
Hey, Vatican City is quite specifically not Italian. It's Catholic. It's also the size of my backyard.
Not to enter into the lists with you exactly, Zorro, but don't you think it's fair to hold any democracy to a higher standard than a non-democracy? I know Israeli citizens hold their government to a higher standard than they hold Saudi Arabia's, Iran's, etc. And likewise, I hold the U.S. to a higher standard than I hold those countries.
That's the whole point of a democracy -- it's subject to democratic pressures, including public criticism.
I know that the Vatican isn't Italian
That's why I referred to Vatican City + Italy separately.
While I agree that Israel, as a democracy, should be held to a higher standard than the largely feudal dictatorships which surround it, I take issue with the idea, proposed by many in the west, that this somehow makes Israel unlawful when it acts in the defense of its own citizens. Think about it this way: if Mexicans were lobbing mortar fire across the border into Texas, purposely targeting American civilians, is there any question that the US would have not only the right, but the obligation, to respond? As it is, the US is building a wall between itself and Mexico due to a perception of Mexicans entering the US to work; if Mexicans were entering the country to detonate themselves in American malls and kill as many people as possible, wouldn't there be an outcry to build an even higher wall?
All Israel asks is the right to exist. To call its very existence a 'catastrophe,' as the original poster did, is inflammatory at the very least.
-Z
Religous or Ethnic?
I'm not sure what a "religiously defined" state is but I'm pretty sure most states in the world are not religiously defined. Israel is not.
A state can have an established religion, that one religion that receives state funding for its clergy, places of worship and, quite often, schools. The Church of England is an established church in England. This was, but is no longer, the common practice in the Chrisitan West and initially, other religious practices were prohibited. In the Islamic world, the more common practice was for there to be some state support for a variety of religous establishments. Sometimes state support came in teh form of central government support for these different establishments. More often, religous communities (the dhimmis) were allowed to tax themselves to support their clergy, places of worship, and schools. Israel more or less follows the Muslim practice Israel, if I am not mistaken. Jews, Muslimms, Christian and Druze clerics, places of worship, and educational systems all receive some state support.
Many states, perhaps most of them, around the world are national-states although all have national minorities. In national states, the state serves as a vehicle for teh nation to express its ideals, goals, etc. and gives some preference to members of the nation. In liberal democratic national states like France, Germany, and Italy, those preferences are limited in important ways--everyone has basic rights, including the right to vote; government burdens and benefits are provided equally to everyone regardless of ethnicity and so forth. But in those states, the governent does express the national aspirations of a cetain people. When those national aspirations are connected to--or were once connectd to-a particular religion, one often finds an etablished church. And, sometimes, as still the case to some extent in Italy and Spain, the church has some influence over public policy, which is usually expressed byt its members in the Democratic process.
Israel is a liberal democratic national state, albeit an imprefect one (just as Germany, France, Italy and Spain are imprefect). The main way in which Jews are privileged is that any Jew born anywhere in the world can become an Israeli citizen. (Germany had for a very long time a similar policy. I dont know if it still does) Everyone regardless of ethnicity has the same basic rights in Israel. But some restrictions on the rights of Arabs do exist, mostly because of security concerns. They do not serve in the military, for example. Benfits from the state are also unfairly distributed sometimes for legitimate securty reasons, sometimes for illegitimate reasons.
For lots of reasons, I like living in a multi-ethnic state like the United States. But I see nothing illegitimate in general about ethnic states, presuming, of course, that they do not discriminate against ethnic minorities.
Ireland and Israel
The only state that I know of with a comparable ethnic entry to citizenship is Ireland. The child and in some cases the grandchild of an Irish citizen can apply for citizenship regardless of the country of their birth or residency. And, as with Israel, Americans can have dual Irish and US citizenship.
Well
sure the right of return is the big inequality or dividing line based on ethnicity.
But check out the writers I linked below (Sandy Kedar and Oren Yiftachel). Their work very carefully charts the ways that the state limits the rights of non-Jewish citizens or legal residents of Israel proper (not the territories, which are obviously their own giant legal and moral mess), including via differential land use regulations for Arab-majority villages, resettlement and non-recognition of Bedouin encampments, and on and on.
The fact that Israel is committed to maintaining a Jewish demographic majority necessarily begets all sorts of practices and structural inequality that is incompatible with the basic quality of democracy to my mind: the equal status of all citizens in the social compact. This is key:
So as a sort of hopefully final comment, I find the assertion that you have no problem in principle with ethnically-defined states pretty shocking (and I am not even sure how your caveat would work in practice), but I do recognize that that is a big involved subject and definitely don't want to unleash some bitter debate.
Why shocking, Jennifer?
If the ethnicity of a state is found in the kinds of public goods it supports--in say, the holidays that are public days off and that are publicly celebrated, the kinds of artistic institutions it establishes and so forth--but the state does not discriminate against individuals with regard to basic political and civil liberties, what is wrong with that?
There is a strand in liberal thought that says the state should be neutral to different conceptions of the good. It seems to me that this neo-Kantian argument is the only grounds for saying that a state cannot legitimately celebrates a certain ethnic or national heritage. And it is an argument I think is fundamentally and profoundly wrong for reasons that have little to do with the national question. No political community can avoid takings stands on questions of what makes for a good life and being part of a community with a certain kind of heritage is, for the majority of human beings, part of a good life. That is way the vast majority of states in the world are, in this sense, ethnically defined. And that, too, I think is a good thing.
And if it is OK for Greeks, and Germans, and the French and Italians and the Irish and even Albanians in Kosovo to have their own ethnically identified state, why not the Jews?
And I say all this even though my own preference is to live in a cosmopolitan, pluralistic state that downplays and increasingly diminishes any identification with an ethnic or religious tradition. (The US is much more such a state today than it was in my childhood when even if one grew up in the Borscht Belt like I did one had little doubt that this was a fundamentally white anglo-saxon protestant country.) Of course, the irony of this preference is not lost on me, at it is is, itself, a product of my own ethnic heritage. As I once told my wife before we had a child, one very good way (though not the only one) to help insure that a cosmopolitan pluralist culture survives is to make sure our kid has a strong Jewish identity. If you were to meet my wonderful kid, you would see that, so far its turning out just that way.
Thanks
I think we'll all agree that it's impossible for two parties to negotiate towards a goal unless the two parties agree on precisely what that goal is. For most- not all- Israelis, the definition of 'peace' would be something along the lines of 'OK, we don't like you, you don't like us, but let's stop killing each other. OK?' For far too many Palestinians, it seems like the definition of peace is 'all the Jews leave.' Given this divergence, it's not surprising that no amount of negotiations, no matter how well-intentioned, have gotten anywhere.
It's instructive to look at the history between Israel + Egypt and to compare it to that between Israel + Jordan. Israel + Egypt have what can be generously called a 'cold peace.' That is, while their armies aren't facing each other down- there is no active state of war, as there is with every Arab state save Egypt + Jordan- there isn't exactly warmth either. Israeli tourists do visit resorts and historical sites in Egypt, and some trade exists between the two nations, but the two countries are hardly allies. Israel + Jordan, on the other hand, have a history of cordial relations which even extends to before the actual signing of a peace treaty between the two nations in 1994. Some claim that the Mossad (Israeli intelligence) even gave Jordanian intelligence warning about a Palestinian assassination plot against King Hussein prior to the 1973 Yom Kippur War. And, since the treaty, cross-border trade + tourism between Israel + Jordan have increased dramatically. Clearly, this shows that Israel is more than willing to find a peaceful solution to the problems in the middle east- indeed, it has repeatedly given up land for peace, starting with the return of the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt under the terms of the 1979 Camp David Accords, and continuing with its unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. Of course, the latter has largely been rewarded by increased bombardments of Israeli cities from Gaza-based Hamas terrorists.
If 'peace' is the goal, we need to agree on what 'peace' is. At the very minimum, it means a cessation of hostilities. Perhaps, if Israel and its Arab neighbors can achieve that, a warmer, more profitable peace can ensue.
-Z
What Peace Is.
Peace means
Palestinians and their descendants from al Nakba can return to Palestine-Israel, if not to their exact property, than at least to a comparable one, with equal access to water, arable land, and other resources. If they choose not to return, they should be compensated monetarily.
Israel should withdraw illegal settlements from ethnically cleansed portions of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Israel ends the military occupation of Gaza.
Israel removes all walls and checkpoints, and makes roads and other public facilities open to all Palestinian or Israeli citizens of Palestine-Israel.
Palestinians and Israelis can marry without any legislative barriers.
Palestinians and Israelis are guaranteed equal representation in a democratic government, with guarantees to non-discrimination against all religious and ethnic groups. Enforcement of these provisions shall be overseen by Palestinians and Israelis or Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Druze, and secular backgrounds (among others if necessary).
Israelis can continue to have the Law of Return under a peace solution only if there is a Right of Return for Palestinian refugees. It's AT LEAST as important for the people who lived on a plot of land to be able to return to it as it is for someone from New Jersey to "return" to it.
This is at once discriminatory and idealistic to a fault
In a perfect world, all immigration barriers would fall, people would settle where they wish, and, indeed, there would be no national barriers at all. Everyone would get to vote on one world government, and ethnic violence and separation would be no more. That's not the world we live in, most decidedly, in the part of it that's known as the Middle East.
Under your solution, most ethnic group in the world would have the right to protect themselves through national borders within which they would be a majority group, except for the Jews, and for awhile, the Palestinians. Arabs would have their many states, Islam would be the state religion in all of them, but the Jews would not have theirs. Instead, they would have the safety of "guaranteed equal representation in a democratic government." Presumably the good people of the world would rush to their aid if the "democratic government" came to be dominated by the good folks in Hezbollah who would like to drive them into the sea. Just as they aided them every time in the last 2,000 years when the welcome mat under their feet suddenly disappeared and the rivers swelled with their blood.
So your ideals are wonderful, but they depend on Jews disregarding all that inconvenient historical reality. Which really means that your solution will come about only over the dead bodies of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Jews -- and the Arabs who fight them -- who will be disinclined to watch that history repeat itself.
And yes, I'm for compensation for displaced Palestinians. Let's also have compensation for the displaced Jews of Spain, Poland, Russia, Hungary, etc. I'll wait for my check in the mail because I'm one of their descendants.
From the February 14 issue
of the New York Review of Books:
I agree with Olmert completely
He's advocating a two-state solution, however; the post I replied to advocated one. Both the status quo and the push for a one state solution are prescriptions for death.
Yeah, I just wanted to post it
because I read it before work this morning and thought it was one of those statements that shows the startling disconnect between a lot of Americans' perceptions of the problem, and Israelis'.
In a more perfect world, I would strongly want a one-state solution, demography be damned, because demography is going to be a problem anyway and I think it is a very dangerous project for a purported democracy to have to try to maintain an ethnic majority. Even with two states, I don't think that Arabs and other minorities can be completely disentangled from Israel proper, where many have citizenship and property.
However, yeah, a good two-state solution may be the only practical alternative.
Time for some new models
I once had a fascinating discusion with a former Israel knesset member who left to start a civil rights group.
He pointed out that the time had come to find new models of political sovreignty to deal with the mess created by sixty year of war, mutual expropriate of land and propety (Stan left out all the Jewish property taken in Arab lands before and after 1948) and the settlemets. Why he asked me, couldn't citizens of Israel with full political rights in Israel live in the West Bank and citizens of Palestine with full political rights in Palestine live in Jaffa? Of course territory would determine whose property and criminal law applied. But political rights and personal law would be separated from the territory on which one lived.
Hateful?
The main problem with a Jewish state is that it's founded on expropriated land that was taken forcefully by Palestinians, and those Palestinians are not allowed to return to their land, or even be compensated for it, and do not have civil rights within the government of that land. In Ireland, where the people fought to remove colonialism, having an ethnic state means that the people who are indigenous to the land can be represented in a democracy. In Israel, like the United States, like Australia, like Canada, or South Africa, or a number of other countries, there may be some democratic institutions, but the vast majority of people who should be able to participate in that "democracy" have been ethnically cleansed off their land. That's exactly why the history of al Nakba is so important to remember, because it currently affects policy.
Obviously, people who live in Israel, just like white people in the U.S., have human rights, despite this history. There's no one in the solidarity movement for Palestine, and markedly few people in Palestinian culture itself, that actually support attacks of any kind on noncombatant civilians. Now, attacks on the military are a different thing entirely. Palestinians have a right and a duty to destroy the separation wall, to fight for their freedom from checkpoints, and from military occupation.
My ancestors worked hard to form the Irish independence movement from British colonialism, and contrary to some of the nonsense being said on this list, I actually feel that my ancestors, who were revolutionaries, would see themselves as in the same boat as Palestinians, not the settlers.
Check out the Irish movement to support Palestine at http://www.ipsc.ie/
Long live a free Ireland. Long live a free Palestine!
James Patrick Kennedy-Hennessey, great-great grandson of William Crossin, IRA member.
Irish Cred
Hey, one Irish-American to another (and since I think I'm the only one who mentioned Ireland), I'm only talking about a similar state policy towards citizenship of descendants. (My grandparents are from Kerry, and both of my great-grandfathers were likewise IRA members in the first revolution, and my grandmother's father for quite a bit longer.)
Although, I do think that there's quite a bit that can be applied to Israel-Palestine from Irish history: Both Israel and Ireland are twentieth-century states, created from multiethnic populations from an old empire. And what seemed for a century like an unresolved and irresolvable conflict in Ireland has achieved a measure of stability that couldn't have been imagined twenty years ago.
There's an analogy to be made that what is happening to Fatah now under Abbas is similar to what happened to Sinn Fein, where a nonviolent political party (and partner) emerged from a party of armed resistance. So I think that some kind of brokered peace, and perhaps even some kind of multiparty, multiethnic government is in principle possible in Palestine; if it can happen in Northern Ireland, it can happen in the West Bank.
Now, peace in North Philadelphia --that's what we should be working on. (And South and West and Southwest and Northwest and Northeast.)
Agree and Disagree
I agree with you about some of what you said, but think some of the rest is off. First, what I agree about. Ali Abunimah, who is an author I've got a lot of respect for, makes a lot of comparisons between Ireland and Palestine-Israel, because of the things you've mentioned. I think the solution is ultimately about bringing both ethnicities together to have a democratic state that functions for the diversity of the people there. And non-violence is really important. Palestinians actually use a tremendous amount of non-violence, which they refer to as samud, or steadfastness. Things like the Intifada, for instance, which was mostly non-violent protests. Or, when people hike many miles up a hill to work because the roads have been closed to them. That's samud. I don't know whether this alone can solve the problem. I'm hesitant to say the solution is violence, against military targets or otherwise, because a) I think that it destroys international support to some extent or another, and b) Israel and the U.S. are WAYYY stronger. I don't support any attacks on civilians, but I still support at least the right to use violence against military targets.
Now, Abbas is a puppet of the U.S. Maybe it's not what he wants to be, but it is what he effectively is. And even Arafat decided in his later years that he'd rather live in relative comfort and go along with some of the process, even if it meant that there weren't real improvements. But Abbas is a total puppet. I'm not really supportive of Hamas or Fatah in any total sense. I like Fatah's traditional support for multi-religious, secular, socialist-democratic values, and I'm suspicious of Hamas because they used to be supported by Israel to divide that movement, among other reasons. But Hamas has offered ceasefires several times, has offered to recognize Israel's existence, has pretty much agreed to many of the things that people say they're not willing to do, and yet there is still a war against them. I personally feel as though in that situation, people have no choice but to use force to defend themselves. Especially when it comes to destroying the wall, or property-destruction of other kinds that will give people the ability to go and shop for food, etc. I think it may well be a function just of the way states run, in general, that those who are in charge do not represent the people very well (Hamas might do the same if it had the power Fatah has right now, and has in the past when it was supported by Israel...).
Dissapointed
I am disappointed to see such a blatantly racist and ignorant comment (defending Israeli atrocities) on a "progressive" website, but it goes to show just how deep the mentality runs of apologizing for all of the horrific atrocities of the Israeli state against Palestinians. I am disgusted, and have zero-tolerance for racists like you, who would actually try and justify these atrocities. Do you also defend the US govt's genocide of American Indians in the name of "Manifest Destiny"? Israeli leadership is no different morally than such racist butchers as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and other founding fathers!
I don't defend atrocities
I've never defended atrocities, no matter who commits them. I have stood up and criticized the Israeli government for its past actions against those Palestinians who live in Judea and Samaria. I would note, of course, that Israel voluntarily left both Gaza + the Sinai Peninsula, the former unilaterally, and the latter in the 1979 Camp David Accords w/Egypt. This contrasts nicely with the US' not returning any of the former Mexican lands which it captured in the Mexican-American War, and with France's not returning Alsace-Lorraine to the Germans. Quick: name another country which is demonized for not returning territory captured during a defensive war. You can't, can you.
I notice that, while you don't explicitly defend the specific targeting of Israeli civilians by Palestinian terrorists, you don't condemn them either. Why is that? Is the only good Jew a dead Jew? Probably so in your mind, I suspect.
Bear in mind, I bear no racism towards Islam or Arabs. As I noted, Jews + Muslims have, historically, gotten on far better than Jews + Christians or Muslims + Christians. And the Golden Age of the Jewish Diaspora- prior to the current day US, I would say- was in Moorish- that is, Arab- Spain + North Africa. Even to this day, Jews in Morocco get on far better with their Arab brethren than do the very few Jews remaining in any other Arab countries.
There are Arab members of the Knesset, Israel's parliment- 12 at current. The total number of Jews in Arab countries' purely symbolic parliments (unlike Israel, which is a parlimentary democracy, the parliments in all Arab nations are powerless): 1, in Tunisia. Brutal, isn't it?
Facts: they're a bitch, aren't they? Face it: Jews are still here, and we're not going away, as much as bigots like you might wish we'd just all jump into the sea and finish ourselves off.
-Z
I would really rather this conversation wasn't happening here
and I probably shouldn't be fueling it, but I do not think these positions are compatible:
and
To make this marginally constructive, please anyone interested in these messy complicated issues, read either of these guys. They are amazing: Alexandre Kedar, at University of Haifa Law School and Oren Yiftachel, at Ben Gurion University of the Negev.
There's no inherent contradiction
Just as I can love the United States but condemn the acts of the current administration, I can love Israel but criticize it for violating its own ideals. Indeed, the true sign of love for something is a willingness to criticize it for its own benefit. The Israeli press is known for being particularly barbed in its criticism of the government, no matter what party is in charge.
-Z
Yes, I understand the love
I think it is hard-to-impossible not to feel a deep love for a place that gave refuge to people pushed out of Europe and much of the world.
But I think the statement "will stand for Israel in all things" implies an unwillingness to hear or make criticism that I feel is really dangerous and unhealthy for democracy.
Zorro, Chill
Zorro, please do not say things like this:
... about any longstanding member of the YPP community ever again. Thanks.
Very well
I don't mean to get ad hominem. I just get rather steamed when it seems apparent to me that Israel is being held to a completely different standard than any other nation in the history of the world. And, in the case of Israel, some people do quite literally take the approach that the only good Jew is a dead Jew- you should know that this isn't paranoid raving on my part.
I apologize if I get steamed. But I will not apologize for defending Israel against what seem to be unjustified- and unjustifiable- attacks.
-Z
Zorro, like any Jewish kid,
Zorro, like any Jewish kid, I had plenty of 'teaching moments' about antisemitism in the world. I understand antisemitism exists. Second, I doubt you will find a single person on the blog who feels in any way close to that. (You know, liberals in the city with a Jewish Senator, Jewish former Mayor-now Governor, Jewish Congresswoman, etc., etc., etc..)
Gaza and "Judea"
You've demonstrated that you're way out of the mainstream of discourse on this by referring to the West Bank as "Judea and Sumaria". Claiming that after 2000 years of Diaspora, you should have the right to come back and TAKE land from people, because of a religious and cultural tie to that land, is crazy. Period. I'm not saying that those historic ties don't exist, or that they shouldn't be honored. I'm not saying that Jews shouldn't move to Israel-Palestine. But there's a difference between feeling a sense of being tied to a place, and moving there, and what is actually happening--which is that the Israeli state, funded by U.S. taxpayers, destroys Palestinian dwellings, and then builds new settlements and "sterile" roads for Jews only. Without in any way questioning the very real tie that Jewish people rightfully feel towards this area of the world, calling the West Bank Judea and Sumaria completely erases the existence of Palestinian culture, and the right of those people to their land and their homes, including the right of return for refugees from 1948.
There are bigots who are against Israel, who hate Jews or Judaism, and who have a problem with Israeli policies because they have a problem with Jews. I am not one of those people, and either are any of the people involved in organizing these sixty days of action. Many of us are Jewish, and those of us who are not are deeply committed to respecting Jewish culture and tradition. But I don't want my money going to any military operation that ethnically cleanses people, and that's what's happening in Palestine.
As for "throwing people in the sea", personally, I favor a one-state, democratic, non-religious, and non-ethnically defined country for both peoples to live in. I don't think that the history of oppression towards Palestinians, which has taken their land away from them, means that we should support solutions that punish the children and grandchildren of the perpetrators of those crimes (such as al Nakba). I do think that in order for there ever to be justice in Israel (or the U.S., or a lot of countries, indigenous people and poor people will have to receive compensation for their years of suffering from those who are more privileged. Land redistribution, by removing illegal settlements in the West Bank, for instance, would be a good start.
Now, the last point I want to address is Gaza. I suggest checking this out if you don't believe me, but the public justifications that Ariel Sharon and now-Prime Minister Olmert have offered for the Gaza withdraw has been the "threat" of the "demographic problem". In other words, the threat of Palestinians (once again, since they historically have been before the Nakba) becoming the majority. Israel still militarily controls Gaza, thus the blockade and military siege. But it has removed its settlers (often to the West Bank) because it can now claim that that territory is not part of Israel proper. The state is afraid that if Palestinians ever called for the right to vote, they would be forced to deal with a state that is half-half Palestinian-Israeli, or majority Palestinian.
A general question
Why the heck is it considered 'progressive' to condemn the only liberal democracy in the middle east? Take a quick look: there are *no* Arab democracies. None. Zero. You have dictatorships (Libya), and you have monarchies, some more benign than others. But no democracies- and don't tell me Iraq is a democracy, it's a mess. There are two Muslim democracies in the world- Indonesia + Turkey. Neither is Arab. Religious freedom is guaranteed under Israeli law; it is illegal to be any religion other than Muslim in most of the Arab world. Indeed, if an American soldier based in Saudi Arabia lights a menorah or puts up a Christmas tree, s/he could be arrested by Saudi authorities. Women's rights? Unheard of in most of the Arab world, where honor killings of women are not uncommon. Meanwhile, Israeli women are guaranteed equality, serve with distinction in the military, and one of Israel's greatest Prime Ministers was Golda Meir. Homosexual rights? None in the Arab world. In contrast, gays serve openly in the Israeli Defense Forces. Let's assume that Israel were to vanish tomorrow- that all the Jews were to accede to the demands of people like the original poster and slit their own throats. Can there be any doubt at all that the Arab state which would take its place- the 23rd in the world, as compared to 1 Jewish state in the past 2000 years- would be a religious dictatorship comparable to that dreamed of by Hamas? Now, that would be a true catastrophe.
The real pity of it is that there's no real reason that there should *not* be Arab democracy. Indeed, the answer to the middle east's problems is Arab democracy. The thing is, democracy cannot be imposed- it has to evolve from inside a country along with its economic development. The historical record is clear that democracy develops along with the rise of a middle class. The Arab world is, ironically, held back by its own oil wealth, in that tiny minorities in most Arab countries hoard nearly all of the wealth for themselves, preventing the very development of a middle class which would engender the development of democracy. And how do these small minorities gain all this money? That's right, from we fools in the west, who pour money into the very Wahabbist states- like Saudi Arabia- which foster the vicious anti-Americanism of Bin Laden + his ilk.
Arab democracy, when- not if- it rises, will result in the rise of the middle east as an economic power second to none. Combine the mineral wealth + intelligence of its people- all of them, Arab, Jewish, Kurd, etc.- and you will have an economic bloc to easily rival the European Union. But that can't happen if Arab states seem to focus more on killing Jews than on uplifting their own people. And that's the real shame of it.
-Z
Wrong, Z, about religion in the Arab World
It is not illegal to be Jewish or Christian in the Arab world. Although there are restrictions on conversion.
There was a great article in the Times yesterday about a Christian in Egypt who converted to Islam in order to divorce his wife. You see, the Christian set in which he was born does not allow divorce while Islam does. And in Egypt, like in Israel and many other states that follow Muslim practice, there is no secular marriage or divorce only religious marriage or divorce. (Some of us think that wouldn't be a bad idea here. If we had that practice gay marriage would already be legal.)
The problem for this fellow was that he wanted to convert back from Islam to Christianity. This, however, is against the law in Egypt. (On the presumption that Islam is the true monotheistic faith, conversion is only allowed one way.)
Regrets, I've got a few
I regret deeply the way that this thread has descended into hostility, and apologize for my part in it. As I said, I am passionate about Israel, + will defend its right to exist. That is why I find reference to its creation as being 'The Catastrophe' (the translation from Arabic of 'Al Nakba') to be inherently offensive.
I suggest we let this subject drop, as it is only tangentially connected to Philadelphia politics.
-Z
Hateful:
also hateful:
When you make such statements, you betray that you have no interest in recognizing the legitimacy of the problems that Palestinians face. In all of your posts on this thread, you neglect to mention the pernicious influence of rightwing religious Jewish fanatics on the peace process.
It saddens me greatly to see fellow Jews with so little ability to see how their attitude perpetuates the horrible conditions of Palestinians and the threat to Israel itself.
Hateful?
As I said, I would prefer if this were not a subject for discussion on YPP, as it is only tangentially connected to Philadelphia. Indeed, one of the main strengths of the United States is precisely that it allows people to, in effect, leave their 'old world' conflicts behind, + start anew. But, given that we're human, it's impossible to have a completely clean slate.
As I said, I get fired up when I come to my defense of Israel; for this, I make no apology. I fully recognize the difficulty of the issues involved in the Israel-Palestine situation; if these issues were not difficult, they would have been resolved decades past. What I object to is the perception among many people that Israel has the sole requirement to compromise in this. Land for peace, fine: Israel has already done this, twice, with little to show for it. What Israelis ask is why the Palestinians can't stop targeting them with terrorist attacks. I don't think it makes me too much of a 'rightwing religious Jewish fanatic' to ask that Palestinians stop killing my fellow Jews. Or is that just completely unreasonable of me?
Again, I'll bring this home to the US. Let's say that Canadians were constantly crossing the borders + committing mass killings in American cities. Would there be even the slightest question that it would be both the right and responsibility of the US government to defend its civilians? Or would anyone seriously make the argument that the Americans should die; that they deserved to die?
Finally, the entire notion that Israel's creation was 'Al Nakba'- literally, 'The Catastrophe'- states quite openly- albeit in a language which 99% of Americans don't understand whatsoever- the mindset of the original poster. The clear mindset is that the very existence of Israel is a catastrophe- a crime- and that murder of its citizens is a justifiable response. I put it to the original poster: do you defend the murder of Israeli civilians, given that Israel's mere existence is a catastrophe?
I wanted to let this issue drop; I really did. Clearly, that is not the consensus.
-Z
More odd statements, Z
Not sure where you get that from -- similar to your statement about people who hold Israel to standards that they don't apply to other countries. I'm sure that there are rare examples of such "people," but they are rare - and I think it is highly unlikely you'd find any such people reading YPP.
Again, you ignore the Jewish, rightwing religious fanatics in Israel who take a deliberately aggressive stance on any aspect of the conflict, specifically because they believe it is their god-given right to control the land. These fanatics are a sizable minority in Israel, and because of the idiosyncrasies of Israeli domestic politics, have a very powerful influence. You also ignore the influence of American neocons and fundamentalist Christians, who are a huge player in both American and Israeli government policy on Palestinian issues. As I'm sure you know, the neocons are motivated by an interest in promoting American hegemony, and the fundamentalist Christians are motivated by their desire for the "end of days." In both cases, their motivation is certainly not a simple concern for the security of Israelis.
Again, Z, you seem to be creating strawmen. I certainly don't think that asking that Palestinian stop killing Jews makes anyone a Jewish rightwing religious fanatic, or that it is unreasonable to ask that Palestinians stop killing Jews.
Again, my point is that your mischaracterizations reflect an inability to see the issues clearly. I understand why your emotional involvement would cause such a tendency - just as I can understand why Palestinians react emotionally. But as I stated earlier, when I see people allowing emotion to so distort their viewpoint it leaves me feeling all that more discouraged about the possibility for any peaceful resolution.
Sigh...
I'll try to make this as clear as I can: I would rather not see this discussion continue in this venue, given that it is only tangentially linked to Philadelphia politics.
I think that, on one level, the only way for this debate to end is for us to agree to disagree. On another level, I maintain that the referral to Israel's mere existence as 'The Catastrophe' is, by definition, inflammatory. I would hope that, at the very least, we could all agree on two points:
1) Israel has the right to peacefully exist in the family of nations.
2) The Palestinian Arabs similarly have the right to exist in the family of nations (you will note that nothing I have said contradicts this point). In my ideal world- admittedly, something of a wild fantasy given the contemporary political situation- a democratic Israel exists peacefully alongside of a democratic Palestinian Arab state.
As something of a conclusion (if one can even be imagined where this subject is concerned), Rabbi Ira Stone of Beth Zion-Beth Israel (18th + Spruce Sts.) made the point several years back that, in the distant future, we may well look back at today's unrest in the middle east + see it as the inevitable result of the miserable job done by the French and British when they divided up the Ottoman Empire's former holdings in the region. Think about it: the British created a state with a majority Palestinian Arab population, + put it under the leadership of a Hashemite family which had a long history of hating the Palestinians. Brilliant, no?
Please, please, please, let's let this rest.
-Z
Not sure how to respond, Z
You say you want to drop it, but each time you say that you leave a parting statement that I feel requires a response.
Certainly any Palestinian, and I would contend any Israeli, could rightly describe the events which set the stage for 60 years of suffering as a "catasrophe."
As for Israel having a "right" to exist in a family of nations - I'm not entirely sure I can agree with that. The concept of a country having a "right" to exist is not automatic for me: it depends on relevant circumstances. Do Jews have a right to live free from religious or ethnic persecution? Yes, undoubtedly. But the notion that there is some governing principle which established Israel as an extension of Jews' rights, by definition, is going to clash with the notion that Palestinians who lived in the areas within Israel's borders had a right to live where their families had lived for generations. How to guarantee that Jews can live free from religious or ethnic persecution may, arguably, justify the establishment of a Jewish state, but this goes back to statements Jennifer made above: the concept of a state based on religious or ethnic identity is problematic.
I agree that the way the state of Israel was created guaranteed a long history of hostilities.
I don't think anyone is harmed by our exchange. Rest assured, a post on this topic will never be put up on the YPP front page - and it isn't entirely unprecedented for there to be side-threads on non-Philly centered topics. Also, rest assured that Dan and the other dictators that manage YPP are quite capable of stepping in to end this discussion if they think it harms the site.