![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldTwo weeks ago, as I was leaving my class, I was chatting with a fellow student. I forget how, exactly, we got to the topic of her landlord's political/nationalistic inclinations, but she ended up mentioning that her landlord was a Zionist, and that she felt guilty that she was subsidizing the continued Israeli oppression of the Palestinians. I began to try to form a rebuttal, but I stopped mid-way when I realized that I couldn't really come up with any substantive arguments.
I consider myself pro-Israeli, and have done so for some time.
To be sure, it seems fairly sure that the creation of a Jewish nation-state on the territory of Ottoman and mandatory Palestine did an injustice to the native Arab populations. Yes, Jews in the diaspora retained a profound attachment to imagined and real Palestine, and yes, Jews continued to live in that territory even after the Roman Empire's crushing of the rebellion of 66-70 CE, and yes, anti-Semitism in the eastern European heartland of the Ashkenazim justified emigration (preferably to a place where they could retain their culture).
That said, the simple fact is that at the beginning of the two-thirds Muslim, most of the remainder being Christian; the British census of 1922 recorded that barely more than a tenth of the Palestinian population was Jewish, and that after substantial Zionist-inspired settlement. Israel could only be created by displacing a numerically superior, but technologically and economically inferior, Arab population. Regardless of the perceived need for a Jewish homeland, Jewish suffering--or any other suffering--does not justify the displacement of suffering onto others. Many Zionists have argued--following the lines of this argument at the pro-Israeli Palestine Facts website--that the lack of a well-defined Palestinian Arab identity disqualifies the local population from any right to their territory; yet, that does not disqualify the individual members of the Palestinian population from having any right to determine whether or not they want to live in an explicitly Jewish nation-state. Likewise, the arguments frequently raised to the effect that Palestinian technological backwardness justified Zionist settlement are blatantly colonialist. Had I been God-Emperor of the world back in 1900, my response to anti-Semitism wouldn't have been to displace a half-million Arabs from their homeland. Rather, it would have been to stamp out civil rights violations against Jews living in their homelands, and engineering Western (and non-Western) cultures so as to eliminate anti-Semitism.
That said, I still support Israel's right to exist. Certainly, it's a country which was founded on the displacement of its territory's indigenous populations, and certainly, Israel's a country where the remnant indigenous populations still face prejudice and problems in day-to-day living. That said, Israel's no different from any of the other Western countries of settlement founded a century or so earlier: Canada, Australia, Argentina, Brazil, the United States, South Africa, New Zealand, even New Caledonia. Israel's foundation required the commission of sins; but then, most every nation-state shares in that heritage. As idealistic as a binational Israeli-Palestinian state might be, there's absolutely no reason to think that it would be functional, while there's every reason to think that in its breakdown far greater injustices would be committed against both Israelis and Palestinians. A just settlement allowing two sovereign states to exist side by side in peace (or at least not-war) would be much better. I oppose suicide bombings; I am aware that perceived oppression and humiliation can motivate people to want to seek out vengeance, but attacks against civilians (inside or outside of the Green Line) leave me cold. I even support the construction of a fence separating the two sides, though I'm concerned that Israel's engaging in a series of land grabs.
It's just very, very difficult for me to find the necessary vocabulary to defend Israel when you go to Israpundit, or read articles like that written by Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post equating the removing of Jewish colonists from the Gaza Strip with ethnic cleansing, or for that matter when you hear that, oh, there isn't going to be a withdrawal from the Gaza Strip for another year. I empathize with Diana Moon when she writes
It does not help that there are too many people like Bat Ye'or who make superficial arguments equating all anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, and arguments conflating criticism of Israeli policies with anti-Zionism, and a failure to show any inkling of an idea that, perhaps, Israel can be justly criticized, that perhaps confiscating a fifth of the Gaza Strip's territory (more or less) so that the good residents of Tel Aviv can subsidize the production of domestic citrus fruits by religious fanatics is positively obscene.
Israelis, and successive Israeli governments, have repeatedly claimed that they don't want to engage in the occupation, or in the oppression of subject Arab populations, that they want a just peace. Certainly, Israel's neighbours haven't helped. But still, regardless of the ups and downs of Israel's relationship with its neighbours, the only constant has been the broadening and the deepening of the occupation. The numbers of colonists in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip steadily rose, while the exclusion of the indigenous populations from the corridors of Israeli power (given the Palestinian Authority's incompetence, the only constructive power in the area) has continued.
Question: What do you call people who say one thing but do the exact opposite?
As much as I appreciate Israel, and as much as I think that it is in a difficult position and has suffered from unfair criticism, sometimes I think that the United States should just cut the purse-strings and force Israel to make decisions. If Israel's electorate wants its country to be a rogue state like South Africa, that's it's choice. If Israel's electorate wants its country to be a constructive member of the international community, that's also its choice. I find it fundamentally dishonest and insulting, though, that the electorate keeps indefinitely postponing any decision.
Time's up, folks.
I consider myself pro-Israeli, and have done so for some time.
To be sure, it seems fairly sure that the creation of a Jewish nation-state on the territory of Ottoman and mandatory Palestine did an injustice to the native Arab populations. Yes, Jews in the diaspora retained a profound attachment to imagined and real Palestine, and yes, Jews continued to live in that territory even after the Roman Empire's crushing of the rebellion of 66-70 CE, and yes, anti-Semitism in the eastern European heartland of the Ashkenazim justified emigration (preferably to a place where they could retain their culture).
That said, the simple fact is that at the beginning of the two-thirds Muslim, most of the remainder being Christian; the British census of 1922 recorded that barely more than a tenth of the Palestinian population was Jewish, and that after substantial Zionist-inspired settlement. Israel could only be created by displacing a numerically superior, but technologically and economically inferior, Arab population. Regardless of the perceived need for a Jewish homeland, Jewish suffering--or any other suffering--does not justify the displacement of suffering onto others. Many Zionists have argued--following the lines of this argument at the pro-Israeli Palestine Facts website--that the lack of a well-defined Palestinian Arab identity disqualifies the local population from any right to their territory; yet, that does not disqualify the individual members of the Palestinian population from having any right to determine whether or not they want to live in an explicitly Jewish nation-state. Likewise, the arguments frequently raised to the effect that Palestinian technological backwardness justified Zionist settlement are blatantly colonialist. Had I been God-Emperor of the world back in 1900, my response to anti-Semitism wouldn't have been to displace a half-million Arabs from their homeland. Rather, it would have been to stamp out civil rights violations against Jews living in their homelands, and engineering Western (and non-Western) cultures so as to eliminate anti-Semitism.
That said, I still support Israel's right to exist. Certainly, it's a country which was founded on the displacement of its territory's indigenous populations, and certainly, Israel's a country where the remnant indigenous populations still face prejudice and problems in day-to-day living. That said, Israel's no different from any of the other Western countries of settlement founded a century or so earlier: Canada, Australia, Argentina, Brazil, the United States, South Africa, New Zealand, even New Caledonia. Israel's foundation required the commission of sins; but then, most every nation-state shares in that heritage. As idealistic as a binational Israeli-Palestinian state might be, there's absolutely no reason to think that it would be functional, while there's every reason to think that in its breakdown far greater injustices would be committed against both Israelis and Palestinians. A just settlement allowing two sovereign states to exist side by side in peace (or at least not-war) would be much better. I oppose suicide bombings; I am aware that perceived oppression and humiliation can motivate people to want to seek out vengeance, but attacks against civilians (inside or outside of the Green Line) leave me cold. I even support the construction of a fence separating the two sides, though I'm concerned that Israel's engaging in a series of land grabs.
It's just very, very difficult for me to find the necessary vocabulary to defend Israel when you go to Israpundit, or read articles like that written by Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post equating the removing of Jewish colonists from the Gaza Strip with ethnic cleansing, or for that matter when you hear that, oh, there isn't going to be a withdrawal from the Gaza Strip for another year. I empathize with Diana Moon when she writes
If we want this to stop, cut the aid. This insane situation is not the creation of the United States, but it is American-sponsored. It would end the moment we decreed it to. (Yes, it would.)
[. . .]
My first urge is to scream: "You have lied to me, you have deceived me, you have taken my good will, and my ability to influence the policies of my very powerful country and used them to commit crimes in my name."
Then I shake myself awake and say, "Don't blame anyone else. No one can deceive you without your permission. You deceived yourself. You saw it all when you went to Hebron yourself."
It does not help that there are too many people like Bat Ye'or who make superficial arguments equating all anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, and arguments conflating criticism of Israeli policies with anti-Zionism, and a failure to show any inkling of an idea that, perhaps, Israel can be justly criticized, that perhaps confiscating a fifth of the Gaza Strip's territory (more or less) so that the good residents of Tel Aviv can subsidize the production of domestic citrus fruits by religious fanatics is positively obscene.
Israelis, and successive Israeli governments, have repeatedly claimed that they don't want to engage in the occupation, or in the oppression of subject Arab populations, that they want a just peace. Certainly, Israel's neighbours haven't helped. But still, regardless of the ups and downs of Israel's relationship with its neighbours, the only constant has been the broadening and the deepening of the occupation. The numbers of colonists in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip steadily rose, while the exclusion of the indigenous populations from the corridors of Israeli power (given the Palestinian Authority's incompetence, the only constructive power in the area) has continued.
Question: What do you call people who say one thing but do the exact opposite?
As much as I appreciate Israel, and as much as I think that it is in a difficult position and has suffered from unfair criticism, sometimes I think that the United States should just cut the purse-strings and force Israel to make decisions. If Israel's electorate wants its country to be a rogue state like South Africa, that's it's choice. If Israel's electorate wants its country to be a constructive member of the international community, that's also its choice. I find it fundamentally dishonest and insulting, though, that the electorate keeps indefinitely postponing any decision.
Time's up, folks.
