John Sigler, 6 August 2007
I. Preliminary Notes and Observations
Benjamin Pogrund is the founder and director of the Yakar Center for Social Concern in
“Their motivations vary: anti-Semitism and a visceral hatred of everything Jewish; or objections, based on religious belief, against the presence of a Jewish state on perceived Muslim Waqf land; or Jews on the left who feel driven to distance themselves publicly from Israel for reasons that are not always fathomable but seem to stem from embarrassment at having been born Jewish.” [1]
Being South African born, Pogrund considers himself supremely qualified to deny any and all connections between the modern ethnocentric state of
Pogrund is not particularly unique among those that are generally considered members of the “Zionist Left,” specifically those that do earnestly seek peace and reconciliation, but only insofar as Israel’s right to define itself as an ethnocentric state in which roughly half the resident population under its control is either denied full equality (inside the Green Line) or denied any standing at all (in the Occupied Palestinian Territories). Those of this camp can not, or will not, accept that there can never be any sustainable peace as long as the Zionist ideology is accepted as a means of creating an ethnically exclusive state in which roughly half the resident population is officially discriminated against as “non-Jews” in a “Jewish State.” Just as the Afrikaners came to accept the impossibility of maintaining an ethnocentric Afrikaner state in a land heavily populated with non-Afrikaners, so too must Zionists see the absurdity of trying to maintain a “Jewish State” in a land heavily populated by non-Jews.
Not surprisingly, as both a Zionist and as something of his extension of the rejection of any comparison between the
II. Deconstruction and Refutation
1. Paragraphs 1-7
The introduction begins with a brief description of the growing trend of comparing the Israeli system of ethnocentric domination with the former Apartheid system in
As the introduction continues Pogrund goes on to take assorted potshots at various other South African critics of
a) “Muslim organizations and individuals” though providing no examples;
b) South African journalist Allister Sparks who does advocate one democratic secular state. Pogrund specifically quotes
c) the Communist Party of South Africa that he accuses of being “unaware that
d) as well as a rather weird, though not necessarily hostile, quote by Shabnam Mohamed in
The introduction successfully illustrates who Pogrund sees as the “enemy” in
After the introduction Pogrund moves on to making his arguments, largely basing them on the work of Heribert Adam and Kogila Moodley, “Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking Between Israelis and Palestinians.” [5] In the process he relies upon six “crucial realms” that were explored in the book and uses these to show that the South African model does not present “a realistic way forward,” ascribing this conclusion to the authors of the book [6]. In fact, Pogrund relies so heavily on the Adam-Moodley book in many respects the following deconstruction and refutation is more one of these authors than Pogrund himself.
2. Paragraph 8
Paragraph eight presents the first of the “crucial realms” that ostensibly undermines the idea of one democratic secular state, namely the differences in the economic situations. Essentially three differences are raised…
“Blacks and whites in
Realistically the supposition that the Israeli and Palestinian economies are fundamentally separate or different completely lacks merit. Through force of arms and deliberate manipulation, it is true that the Israeli economy is not completely dependent on the Palestinians; but the inverse is completely false, with the Palestinian economy being completely controlled by and dependent on
While Israel has taken advantage of modern international labor flows to replace most Palestinian workers with non-Arabs for cheap labor, the cost differences for the Israeli employer - 2098.86 NIS per foreign worker earning a gross salary of 2085 NIS versus 3110.55 NIS for a Palestinian worker making the same gross amount [8] – are strictly due to legislative measures meant to encourage this trend as opposed to any tangible expenses. This is not a “natural” economic development, but a deliberate result of legislation meant to exclude ethnically undesirable workers, i.e. this result is not the product of economics, but an economic tool used to create a desired social/demographic result.
There is also the “captive market” factor. The good old days of exploiting the
“… the intifada has disrupted the “captive” market
Nevertheless,
“Because of the Israeli-controlled customs union, 73% of all imports to the OPT come from
Finally, the Israeli occupation itself plays a significant role – just as the need for ever increasing police and security forces played a direct role in the South African Apartheid economy – in the Israeli economy itself. “According to experts' estimates, the total economic cost of the occupation has by now reached more than $50 billion, including security and civilian expenses (the construction and maintenance of the settlements), as well as the potential loss of gross domestic product. The annual average of military expenses on maintaining control over the territory stands at about
Whether one wants to admit it or not, the Israeli and Palestinian economies are intimately linked and interdependent, though the power imbalance ensures that this interdependence works primarily to
The second difference that Pogrund reproduces is: “The growth of politicized trade unions enabled blacks to attack apartheid through industrial action such as strikes and consumer boycotts. In contrast, Palestinians do not have this power because
In this instance, the difference is valid but it is also somewhat inconsequential. Even at the height of the anti-Apartheid struggle, only about 10% of black workers were unionized [12] and the government brutally repressed labor strikes when they became significant. Though there were many black labor strikes, in general they played a minor role in actually bringing about the end of Apartheid. They were much more effective at organizing consumer boycotts – especially against foreign corporations operating in Apartheid South
It is fully conceded that a better planned and better directed strategy of generating economic pressure on Israel would be useful, but pretty much any organized Palestinian entity with popular support could accomplish this, labor unions per se are not necessary. Regardless, as was the case in
The third difference is: “
It is certainly true that white South Africans were always much more dependent on black labor than Israel has ever depended on Palestinian labor, but this doesn’t undo or invalidate the very real economic interdependence described previously. In fact,
“The word ‘separation’ must be deleted from our political lexicon, simply because it is impossible. Due to five main factors, Israelis and Palestinians can not be separated: Trade; Water; Energy; Environment; and Health Concerns. Separating the two entities would mean, in this regard, acting against nature – which we can not do. Naturally keeping Palestinian workers out of
While there are certainly substantive differences between the economic situations of Apartheid South Africa and modern
3. Paragraph 9
The second “crucial realm” cited by Pogrund relates to the religious element of the conflict. It is noted that in
Basically there is no denying the validity of these observations. The “common bond” of Christianity certainly played a significant role in undermining the pseudo-religious justifications for Afrikaner Apartheid and also served as a valuable device for carrying the anti-Apartheid message to the white beneficiaries of the system. Undoubtedly, various Christian clergy and efforts by various denominations played an important role in the eventual collapse of the South African white supremacy.
The situation in Israel/Palestine is radically different, with most Palestinians being Muslim and most Israelis being Jewish to one extent or another. Further note should be made of the sharply divided Christian community representing at one end native Palestinian Christians who share the same basic national aspirations and perspectives of their Muslim neighbors; and on the other side the evangelical “Christian Zionists” that represent one of the most extreme elements of the radical Right-wing in Israel; and most other denominations that fall in between these two extremes.
Granting the validity of this difference between the two situations, it is also over exaggerated and realistically does not serve as a barrier to the creation of a unified state. This difference is exaggerated because the vast majority of people on both sides are not religious extremists and it does not serve as a significant barrier because the world is full of examples of functioning states that have more than one major religious community co-existing. In fact,
On the Palestinian side, the vast majority of the population is reasonably well educated and more or less modern in outlook. Contrary to the portrayals by Israeli propagandists, the election victory of Hamas does not mean that the vast majority of Palestinians support Islamic fundamentalism and accordingly Hamas has not made any serious effort to impose an Islamist regime on the Palestinians [16]. The popularity of Hamas is primarily a reaction against Fatah corruption [17]; the view that Fatah had become a cat’s paw for
Similarly, on the Israeli Jewish side of the equation, despite a very active radical right – only some of which is strictly religious, other portions defining itself as “Jewish” in an ethnic sense – the results of the last Israeli elections show that the vast majority of Israelis do not support them [21]. Further, contrary to the claims of some anti-Israel propagandists, Olmert’s decision to bring the Russian dominated extremist Israel Beitenu party into his ruling coalition was not so much a matter of endorsing Avigdor Lieberman’s radical views, but one of shoring up a weak coalition government [22]. Even granting
So, while both sides include violent extremists that would have to be controlled, neither side is dominated by them. Of course this is not to deny that the vast majority of people on both sides have certain religious “red lines” that must be taken into account. A prime example of this would be access to the major holy sites, especially the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif. However, practical measures – many of which are already in practice – can ensure that these religious “red lines” are properly addressed without denying other communities similar rights where appropriate.
The extremists represent a real threat, but one that can be – especially with collaboration between Israeli and Palestinian security authorities – controlled. In a pragmatic sense, the religious differences does not rule out co-existence within the same state; though the more emotional demands for exclusive domination and control represent a more difficult aspect of the question. As anyone who has tried to teach preschool children knows, teaching the concept of sharing can be difficult and yet it can be done.
4. Paragraph 10
The third “crucial realm” cited by Pogrund relates to the role of third party actors in the conflict. As was the case with the first “crucial realm,” this one is also broken down into three relatively distinct points.
The first of these refers to the role of third party mediation in negotiations, arguing that in South Africa, both sides – the National Party and the African National Congress – chose to negotiate directly between themselves without a strong role being played by third parties; whereas absolutely all negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians have been conducted under the auspices of Israel’s patron, the United States. Further, the United States plays an active role in these negotiations generally supporting any and all Israeli positions and coercing the Palestinians into accepting these Israeli concerns via a series of “carrots” (U.S. provided rewards for doing as Israel says) and “sticks” (U.S. provided punishments for failing to properly acquiesce).
While the general observation, as presented by Pogrund is correct, what it fails to take into account is the differences in viability between Israel and South Africa. Specifically, with its ample land resources, fabulous mineral wealth, and functional economic base,
Consequently, unlike the factions in
The second point is based on quotes from the Adam-Moodley book:
“Sanctions (divestment and trade boycotts) are generally overrated in triggering South African change,” they say. “Only loan refusals and, to a lesser extent, moral ostracism, impacted significantly on the apartheid government. Such action against
The basic point here is completely valid and – with the sole exception of the loan refusals which have not happened due to
The third point of this paragraph is in the last sentence: “Israelis also have the benefit of a supportive diaspora, whereas Afrikaners faced a near-unanimously hostile world.”
Of course Pogrund himself counters this point back in his introduction when in paragraph 6 he writes: “It also claims that
While most of the world was certainly critical – even hostile – to the Apartheid regime and its policies, many countries and multinational corporations continued to deal with
Despite a general condemnation of the theory and practice of
Again, this point is more of a similarity with Apartheid South
5. Paragraph 11
This paragraph deals with what Pogrund defines as “political culture,” though in essence it makes four rather disparate points.
The first point is that: “Much more personal interaction in a vertical-status hierarchy shaped South African race relations, compared with the more horizontal social distance between Jews and Palestinians.”
This point is difficult to discuss in any detail based solely upon the synopsis provided by Pogrund. Nevertheless, the implication of the statement is that the “horizontal social distance between Jews and Palestinians” is a natural, i.e. a mutually accepted and acceptable, state of affairs though this is not really the case. Instead, this state of affairs is artificial, the creation of a specific policy of ethnic exclusion and isolation both within the Green Line and in the
Within the Green Line, the Israeli Palestinian minority is largely segregated from the Israeli Jewish mainstream through a series of measures that prevent equal participation in society and equal opportunities that is, interestingly enough, justified almost exactly along the same lines of the South African “separate development” concept, i.e. allowing separate cultures to maintain their integrity via “separate development.” To quote Israeli civil rights group Adalah:
“Israel never sought to assimilate or integrate the Palestinian population, treating them as second-class citizens and excluding them from public life and the public sphere. The state practiced systematic and institutionalized discrimination in all areas, such as land dispossession and allocation, education, language, economics, culture, and political participation. … Further attempts have been made to split the Palestinian community into ‘minorities within a minority’ through separate educational curricula, disparate employment and academic opportunities, and the selective conscription of Druze and some Bedouin men to military service. Israeli discourse has legitimated the second-class status of Palestinian citizens on the basis that the minority population does not serve in the military; however, the selective conscription of Druze and some Bedouin has not prevented discrimination against them. …” [33]
In the Occupied Palestinian Territories the separation is even more pronounced with the resident Israeli Jewish population living in “Jewish only” settlements and only traveling on “Israeli only” roads [34] and interaction being limited almost exclusively to Israeli soldiers maintaining the occupation over the Palestinian population.
Both of these situations are the results of specific policies and practices meant to maintain both Israeli Jewish domination and ethnic separation. What interaction does occur – on both sides of the Green Line – tends to be “on the job,” usually with Palestinians employees and Israeli Jewish bosses, very much akin to the situation in
The existing lack of personal interaction between Israeli Jews and Palestinians is not the natural outgrowth of the desires of both peoples, but exclusively the product of policies and practices meant to create and maintain this reality. Needless to say, removing the segregationist policies and practices will result in more personal interaction. While this point does highlight a difference, it is not a difference that affects the acceptance of a South African model for political integration.
The next point in this paragraph is “Moral erosion of the apartheid stance among the ruling elite in
The notion that many South African elites lost interest – some through morality, but more through self-interest - in maintaining the “apartheid stance” is true enough, but depending on who you ask the same can be said for modern Israeli elites and Zionism:
“On the other hand, the Israeli elites of the past 20 years have become totally divorced from reality. The capital, the media and the academic world of the 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century, have blinded
The third point of this paragraph reads: “Both sides in the
This was also the case in Apartheid South
“And Afrikaners do feel the long hand of victimhood quite keenly. They have, of course, suffered genuine trauma from the apartheid conflict as well: one Afrikaner who lost his family to an ANC bomb asked the commission this question: ‘Do you know, you the truth commissioners, how a temperature feels between six and eight thousand degrees? Do you know how it feels to experience a blow so intense that it forces the fillings from one’s teeth? Do you know how it feels to look for survivors and only find dead and maimed?’” [36]
The National Party saw its mission as one of correcting past injustices against the Afrikaner people, and though this victim complex has largely dissipated with the revelations that followed the collapse of Apartheid, even to this day the Afrikaner Right focuses heavily on how their people have been – and continued to be – victimized. Obviously the South African blacks had, and have, a much more understandable victim complex due to their treatment at the hands of the whites in general, British and Afrikaner. This point does not illustrate a difference between the South African and Israeli situations.
The final point of this paragraph reads: “
Basically, with but a few exceptions, assuming the annual resolutions against Israeli policies and practices accurately reflect the voting country’s opinions, the same comment could be made about Israel if one replaces the “the Arab and Muslim world” with “the United States and countries subject to American pressure.” [37]
6. Paragraph 12
Paragraph twelve deals with violence and makes two relatively distinct points; the first of which is: “Suicide was never used as a weapon, and martyrdom was never celebrated during the South African anti-apartheid struggle.”
Suicide bombing is just a tactic, a means of resistance, and in of itself does not fundamentally alter the conflict or its resolution. Suicide bombing is a tactic of desperation generally used by resistance movements fighting vastly superior forces: currently including Palestinians against
The tactic becomes a crime against humanity when employed against civilians [38], but even then it is not – in of itself - fundamentally different than any other deliberate attack on civilians. The use of this tactic as well as the popular support for those using it, does not really affect the possibility of peace either way and is not better than, or worse than, any other deliberate attacks against civilians.
This brings us to the second point in this paragraph that deals specifically with deliberate attacks on civilians. This, of course, does seriously affect the possibility for peace, but is not – contrary to the implication of this article – the sole domain the Palestinian resistance. In fact, all three of the other actors being compared in this article – the White Apartheid government [39], the Israeli government [40], and the black South African resistance [41] – are guilty of the exact same at least in the eyes of those who matter, the victims. The only difference being the tactical means of attack, not the perceived goal or the factual result. This simple reality invalidates the entire premise of the argument. Both sides in
7. Paragraph 13
This paragraph is a continuation on the issue violence that makes much of the official stance of the African National Congress, specifically that it was never official policy to target civilians in the course of their armed resistance to Apartheid. The paragraph concludes: “The ANC’s approach was proved correct: Only a few attacks on whites took place over the decades, and this was a significant factor in persuading whites that it was safe to end apartheid.”
Interestingly, the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), seems to have reached a somewhat different conclusion:
“The Commission noted that, of the three main parties to the conflict, only the ANC committed itself to observing the tenets of the
“However, the Commission drew a distinction between the conduct of a ‘just war’ and the question of ‘just means’. The Commission found that, whilst its struggle was just, the ANC had, in the course of the conflict, contravened the
Further, contrary to the contention presented by Pogrund, the final years of Apartheid in the 1980’s in fact saw an increase – not decrease - in terrorist attacks against civilians that the TRC concluded was at least in part inspired by the official positions of the ANC and that the ANC shared at least partial responsibility for:
“The Commission finds that, in the 1980’s in particular, a number of gross violations of human rights were perpetrated not by direct members of the ANC or those operating under its formal command but by civilians who saw themselves as ANC supporters. In this regard, the Commission finds that the ANC is morally and politically accountable for creating a climate in which such supporters believed their actions to be legitimate and carried out within the broad parameters of a ‘people’s war’ as enunciated by the ANC.” [43]
The fact that the latter years of the Apartheid system saw an increase in acts of terrorism – whether committed officially by the ANC or merely inspired by it – utterly undermines the contention that it was the lack of black terrorist attacks on white civilians that convinced “whites that it was safe to end apartheid.” This entire paragraph is based not on the actual reality of South African history but on the historical revisionist school that has worked to whitewash the ANC and the anti-Apartheid struggle by falsely portraying it as a fundamentally pacifist struggle. The success of armed struggle in applying and maintaining pressure on the Apartheid system deserves to be remembered as it certainly played a significant role in the process.
8. Paragraphs 14-15
The next “crucial realm” relates to leadership: “Negotiations in
Unfortunately, this is true and represents a very real and undeniable difference between the South African and Israeli/Palestinian situations. However, this issue of fragmented leadership – among both Israelis and Palestinians – represents an obstacle to any and all possible settlements to the conflict. One state or two states, negotiated or unilaterally declared, humanitarian or criminal; all solutions depend on “cohesive and credible leaders” that can “obtain popular mandates and sell a controversial compromise” and frankly, neither Israelis nor Palestinians have this today.
The default, of course, is the status quo, which is effectively a discriminatory pseudo-segregated single state dominated by
9. Paragraph 16
The gist of this paragraph is: “Above all, opponents in
This is beyond any doubt absolutely correct. The conflict is only viable as long as the majorities of one or both sides have a belief that they can achieve “total victory,” negotiated settlement only becomes viable once both sides reach the conclusion that there is a stalemate that cannot be resolved through sheer force.
On the Israeli side of the equation, the demand for a strictly “Jewish State” in an geographic area where roughly half the resident population is not “Jewish” is an absolute impossibility without resorting to outright ethnic cleansing – popularly described as “transfer” in Israeli parlance – or genocide. However, genocide has not been sincerely proposed by any Israeli faction and the notion of “transfer” – despite the shrill advocacy of its supporters – is really not a viable option for a myriad of reasons [44]. Ruling out these options as realistic, there is really no possibility of “total victory” meaning that eventually, through one means or another, a compromise will have to be made. The real question is whether such a compromise will be territorial (the “two-state solution”) or ideological (the one state option). Since Israel has evinced absolutely no interest in allowing for a viable territorial compromise (i.e. withdrawing the settlements, leaving the Jordan Valley, giving up the West Bank aquifers and the Jordan River, &c.), but has shown a growing lack of interest in its ideological underpinnings (e.g. “post-Zionism”); the latter seems considerably more likely than the former.
On the Palestinian side of the equation, the de facto reality of
“Palestinian public opinion is not an impediment to progress in the peace process; to the contrary, over time the Palestinian public has become more moderate. … Palestinian opposition to violence increases when diplomacy proves effective. Public support for violence increases in an environment of greater pain and suffering and decreases when threat perception is reduced. ... All major transformations in Palestinian politics were preceded or accompanied by changes in public attitudes. The 1993
However, at the same time it is patently absurd to expect or demand that Palestinians accept and support the domination of an openly discriminatory “Jewish State” in which they – as non-Jews – have no real place.
Like it or not,
“The first reality is that neither side can defeat the other. The Palestinians are too weak to war against
10. Paragraph 17
This paragraph delves into an argument that is patently absurd to anyone with even the vaguest knowledge of
Virtually all the allegedly unique traits of the Israeli/Palestinian divide – with the exception of basic religion – cited in this paragraph (“language, and above all, by history and the mythologies that the ‘burden of history’ imprints on the self-concept and collective identity") apply not only among “the legislated artificial racial groups” but also within them among the various ethnicities of South Africa. Of course the difference is that these ethnic differences notwithstanding, they are not recognized in law since the demise of Apartheid, whereas in Israel/Palestine they are. The idea that somehow the ethnic divide in Israel/Palestine is more substantive or meaningful than the myriad of such divisions in
11. Paragraph 18
The point of this paragraph is essentially based upon a Adam-Moodley quote: “However, in the Middle Eastern reality of communal hostilities and national identities, the Zionist vision is deeply rooted and more difficult to dislodge than racist supremacist illusions in
Obviously this is one of primary questions that determine the viability of a one state scenario and the answer depends upon who you ask.
However, a common one state advocate response to the question is two fold; first showing that ethnic separation based upon territorial division isn’t a viable option (thereby defaulting to the status quo, the de facto single state); and secondly by showing the growing trend away from ideological “purity” and orthodoxy among Israeli Jews.
The first response, dealing with the impossibility of physical separation has been explored in detail from both the Left [47] and from the Right [48]. However, in that this is a general question of possibilities as opposed to a contention to be refuted, it is beyond the scope of this article to go into much detail on the topic.
Similarly, the rise of “post-Zionism” has merited an enormous amount of attention since the late 1990’s and continues to do so. The trend – and debate – graphically illustrates that the absolute loyalty to “Zionist identity” is no longer a reality and though many post-Zionists are not exactly die-hard anti-Zionists, their actions and lack of enthusiasm clearly reflect a “turning away” from ideologically driven ethnic definition and the demand that such definition be loyally accepted by all Israeli Jews. To quote a recent article on the “second-wave” of post-Zionism:
“Post–Zionism is a counter–hegemonic political culture that emerged in
“The great achievement of first wave post-Zionism was the ushering in of the counter–hegemonic concept “a state of all its citizens” into the public discourse, as against the dominant concept of “the Jewish and Democratic State”. Second–wave post-Zionism now further politicizes this concept and mobilizes citizens under its banner. One can say that the center of gravity of post–Zionism has began to shift now from the intellectual “bubble” of Tel Aviv into the Arab cities and villages of the Galilee, from aloof university intellectuals to public activists, from the Jewish sector to the Arab sector, and from the judicial arena to the political arena. With all these shifts, it is to be expected that post-Zionism will also shift its appellation. It will probably be called a struggle for a “
Our – as in one state advocates – argument is that, yes, Zionism can be overcome and that this is a process that has developed quite independently of any external advocacy as modernism – including a belief in multiculturalism and humanism – has confronted the very nineteenth century ethnocentric pseudo-racial ideology of Zionism. Of course reasonable people may disagree.
12. Paragraph 19
This paragraph raises a valid point regarding expressions of outright anti-Semitism by Palestinians and the need for this to be curtailed before a one state option would be acceptable. Many Left activists – Israeli, Palestinian, and other – that are the primary advocates for one state advocacy would certainly agree that Palestinian flirtation with European anti-Semitic libels like the “Protocols of Zion” and the Holocaust Denial are certainly counter-productive. Nevertheless, such expressions of anti-Semitism are not limited to Palestinians within Israel/Palestine, for example Russian anti-Semitism has continued to thrive in Israel going so far as to develop Israel’s first openly Neo-Nazi organization, the “Israeli White Union.” [50] This is not meant to excuse or downplay Palestinian flirtation with actual anti-Semitism, but is meant to illustrate that its absolute eradication, as desirable as this is, is not necessarily an absolute requirement for peaceful co-existence as long as it is marginalized.
13. Paragraphs 20-21
These two paragraphs focus on lessons from the South African experience that can be applied to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and though the list provided is rather limited, there is nothing that this refutation seeks to counter.
14. Paragraph 22
This paragraph is little more than another Adam-Moodley quote: “the simplistic assumption that the South African model readily lends itself to export may actually retard necessary new solutions by clinging to visions or processes of negotiation that may not work in another context.”
Very few – if any – one state advocates argue that an exact cookie-cutter copy of the South African process would be applicable in the Israeli/Palestinian process. Nevertheless, contrary to the views of those that still hold firmly to the Zionist demand for an exclusive ethnocentric “Jewish State” the goal of the South African process – for one democratic secular state – is not unreasonable or inherently negative. While the processes used to reach this goal will inevitably be different – reflecting the undeniable differences between the two situations – this in no way invalidates or de-legitimizes the goal itself. In fact, holding strictly to the antiquated notion of an ethnocentric state in what is a de facto bi-national state certainly undermines the introduction of “necessary new solutions by clinging to visions” that are no longer acceptable or viable.
15. Paragraph 23
Starting at this paragraph, the article moves back to Pogrund’s own writing as opposed to that of Adam and Moodley that served as the basis of most of the preceding. From a one state advocacy perspective, there is nothing to take exception to in this paragraph, despite its obvious intent to make the one state idea seem like an unrealistic fantasy:
“When all is said and done, it is tempting to go along with the notion of a single state. The South African “miracle” is a powerful image. Imagine Jews and Arabs living together on a tiny piece of land, a shared society of equals with one government; it would end their long and bitter conflict and fulfill the ideal of a united world in which people live together in amity and peace.”
16. Paragraph 24
This paragraph adopts a more or less “standard” argument against the one state notion; that of listing examples of presumably successful partitions elsewhere. The problem with this notion is that it assumes – without any empirical foundation whatsoever – that a realistic, mutually acceptable, workable partition is on the agenda in Israel/Palestine. There is no valid reason whatsoever to make this assumption. Like it or not, Israeli demands (e.g. to control the West Bank aquifers [51], to control the Jordan Valley [52], to control all Palestinian borders [53], to maintain the primary settlement blocks [54], and so on) as well as the empirical reality as its exists today (the settlements [55], the total integration of the electricity grids between Israel and the OPTs [56], the total integration of the water systems of Israel and the OPTs [57], the largely integrated road networks of Israel and the OPTs [58], and so on) virtually rules out any pretension to a workable partition. Yes, a series of Palestinian ghettos with its own little “Palestinian Authority” Arabenrat administration might be imposed, but this will only be a temporary fix as such "solutions" are completely and utterly unsustainable in the face of Palestinian population growth.
The issue at hand is not whether or not the notion of partition has been successful in other cases but whether or not there is any realistic possibility of a sustainable partition in Israel/Palestine. Most one state advocates – basing their view not on abstract theoretical possibilities but the actual reality on the ground – suggest that there is no Israeli intention for a workable partition. Therefore, whether or not partition worked elsewhere is immaterial, partition – or at least a realistically sustainable one – is not, and has never been, on the agenda in Israel/Palestine.
17. Paragraph 25
This paragraph combines two relatively common arguments.
The first of which somewhat echoes the “special” nature of the conflict that was expressed to an absurdist degree in paragraph 17 above; specifically that unlike South Africa where apparently most blacks didn’t really “mistrust” whites during Apartheid, in Israel/Palestine the two sides really dislike one another. In this argument, “the blessings and the cruelty of historical experience” really didn’t matter all that much for Afrikaners or other South Africans, but play a key role in Israel/Palestine. While it may certainly be true that these didn’t play a role for Pogrund personally, to flatly declare that on behalf of all South Africans is disingenuous at best or an outright misrepresentation at worse.
Anyone familiar with Zionist ideology knows that “particularism” – the Zionist euphemism for the characteristic of all ethnocentric movements that see their own “struggle” as singularly unique and different from all others – is a defining characteristic, just as it is in every other ethnocentric and racist ideological movement. Comments like this are just expressions of this “particularist” delusion and most one state advocates – while recognizing the unique characteristics and circumstances that exist in each and every case – flatly refuse to put the Israeli/Palestinian conflict into some mythical “particularist” framework that radically separates it from all the rest of human experience. Recognizing the complexities of the conflict (no more or less so than most other long-standing ethnic conflicts), in the final analysis it isn’t particularly unique in the history ethnic conflicts.
The second argument isn’t really an argument at all, just a flat statement of personal opinion that is treated as though it has some polemical value; namely that Israeli Jews will simply never surrender the notion of a “Jewish” state utterly dominated by them and imposed on the rest of the population. To quote: “Israeli Jews will not forgo their Jewish state, … it’s not going to happen.” However, as noted previously (under Paragraph 18 above) contrary to this opinion, it is in fact happening right this moment. On the one hand Israeli Jewish “post-Zionists” are questioning the need for a strictly “Jewish State” in general, while on the other hand, others – unwilling to publicly question the concept – are effectively showing their lack of interest in this antiquated notion by emigrating in record numbers [59].
Quaint opinions about the absolute Israeli Jewish loyalty to the Zionist ideology, while probably applicable Pogrund himself as well as many others, are not in fact what is shown by actual events underway in the real world. Every day that passes it becomes ever more difficult to reconcile the demands of the Zionist ideology with the generally progressive outlook and attitudes of the vast majority of modern Jews (Israeli or otherwise). Such opinions are more an expression of hope by diehard ideologues than realistic assessments of the current reality and probable future.
18. Paragraph 26
The first three sentences of this final paragraph represent a unique difference of viewpoints between Pogrund and what many one state advocates would say is the current status quo: “True, the spread of settlements on the
In the eyes of many one state advocates, this is a precise description of exactly where the situation stands today. “Democracy [60] and Jewish values [61]” have been being undermined, if not outright twisted into completely unrecognizable forms, for years now. Palestinians are already semi- (inside the Green Line [62]) or non- (in the OPTs) citizens and have made it quite clear that they have no intention of accepting this; and as long as Israel remains upon its current course there is absolutely no hope for anything beyond perpetual war (with the occasional lull now and then). This isn’t some potential future but a current reality that apparently Pogrund flatly refuses to face up to.
The last few sentences are just expressions of hope, from a Zionist point of view, that some through miracle
III. Concluding Thoughts
If one discounts the paraphrasing of the points made in the Adam-Moodley book, very little of any originality or substance is presented in this article by Pogrund himself. The value of his input in the debate is apparently based on the premise that Pogrund is not a radical Rightist and is South African born. However, as illustrated by paragraphs 17 and 25, he plainly never identified himself very closely with any of the ethnic groups in South Africa, a supposition that might explain why his views are so dramatically at odds with those of most South Africans of all stripes, including many fellow Jews. Affording Pogrund the benefit of the doubt – that is, assuming that he was not being deliberately dishonest – one is forced to conclude that he only has a very cursory understanding of the tensions and acrimony that existed – and to an extent continue to exist – among the various ethnic groups of
Further, paragraph 26 would seem to suggest that Pogrund refuses to honestly look at the existing situation in Israel/Palestine just as he apparently refused to do in
Regardless, this article does not undermine the notion of one democratic secular state for all its people in Israel/Palestine at all.
Notes:
[1] Benjamin Pogrund, “Looking for Truth Among the Lies,” The New Statesman, 26 February 2007, http://www.newstatesman.com/200702260021
[2] Desmond Tutu, “Apartheid in the
[3] Ronnie Kasrils, “
[4] Benjamin Pogrund, “
[5] Heribert Adam and Kogila Moodley, Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking Between Israelis And Palestinians, 2005, Temple University Press, Online: http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/1813_reg.html
[6] For the record, this reviewer has not read the Adam-Moodley book so cannot comment on whether or not Pogrund’s characterization of their conclusions is valid.
[7] Elizabeth Young, “Palestinian Economic Dependence on
[8] International Federation for Human Rights, "Migrant Workers in Israel - A Contemporary Form of Slavery, Appendix C - Migrant and Palestinian Workers: Comparison of Salary and Cost to Employer," Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network & International Federation for Human Rights, 2003, http://www.euromedrights.net/usr/00000026/00000027/00000028/00000240.pdf
[9]
[10] Shir Hever, "Foreign Aid to the OPT and
[11] Avi Shauli, “Cost of occupation – over $50 billion,” YNet News, 9 June 2007, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3410537,00.html
[12] Multinational Monitor, "Working Against Apartheid, Trade Unions in
[13] Richard H. Curtiss, "Who Won the Battles of Burger King and Walt Disney Productions?," Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs, December 1999, http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/1299/9912013.html
[14] International Solidarity Movement, "Tulkarem Farmers in Boycott of Israeli goods," International Solidarity Movement, 19 September 2006, http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2006/09/19/tulkarem-boycott/
[15] Dr. Ephraim Sneh, Deputy Defense Minister of
[16] Joshua Brilliant, "Interim report card for Hamas," United Press International, 7 July 2007, Reproduced online at: http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/features/printer_1327138.php
[17] Ian Fisher, "In
[18] Mike Whitney, "Abbas is a Traitor," Arab-European League, 01 June 2006, http://www.arabeuropean.org/article.php?ID=114
[19] John Kifner, "Surprise leap from wild card to power: Hamas offers social services, an end to political corruption," New York Times, 29 January 2006, Reproduced online at: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/01/29/MNGMHGVCED1.DTL
[20] Saree Makdisi, "Illusion of democracy: The Palestinian Elections," The Electronic Intifada, 23 January 2006, http://electronicintifada.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/12/4411
[21] Shmuel Rosner, "
[22] Gil Hoffman and JPost Staff, "Labor okays Israel Beiteinu in coalition," Jerusalem Post, 24 October 2006, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1159193514022
[23] Daily Star Staff, "Israeli poll indicates shift to right among electorate," Daily Star (
[24] "
Congressional Research Service, "
[25] "The Stars and Stripes were flown alongside the national flag. This is essentially a declaration that Israelis cannot celebrate their own independence day without remembering that their country's existence is wholly dependent on American backing. ... This backing has several aspects. One of them is the military and economic aid that
Nehemia Shtrasler, "Just an optical illusion," Ha'aretz, 27 April 2007, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/852930.html
[26] [Yasser Arafat:] "Dear God, who cares about the Americans? ... The Americans are on your side and they give you everything, ... `Who gave you the airplanes? The Americans. Who gave you the tanks? The Americans. ... Don't talk to me about the Americans.'' Associated Press, "Angry Arafat Accuses US Of Pro-Israel Bias," Common Dreams, 7 December 2001, Reproduced online at: http://commondreams.org/headlines01/1207-04.htm
[27] " [Mossad chief] Amit visited
[28] “If the divestment movement initially seemed like a gathering storm on Israel's horizon, lately both its supporters and opponents say they no longer see the issue as directly impacting on-the-ground realities in the Middle East. Instead, they said, fights over divestment now serve as a way to sway public opinion on the Israel-Palestine conflict in other parts of the globe. Divestment campaigns ‘might not have a practical impact,’ said Liat Weingart, the campaign director for Jewish Voice for Peace, which advocates divestment from certain companies whose products are used by
[29] "However, no confidence racket succeeds without the active aid of the marks. We are the marks. We all know about con games. Our e-mail in-boxes are filled with offers from Nigerian widows who want to make us rich, and hot tips on worthless penny stocks. Nonetheless, we fall for the boycott swindle every time. ... The news about the boycott is much worse than the boycott itself, and the news is largely made by pro-Israel activist organizations who turn mole hills into mountains. Anyone who wants free publicity only needs to do something sufficiently outrageous. We should be aware that a major object of the boycott campaign is to win publicity for the boycotters and attract attention to them, and we should stop helping them achieve their goals." Ami Isseroff, "Are we victims of the
[30] Salim Muwakkil, "Keyes’ Ideological Quest," In These Times, 7 September 2004, http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/985/
[31] For example: Reuters, "US condemns Israeli settlement plan" ABC News Online, 28 December 2006, http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200612/s1818964.htm
[32] Office of the United States Trade Representative Press Release, "United States, Egypt and Israel to Launch Historic Trade Partnership USTR Zoellick to Participate in Signing in Cairo," Office of the United States Trade Representative Website, 10 December 2004, http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2004/December/United_States,_Egypt_Israel_to_Launch_Historic_Trade_Partnership_USTR_Zoellick_to_Participate_in_Signing_in_Cairo.html
[33] Adalah, "Historical Background: History of the Palestinians in
[34] Ahmed Jaradat, "Tunnels and Roads, Closures, Crossings, and the Segregation Wall: Toward a Unique Racist Reality," Housing and Land Rights Network, 8 August 2006, http://www.hlrn.org/news_show_user.php?id=170
[35] Ari Shavit, "A Spirit of Absolute Folly," Ha'aretz, 11 August 2006 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/749564.html
[36] Kenneth Christie, The South African Truth Commission, Palgrave Macmillan Publishers, 2000, p. 113
[37] "RESOLUTIONS AND DECISIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND THE SECURITY COUNCIL RELATING TO THE QUESTION OF
Resolutions and votes:
a) ES-10/16. Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the
In favor: 156 countries / Against: 7 countries (
b) ES-10/17. Establishment of the United Nations Register of Damage caused by the Construction of the Wall in the
In favor: 162 countries / Against: 7 countries (
c) 61/22. Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People
In favor: 101 countries / Against: 7 countries (
d) 61/23. Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat
In favor: 101 countries / Against: 7 countries (
e) 61/24. Special information programme on the question of
In favor: 157 countries / Against: 7 countries (
f) 61/25. Peaceful settlement of the question of
In favor: 157 countries / Against: 7 countries (
g) 61/26.
In favor: 157 countries / Against: 6 countries (
h) 61/27. The Syrian Golan
In favor: 107 countries / Against: 6 countries (
i) 61/112. Assistance to
In favor: 173 countries / Against: 1 country (
j) 61/113. Persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities
In favor: 170 countries / Against: 6 countries (
k) 61/114. Operations of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for
In favor: 169 countries / Against: 6 countries (
l) 61/115.
In favor: 170 countries / Against: (
m) 61/116. Work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories
In favor: 90 countries / Against: 9 countries (
n) 61/117. Applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the
In favor: 165 countries / Against: (
o) 61/118. Israeli settlements in the
In favor: 162 countries / Against: 8 countries (
p) 61/119. Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the
In favor: 157 countries / Against: 9 countries (
q) 61/120. The occupied Syrian Golan
In favor: 163 countries / Against: 2 countries (
r) 60/135. Assistance to the Palestinian people
In favor: 159 countries / Against: 0 countries / Abstaining: 7 countries
s) 61/152. The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination
In favor: 176 countries / Against: 5 countries (
t) 61/184. Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the
In favor: 164 countries / Against: 6 countries (
[38] Human Rights Watch, “Israel/PA: Suicide Bombers Commit Crimes Against Humanity,” Human Rights News, 1 November 2002, http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/11/isrl-pa1101.htm
[39] African National Congress, “Statement to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission,” TRC Website, August 1996, http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/submit/anctruth.htm
[40] Khalid Amayreh, "Palestinian children killed by
[41] Truth and Reconciliation Commission (
[42] Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Africa), "Findings and Recommendations: Holding the ANC Accountable," TRC Findings and Recommendations ,Volume 6, Section 5, Chapter 3, pp. 642-643 http://www.info.gov.za/otherdocs/2003/trc/5_3.pdf
[43] Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Africa), "Findings and Recommendations: Holding the ANC Accountable," TRC Findings and Recommendations, Volume 6, Section 5, Chapter 3, p. 650 http://www.info.gov.za/otherdocs/2003/trc/5_3.pdf
[44] John Sigler, "
[45] Khalil Shikaki, "Willing to Compromise: Palestinian Public Opinion and the Peace Process," United States Institute of Peace, Special Report No. 158, January 2006, http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr158.html
[46] Colette Avital, MK "After the Israeli Elections: Prospects for Peace," Speech before the Los Angeles World Affairs Council on March 5, 2001, http://www.lawac.org/speech/pre%20sept%2004%20speeches/avital.htm
[47] For example: Jeff Halper, "The Livni-Rice Plan: Towards a Just Peace or Apartheid?," Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, 2 May 2007, http://www.icahd.org/eng/news.asp?menu=5&submenu=1&item=433
[48] Louis Rene Beres, "
[49] Uri Ram, "Second Wave Post-Zionism and the Apartheid Backlash," Tikkun Magazine, 18 July 2007, http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/specials/postzionism
[50] For more on the topic visit The Israeli Information and
[51] Aubrey Wulfsohn, "What Retreat from the Territories Means for
[52]
[53] Yaakov Amidror, "
[54] Dore Gold, "Bush Erases the Clinton Parameters," Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 3, No. 21, 15 April 2004, http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief3-21.htm
[55] Foundation for Middle East Peace, “Settlement Database and Suitability Assessment,” FMEP Website, http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info/settlement_database.html
[56] "Responsibility for electric utility service delivery is currently vested in municipal departments or village councils, except for the Jerusalem District Electric Company (JDECO) -- a shareholder-owned utility. In
The World Bank, "West Bank and Gaza-Electricity Sector, Investment and Management Project" United Nations Information System on the Question of
[57] Fred Pearce, "
[58] Jeff Halper, "The Matrix of Control," Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, undated, http://www.icahd.org/eng/articles.asp?menu=6&submenu=3
[59] Deutsche Presse-Agentur (DPA), "Emigration from
[60] On twisting the concept of "democracy;" Yitzhak Laor, "Democracy for Jews only," Ha'aretz, 31 May 2007, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/864734.html
[61] On twisting "Jewish values;" Allan C. Brownfeld, "Gap Between Jewish Values, Israeli Policies Becoming Apparent to More," Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs, May-June 2007, pp. 58-59, Reproduced online by Jewish Voices for Peace at: http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_866.shtml
[62] Democracy Now, "No Shelters, Sirens for
14 comments:
[Comment thread based - at least in part - on this article from http://supernatural.blogs.com/weblog/2007/08/a-curiously-nam.html
All posts directly related to the discussion are reproduced in full.]
-----------------------------------
I won't comment on Bassem Eid because I haven't reviewed his work in any detail. However, I will absolutely, beyond any shadow of a doubt, say that Ben Pogrund is "pro-Israel," and better yet, I'll document the fact: http://one-israel-palestine.blogspot.com/2007/08/benjamin-pogrund-blinded-to-reality-by.html
In the end, Zionists have to reach the same understanding that the Afrikaners eventually did; it is impossible - in every sense - to maintain an ethnocentric state in a territory heavily populated by people that are not members of the chosen ethnicity to be favored.
For one democratic secular state in Israel/Palestine,
John S.
Jewish Friends of Palestine
http://www.jewishfriendspalestine.org
Online One State Bibliography Project
http://www.onestate.org
Posted by: John S. | August 10, 2007 at 03:36
-----------------------------------
John S,
I think its simplistic to simply describe him as pro-Israel. He is also pro-Palestinian and his Yakar center has done tremendous work to create interaction and dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians.
Pogrund lives in Israel. He is an Israeli citizen. But he also wants what is best for the Palestinians and wants to see them living prosperous lives.
The problem with the one state crowd is that its supporters support one not both sides in the conflict.
The conflict is one of two victims. Two rights.
I wonder how strong the Palestinian sense of national expressment would be living in a single state where the economy and all major institutions are totally controlled by the Jews who have been in Israel for so many years now.
Is there a problem that a pro-Israel Benjamin Pogrund is allowed to be interviewed on national Television?
Posted by: Steve | August 10, 2007 at 06:11
-----------------------------------
I'm not sure who exactly is "denying" that Benjamin Pogrund is "pro-Israel". I also think it's sick that being "pro-Israel" is used as a stick to beat someone with the associated stigma of being a neo-nazi or apartheid apologist. Further, Benjamin hardly appears to be the type to live in a caravan over the green line, if anything his track record places him as rather a moderate. The fact that he doesn't like a one-state solution doesn't turn him into a raving looney; although I would hazard that the opposite may indeed be true.
The FXI wants to create a storm around the SAJBD's actions, to impute some sort of pro-zionism bias on the part of the sABC, a demonstrably false notion. They have a knack for disregarding the free speech they claim to support, apparently in their eyes the only topic you're not free to discuss is whether 6 million Jews in the middle east are entitled to a life, human rights and a vote.
John S takes a rather simplistic view of the demographics in the Middle East, and Israel in particular and uses that vision to springboard a democratic theory based on a situation familiar to him, i.e. SA. John, please re-examine the assumptions of your theories and you'll see, if you're prepared to be intellectually honest and not morally relativist, that what you propose is neither democratic nor pragmatic.
Posted by: Hillel | August 10, 2007 at 07:45
-----------------------------------
Of course, like Pogrund, one can be both Pro-Israel and Pro-Palestinian.
It is those who cannot show real and true empathy for the suffering on both sides of the conflict and who have not embraced the authentic meaning of the pursuit of dual-justice who will continue to totalise Pogrund and the good work that he and Bassem Eid are doing.
The FXI's totalisation of Pogrund reminds me of the furor that erupted when Susan Sontag accepted the Jerusalem Prize in 2002. Responding to Nadine Gordimer's pleadings for her not to accept the prize she said that she would not be moved by "moralistic sound bites" in the face of a conflict of two nations long "in tragic impasse".
In her acceptance speech she noted:"Literature is the expression of nuance and contrariness against the voices of simplification. The job of the writer is to make it harder to believe the mental despoilers. The job of the writer is to help make us see the world as it is, which is to
say, full of many different claims and parts and experiences". She went onto say that "what novelists and poets do best,... is to sponsor reflectiveness, to perceive complexity".
Just like Pogrund she was not afraid to be critical of some Israeli policies, but could clearly see the dual context of suffering and the need for healing and reconciliation:"I am grateful", she said, "to have been awarded the Jerusalem Prize. I accept it as an honor to all those committed to the enterprise of literature. I accept it in homage to all the writers and readers in Israel and in Palestine struggling to create literature made of singular voices and the multiplicity of truths. I accept the prize in the name of peace and the reconciliation of injured and fearful communities. Necessary peace. Necessary concessions and new arrangements. Necessary abatement of stereotypes. Necessary persistence of
dialogue. I accept the prize this international prize, sponsored by an international book fair as an event that honors, above all, the
international republic of letters".
Indeed,is there any "expression of nuance and contrariness against the voices of simplification" within the FXI??
Posted by: | August 10, 2007 at 12:27
-----------------------------------
John s,
What is unique about Pogrund is that he has lived in both Apartheid South Africa and Israel. The other anti-apartheid activists you mention have a very limited first hand experience of the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
You rush to the defense of Minister Kasrils. But Israel aside, he is no saint or human rights crusader. Have you ever heard of the Bishu massacre? Moreover he openly supports Mugabe’s despotic regime in Zimbabwe. He himself admits to being an old style communist in his autobiography ‘armed and dangerous’.
You also misrepresent the demographic situation. More than 90% of Palestinians are under PA rule not Israel. Within sovereign Israeli territory Jews are by far the majority. This was never the case under Apartheid.
Lastly your support for a 1 state solution is rather selective. Do you support a 1 state solution for India and Pakistan? 2 ethno religious states. Do you support a 1 state solution for Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia or east Timor?
Israel is far from the only ethno-religious state. If anything it is more the rule than the exception.
Posted by: Mike | August 10, 2007 at 12:55
-----------------------------------
Hi Mike,
To respond to your comments:
“What is unique about Pogrund is that he has lived in both Apartheid South Africa and Israel. The other anti-apartheid activists you mention have a very limited first hand experience of the Israel-Palestinian conflict.”
Granting the general observation, the problem is that Pogrund’s article illustrates that he never really associated himself with any of the contending groups in South Africa or shared their views, obviously viewing himself as an outsider to the entire conflict. This is the only way that he could have reproduced paragraph 17 or made the remarks he did in paragraph 25. So, yes, Tutu and Kasrils have an incomplete picture of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but clearly Pogrund has an incomplete picture of the picture in South Africa.
“You rush to the defense of Minister Kasrils. But Israel aside, he is no saint or human rights crusader.”
At no point do I suggest that Kasrils is a “saint” or “human rights crusader;” in fact I can think of no intelligence professional that fits that definition. However, the contentions that I do make - that he is ethnically Jewish, that his anti-Apartheid credentials are unassailable, and that he is an outspoken critic of Israel – are all completely valid.
“You also misrepresent the demographic situation. More than 90% of Palestinians are under PA rule not Israel. Within sovereign Israeli territory Jews are by far the majority. This was never the case under Apartheid.”
This is both factually incorrect and patently absurd. On a factual basis, by the last decade of the Apartheid era, virtually all blacks were officially “citizens” of their respective “homelands” (despite their physical location) and ostensibly under the authority of their “tribal governments” via the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act (National States Citizenship Act) No 26 of 1970. Of course this legal distinction notwithstanding, in reality the “homelands” were fully dependent semi-autonomous elements of the Apartheid regime.
The exact same holds true for the “Palestine Authority” and those ostensibly “ruled” by it under IDF control.
From 1967 to present Israel has implemented a deliberate and systematic policy of eradicating any tangible significance of the “Green Line” and have – as discussed in some detail in my refutation – succeeded in this goal. The “Green Line” today has no practical import or meaning outside of abstract legal argument. The Occupied Palestinian Territories - that have been ruled for by Israel for forty years now (more than half the national existence of Israel) - are for all intents and purposes, fully integrated parts of the single functioning state in what was Mandatory Palestine: Israel. The only distinction is that it is administered in a different way than other portions of the existing state.
Demographically, there is relative parity within this currently existing de facto one state.
“Lastly your support for a 1 state solution is rather selective. Do you support a 1 state solution for India and Pakistan? 2 ethno religious states. Do you support a 1 state solution for Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia or east Timor?”
Of course it is rather selective as this is the issue being discussed. Pogrund correctly points out that each situation has to be judged on its own merits and I basically agree with this premise, except I see a lot more in common with South Africa than he cares to admit. This difference of viewpoint notwithstanding, above and beyond whether or not partition was the correct decision to make in these others cases, the real issue – discussed in some detail in my refutation – is whether or not separation is even an option or on the agenda. It is not. Of course there are the Bantustan schemes (e.g. Gaza) and ghettoization projects (e.g. Qalqilyia); but these are unsustainable temporary solutions that will result in neither peace nor stability, at best they might lead to a temporary lull in the conflict. As for an actual sustainable separation/partition that would meet the core demands of both sides through negotiated compromise and allow for a viable Palestinian state, this notion only exists in the imagination of the Zionist Left. There is absolutely positively no empirical reason to believe that this is being seriously considered by Israel – or any major political party therein - in any respect whatsoever.
The de facto reality is one state and despite the fanciful musings of the Zionist Left, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that any change to this de facto reality is even being discussed, much less seriously considered. This leaves the de facto reality as the default. I do believe that in time many Zionist leaders will eventually reach the conclusion that real separation (not the current Bantustan/ghettoization schemes) will have to be considered; but by that time the physical integration as well as the on going demographic shift in favor of the native Palestinians will have reached such a level that separation will no longer be considered acceptable by their side.
John S.
-----------------------------------
I do not want to get into the "Is Israel Apartheid" debate. I think I have commented about that on another post. I have to say, however, that the statement that "Benjamin Pogrund has serious South African anti-apartheid credentials" sounds a little odd. He was a journalist and he did his job like a good journalist. That's all. He was also arrested (once?) because he tried to do his job as a journalist. Does that make him have "serious anti-apartheid credentials"? People who have actually been involved in the struggle will disagree.
Posted by: BlackSAn | August 10, 2007 at 17:37
-----------------------------------
Just a few comments here and there:
Steve (August 10, 2007 at 6:11): “The problem with the one state crowd is that its supporters support one not both sides in the conflict.” -- This is completely absurd. The entire one state premise is that both Israelis and Palestinians will benefit in a non-discriminatory multi-cultural state where a person's standing is determined by his actions and circumstances as opposed to his birth and ethnicity. Functionally speaking, this puts us at odds with ethnocentric nationalists on both sides of the conflict: Palestinian nationalists and Zionists; while at the same time being pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian (as peoples, sans the exclusivist ideological demands). it isn't a question of supporting either of the existing dominant factions (both of which are nationalist) but reframing the conflict n a post-nationalist framework.
Steve (August 10, 2007 at 6:11): "I wonder how strong the Palestinian sense of national expressment would be living in a single state where the economy and all major institutions are totally controlled by the Jews who have been in Israel for so many years now." -- A perfectly valid question. While it is far beyond the scope of this comment thread to explore all the ramifications in much detail, this is something many of us have explored in some detail elsewhere and it is also a situation that has led to many headaches in post-Apartheid South Africa. Luckily for Israel/Palestine, the Palestinians - though physically impoverished - stand on much firmer ground than many South African blacks in having a functional social structure, reasonably high levels of education, and extensive international experience.
Hillel (August 10, 2007 at 7:45): "Further, Benjamin hardly appears to be the type to live in a caravan over the green line, if anything his track record places him as rather a moderate. The fact that he doesn't like a one-state solution doesn't turn him into a raving looney;..." -- If you had read my article you would realize that I basically agree. He is an upstanding member of the "Zionist Left" and has - in my opinion - done plenty of good, but also has his head buried in the sand and is refusing to look at the actual realities as they exist.
Hillel (August 10, 2007 at 7:45): "John S takes a rather simplistic view of the demographics in the Middle East, and Israel in particular and uses that vision to springboard a democratic theory based on a situation familiar to him, i.e. SA. John, please re-examine the assumptions of your theories and you'll see, if you're prepared to be intellectually honest and not morally relativist, that what you propose is neither democratic nor pragmatic." Plainly you didn't read my refutation of Pogrund's stand on the issue [ http://one-israel-palestine.blogspot.com/2007/08/benjamin-pogrund-blinded-to-reality-by.html ], as I explain - and document - my case quite clearly.
Unnamed (August 10, 2007 at 12:27): "Of course, like Pogrund, one can be both Pro-Israel and Pro-Palestinian." -- Very true, this is the "Zionist Left." We one state advocates are pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian; though not "pro-Israel" per se as that implies an acceptance of the ethnocentric exclusivist demand for a strictly "Jewish State" which obviously doesn't resonate with our position.
Mike (August 10, 2007 at 12:55): In that you copied your comment over at my article, I wrote you a more detailed reply posted over there.
BlackSAn (August 10, 2007 at 17:37): "I have to say, however, that the statement that "Benjamin Pogrund has serious South African anti-apartheid credentials" sounds a little odd. He was a journalist and he did his job like a good journalist. That's all. He was also arrested (once?) because he tried to do his job as a journalist. Does that make him have "serious anti-apartheid credentials"? People who have actually been involved in the struggle will disagree." -- I completely concur, and Pogrund's own writing trying to argue against Israel and South Africa tends to illustrate that he never considered himself part of the anti-Apartheid struggle and has no idea at all what actual participants thought of the conflict. Plainly he takes the Israel/Palestine conflict personally and personally relates to it; just as obviously, many of his comments about the situation in South Africa shows that he never took that conflict personally and has no personal understanding of it.
For one democratic secular state in Israel/Palestine,
John S.
Jewish Friends of Palestine
http://www.jewishfriendspalestine.org
Online One State Bibliography Project
http://www.onestate.org
Posted by: John S. | August 11, 2007 at 21:22
-----------------------------------
Lots of things that Palestinians say suggest that very many would delight in murdering Jews - at all costs. John S. suggests that they wouldn't.
All I can recommend is: open your eyes. Look at who the Palestinians elect, look at who their heroes are, listen to what their leaders and preachers say, listen to what their media says, read what they teach their children at school, and read what their children write.
www.memri.org is an excellent place to start. Decide for yourself.
(The anticipated response is the exasperating claim that the hatred is a result of the occupation. The claim is irrelevant in this context, and it is false. Indeed, the occupation is a result of the hatred. Occupations don't generally cause such hatred. Furthermore, who rejected the UN resolution and began the 1948 war? Was there peace between the Israelis and Palestinains prior to 1967? etc.)
Posted by: TC | August 12, 2007 at 01:09
-----------------------------------
Hi TC,
“Lots of things that Palestinians say suggest that very many would delight in murdering Jews - at all costs. John S. suggests that they wouldn't. “
Like what? I notice you’re careful to avoid any pretense to substantiating your blood libel, because – just as was the case in Europe with the anti-Semitic blood libels – there is factually no basis in reality. You want the enemy to be blood thirsty non-human untermensch that only deserve to be treated as pseudo-human vermin, thus you imagine that to be the case. It makes Israeli policy much more palatable if it is only being imposed on anti-Semitic monsters who breathe nothing more than Jew-hatred. The Nazis used the same tactic against our people (assuming you’re Jewish) as it allows otherwise decent people to justify behavior that no decent person could otherwise accept. In reality all major Palestinian factions – yes, even including Hamas – have accepted the reality of Israel and expressed a willingness to live side-by-side, BUT only once the occupation ends. As we all know, the occupation will never end, so it’s a non-issue. [Hamas even went so far as to construct an entire religious/theological explanation for this acceptance (of Israel) that does not contradict their charter using the traditional Islamic pretext of accepting “guests” as resident on waqf land. This was all the way back in 1996/7.]
“All I can recommend is: open your eyes. Look at who the Palestinians elect, ...
(you mean like Avigdor Lieberman and Yisrael Beitenu?)
...look at who their heroes are ...
(you mean like terrorists like Ben-Gurion or M. Begin, attempted Nazi-collaborators like Yitzhak Shamir?)
... listen to what their leaders and preachers say ...
(you mean like “"Arabs are like cockroaches! We kill one and dozens more appear!” - http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/716/pr3.htm),
... listen to what their media says ...
(you mean like: www.idrc.ca/uploads/user-S/10576720310Session_4-_Akiva_Eldar-_abstract.doc ?),
... read what they teach their children at school ...
(you mean like: http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0999/9909019.html ?),
... and read what their children write ...
(you mean like the famous photos of the Israeli children signing the bombs to be dropped on defenseless Lebanese and Gazan civilians - http://card.wordpress.com/2006/07/24/israeli-children-signing-bombs-part-ii/ ?).
"www.memri.org is an excellent place to start. Decide for yourself."
{MEMRI is just a part of the Hasbara machine, a propaganda outfit in every meaning of the word founded by and operated by Right-wing racists with a set agenda: http://www.infocusnews.net/content/view/15069/302/ )
[Notice how I actually substantiate my contentions as opposed to just talking out my arse? You may reasonably call my sources into question, but at least I’ve shown that my contentions aren’t just products of my imagination. There is a lesson here for you.]
“(The anticipated response is the exasperating claim that the hatred is a result of the occupation. The claim is irrelevant in this context, and it is false. …”
No, the root of the problem is Zionism, the doctrine that an ethnically “Jewish State” must exist in a land largely composed of non-Jews. The whole idea that the occupation is the root of the problem is the product of nationalist ideology – both Israeli and Palestinian.
“Indeed, the occupation is a result of the hatred.”
Nonsense, the occupation is the result of Israel’s war of aggression in 1967.
“Occupations don't generally cause such hatred.”
Clearly you don’t know much about occupations. Ask anyone from French freedom fighters in WWII to Namibian freedom fighters in occupied South West Africa to learn more about something you clearly know nothing of.
John S.
Posted by: John S. | August 12, 2007 at 05:10
-----------------------------------
To John S.:
Forgive me for not taking the time to respond to all of your points.
1. MEMRI may be right wing, but its not racist. The term "hasbara" which you brandish perjoratively means "explanation" - its not part of massive Zionist propagamda machine; if anything Israeli government funding for explaining government policy abroad is quite limited - about $35 million U.S. a year.
Your "source" for the claim that MEMRI is racist is an opinion in a California Muslim newsletter that quotes the rabid polemicist Norman Finklestein who has his own anti-Israeli agenda. Quoting someone who agrees with you only proves that you aren't the only misguided fool in the room, not that you are right.
2. The famous picture showing Israeli children signing bombs - if you read the text the bombs are addressed to Nasrallah - the anti-semitic leader of Hezbollah - the nice guy who shelled northern Israel indiscriminately with missiles. These teenagers knew quite well who wanted to kill them. Israeli return fire was directed accurately towards Hezbollah positions, considering Hezbollah embedded mobile missile launchers next to and inside civilian sites.
3. Its clear that Hamas views the "occupation" to include all of Israel, and that their ultimate goal its destruction. I'm astonished by your viewpoint that Jews constitute a minority in Israel or that there is anything wrong with a country being based on Jewish values where there is a non-Jewish minoriy. Of course being a majority often depends on how you draw a border. Cast it wide enough, say to cover the original Ottoman Empire or the British mandate of Transjordan and yes Jews are a minority, but in the present circumstances a Jewish state is as legitimate as an Islamic state or a Christian or secular state may be elsewhere.
Posted by: L. King | August 12, 2007 at 06:19
-----------------------------------
I did not describe any Palestinians as a "non-human untermensch" or "pseudo-human vermin", nor do I believe that they are. But I do believe that very many have been indoctrinated with hateful propaganda. The hatred this produces often surpasses that of the Ku Klux Klan.
Of course, you can find hateful Jews or African Americans or Catholics, but this hardly undercuts any accusations against Palestinian fanatics or Klansmen.
John S. accuses me of providing no evidence for my accusations. But I did provide a reference to the memri website. Here is another relevant website: http://www.pmw.org.il
Compare the incidents which John reports with the evidence provided by these websites. Compare the hatred in terms of quality and quantity.
Investigate the evidence - which includes both the evidence I provide and the evidence John S. provides. Don't let me or anyone else tell you what to believe: open your eyes and decide for youself.
Posted by: TC | August 12, 2007 at 09:50
-----------------------------------
John S, I think you live in a parallel reality.
To argue that Pogrund was not really involved in ‘the struggle’ and thus was not personally involved in Apartheid is absurd. No he was not a card carrying member of the ANC but he certainly was involved. He saw first hand as a journalist what was going on in the country. He wrote a book on Robert Sobukwe. I would argue that his first hand knowledge of the Apartheid system was far better than that of Minister Kasrils who spent most of his time in exile.
The Homeland system made black South African’s who lived in ‘White South Africa’ citizens of the Bantustans. The difference in Israel is that Palestinians actually live in the territories where the PA has control. It would be like Apartheid if Israel Arab’s were stripped of the Israeli citizenship and made citizen of the PA although they continued to live in Israel.
The 2 state solution is widely accepted by most people on both side as the only solution. Israeli Prime Minister Olmert came to power on an election platform of withdrawing from most of the West Bank. In 2000, Barak offered Arafat an independent Palestinian state in 97% percent of the West Bank and Gaza. Even the Likud has accepted a Palestinian state. So I don’t know what you are talking about.
To deny the anti-Semitic (I choose that word carefully) raving of Hamas, is as morally disingenuous as Holocaust denial. I advice you to read their charter.
I have one finally question for you. Why do you not advocate a one state solution in all of historical Palestine. Why only in Western Palestine? Hashemite Jordan has a majority Palestinian population. Why are you not telling King Abdullah to give up his racist ethnic exclusivist state? Anti-Zionism per say is not anti-Semitism. But denying only the Jewish people the right to national self determination, I am afraid is.
Posted by: mike | August 12, 2007 at 10:58
-----------------------------------
More comments:
L. King August 12, 2007 at 06:19: "MEMRI may be right wing, but its not racist."
Here is a more detailed examination of MEMRI: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1511 and the Rima Barakat cited is a personal friend and associate of mine. To quote: "MEMRI's founders, Meyrav Wurmser and Yigal Carmon, are both hardline pro-Israel ideologues aligned with Israel's Likud party." As for racist, since I've made it clear that I consider Applied Zionism (Zionism as practiced as opposed to some of the theoretical underpinnings of the ideology) as racist by definition; from this perspective my charge is valid.
L. King August 12, 2007 at 06:19: "The term "hasbara" which you brandish perjoratively means "explanation" - its not part of massive Zionist propagamda machine; if anything Israeli government funding for explaining government policy abroad is quite limited - about $35 million U.S. a year."
Thanks, I actually know the Hebrew transliteration of the term and also its actual meaning in this context: "It is not mere propaganda, nor is it an attempt to merely “explain” Israel’s policies and reality, nor is it just a matter of providing information. “Hasbara” sounds passive and apologetic, yet there is nothing passive about it and Israel has nothing to apologize for. A much better term would probably be “public diplomacy” because it seeks to work with and convince the public, particularly decision makers, shapers of public opinion and important sectors of society." [Gideon Meir, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/Structure+and+departments/What+Hasbara+Is+Really+All+About+-+May+2005.htm ] As noted, hasbara - Israeli "public diplomacy" - though encouraged by the Israeli government is largely independent as per the Mearsheimer-Walt concept of the "lobby" (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html). MEMRI certainly is part of the "massive Zionist propagamda machine" though not necessarily operated by (or financed by) the Israeli government.
L. King August 12, 2007 at 06:19 "The famous picture showing Israeli children signing bombs - if you read the text the bombs are addressed to Nasrallah - the anti-semitic leader of Hezbollah - the nice guy who shelled northern Israel indiscriminately with missiles. These teenagers knew quite well who wanted to kill them."
So the supposition is that these children were justified in their sentiment toward Hizbollah because Nasrallah "wanted to kill them?" If such is your case, then you have just justified every Palestinian child who knowingly cheers on or emulates the Palestinian freedom fighters as there is absolutely no doubt in their minds "who wants to kill them," namely Israeli soldiers and settlers (further the numbers graphically illustrate that this Palestinian impression is factually correct: http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2007.html )
And, just to save you the "purity of arms" propaganda piece about IDF policies and practices: the sheer number of Palestinian children butchered by the IDF renders this argument utterly absurd. - http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/ Either the IDF has a deliberate and systematic policy of butchering children (as reported in Israeli newspapers: Amira Hass, "Don’t shoot till you can see they’re over the age of 12," Ha'aretz, 20 November 2000, reproduced online at: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/hass.html); OR the IDF is utterly inept, a force of complete "keystone cops" that simply can't fire their weapons straight ever and hasn't improved in the least over the last seven plus years. Not even Israel's most aggressive foes deny Israel's military abilities...
Anyway, what about these little paragons of Zionist child-rearing: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3373865,00.html ?
L. King August 12, 2007 at 06:19 " I'm astonished by your viewpoint that Jews constitute a minority in Israel or ... "
I've addressed all this already. http://one-israel-palestine.blogspot.com/2007/08/benjamin-pogrund-blinded-to-reality-by.html
TC August 12, 2007 at 9:50
"I did not describe any Palestinians as a "non-human untermensch" or "pseudo-human vermin", nor do I believe that they are. ..."
True, you didn't use those precise terms, but that doesn't change the dehumanization that you went on to repeat in this second posting. As I said, dehumanization is vital to oppression as only complete psychos can justify oppression when the victims are seen as fellow human beings sharing the same fundamental interests, concerns, and fears that you have. One of the good things Ben Pogrund - and others of the Zionist Left - has done is the dialogue work, introducing Israeli Jews and Palestinians to one another as actual human beings as opposed to "others" steeped in "hatred [that] surpasses that of the Ku Klux Klan." (a charge people on both sides can make just as easily). You need to go out and make some Palestinian friends (they really won't bite you or go into a killing rage once you say you're Jewish, though you probably think otherwise if you depend on sources like MEMRI) and then the dynamics change significantly.
Mike August 12, 2007 at 10:58 "To argue that Pogrund was not really involved in ‘the struggle’ and thus was not personally involved in Apartheid is absurd. ..."
Quite simply, it would be impossible for anyone who was personally vested in the anti-Apartheid to write some of the things he wrote in the article I deconstructed. Clearly, despite being physically there, Pogrund never considered himself part and parcel of any of the South African factions and plainly only has a cursory understanding of their views, attitudes, and outlooks. Otherwise, what he wrote about there being no real ethnic divisions in South Africa (after all, on the surface they were all ostensibly Christians) or the supposition that the vying factions in South Africa didn't really dislike one another the way they do in Israel/Palestine graphically illustrates the point. He might have been there in person, but he personally did not bother to learn what those around him thought or felt.
Or, of course, I could be completely wrong, in which case Pogrund’s article was completely dishonest and he was trying to deliberately misrepresent the situation, i.e. he is a liar. I prefer to afford him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he was being honest about the way he saw the issues raised, in which case he clearly has little to understanding of the thoughts and feelings of the South Africans of any camp.
Mike August 12, 2007 at 10:58 "The Homeland system made black South African’s who lived in ‘White South Africa’ citizens of the Bantustans. The difference in Israel is that Palestinians actually live in the territories where the PA has control."
Believe it or not, Africans actually lived in their reserves in South Africa too and even had their own little corrupt "Chiefs" (easily comparable to Abbas or Dahlan) and the "homelands" were completely under the control of "White South Africa" despite some pretense to internal autonomy. This is very much like the "Palestine Authority" remains completely under Israeli control, despite the occasional election and pretense to some slight degree of internal autonomy.
Mike August 12, 2007 at 10:58 "It would be like Apartheid if Israel Arab’s were stripped of the Israeli citizenship and made citizen of the PA although they continued to live in Israel."
Actually that is exactly what one of the sitting ministers in the Israeli cabinet – Avigdor Lieberman - is calling for. However, it is still an Apartheid situation regardless - the PA is utterly indistinguishable in any tangible way (despite some theoretical differences) from a South African "homeland." Israel was the only country in the world to allow the "homeland" of Bophuthatswana to open an official office on its territory and plainly they learned something from the experience.
Mike August 12, 2007 at 10:58 "The 2 state solution is widely accepted by most people on both side as the only solution."
So they say and I agree polls do reflect this. However, on the Palestinian side, the numbers accepting this notion are slowly but surely declining as it becomes obvious that the Territories cannot be separated from Israel. (see JMCC polls) On the Israeli side, despite being the "only democracy" in the Middle East with an overwhelming majority calling for a two state solution; there is absolutely no move by any sitting political party seeking to give substance to this alleged sentiment. Yes, there are the bantustan/ghettoization schemes, but that isn't a viable two state solution, just a temporary deferral of the problem. As for real separation/partition there is no political voice for this at all. Even the Zionist Left like Meretz & Peace Now don't call for actual separation, just something along the lines of the Gaza Disengagement - maintaining absolute control of all resources, borders, airspace, entry & exit and so on while allowing the "natives" in their Bantustan to wile around aimlessly and impotently. No peace will come from any of these schemes and no one on the Israeli side is seriously discussing real separation/partition.
Now we move into a real "parallel reality" where the completely fanciful notions of the Zionist Left have some tangible reality...
"Israeli Prime Minister Olmert came to power on an election platform of withdrawing from most of the West Bank."
How you consider the few isolated settlements in the northern West Bank that Olmert was seriously considering withdrawing from "most of the West Bank" (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2006/06/14/2003313515) is quite strange. Olmert - and Kadima in general - has never proposed or suggested an actual withdrawal from anywhere that might allow for a viable Palestinian state. Even after the Gaza Disengagement - and to this day - Israel maintains total control over it (http://www.btselem.org/English/Gaza_Strip/). This isn't separation; this isn't a "two state solution;" this isn't partition; - this is homeland-style Apartheid and will NEVER conceivably result in peace.
"In 2000, Barak offered Arafat an independent Palestinian state in 97% percent of the West Bank and Gaza."
Yes, yes, we all know the myth of the "generous offer" offered on terms that absolutely no Palestinian leader could ever accept... Gush Shalom created a great Flash presentation about it: http://gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf For a more comprehensive treatment of this myth AND how it has been propagated see: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113
Mike August 12, 2007 at 10:58 " So I don’t know what you are talking about."
Obviously. Get your head out of the sand and look at the real world as it exists (not as you wish it did) and you'll reach the same conclusion as all honest observers must; the occupation isn't going to end - period. So we might as well stop wasting our time day dreaming about things that aren't going to happen and start dealing with what is currently happening. Welcome to the one state reality.
Mike August 12, 2007 at 10:58 "To deny the anti-Semitic (I choose that word carefully) raving of Hamas, is as morally disingenuous as Holocaust denial. I advice you to read their charter."
Yes, I agree, the Hamas charter (that, incidentally was composed back in the good ole days when Israel was actively promoting Hamas as a counter-weight to the secular nationalist factions of the PLO: http://www.upi.com/inc/view.php?StoryID=18062002-051845-8272r ) is anti-Semitic. However, Hamas is fundamentally pragmatic - as represented by their regime in Gaza - (see also: http://www.fmep.org/analysis/articles/quotes_from_hamas_leaders_on_hamas_israel_and_palestinian_politics.html ) and despite the charter, they created an entire theological construct to justify accepting Israel inside the Green Line that does not conflict with their theological position that all of Palestine is waqf land. This was presented in detail by Ismail Abu-Shanab (later murdered by Israel) speaking on behalf of Shaykh Ahmad Yassin (also later murdered by Israel) in English via "Palestinian Alternatives: Interview, Ismail Abu Shanab, Founding Member of Hamas" in Middle East Policy, Volume VI, Number 1, June 1998 pp. 116-120. I agree the charter should probably be set aside as it certainly isn't helping Hamas in any way, but realistically - charter notwithstanding - Hamas isn't the absolutely irreconcilable nemesis Israel and the hasbaraniks like to portray. In fact, Israel is quietly dealing with them right now both in respect to Gilad Shalit and the transfers of humanitarian aid into Gaza. This has always been the case. Observers know Hamas can be dealt with.
Mike August 12, 2007 at 10:58 "Why do you not advocate a one state solution in all of historical Palestine."
I do support this in all of Mandatory Palestine, between the river and the sea. Jordan was detached (1922) before the Mandate calling for a "Jewish Home" was implemented (1923) and became a fully independent sovereign state two years before (1946) the country of Israel even existed (1948). The whole Revisionist "Western Palestine" notion does not, and never has had, any meaningful significance. Transjordan was, is, and will remain, a completely separate state. As for the Hashemite Kingdom, don't worry, I have no love for that regime either and could say quite a bit about it, however, it is completely off topic. This thread appears to be dealing with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and assuming this is the case, Jordan constitutes a side-show. Once again, deal with actual reality as it is, wishing you could expel all the evil Arabs to Jordan doesn't help in any way because that won't happen either http://one-israel-palestine.blogspot.com/2007/06/israels-ultimate-threat-critical.html .
Mike August 12, 2007 at 10:58: "Anti-Zionism per say is not anti-Semitism. But denying only the Jewish people the right to national self determination, I am afraid is."
LOL, when all else fails and you just can't make your case, resort to name calling. Israel - and Israel alone - made the decisions that has now made "national self determination" untenable. Israel alone is behind all the decisions that has effectively erased the Green Line and made separation/partition impossible. So frankly, Israel has made its bed and now has to lie in it. For the record, "denying the Afrikaner people self-determination" by calling for an end to Apartheid was one of their major rallying cries as well. EXACTLY like Israel, the Apartheid regime simply refused to give up any control thereby putting itself - through its own decisions - into a completely untenable position where there was only one viable alternative.
Theoretically speaking, if the Afrikaners had implemented "separate development" honestly and fairly and actually surrendered control over the homelands and allowed them the freedoms required for them to be viable independent states, there could have been a small Afrikaner country in southern Africa today where the Afrikaner people could exercise their self-determination. However, they decided against this by refusing to give up control over the natives. Israel is now in the same situation, a real two state solution might have been possible at one point or another (and even this is debatable), but Israel flatly refused - and continues to refuse - to surrender the requisite control to allow for a viable Palestinian state. So in the absence of any real separation or partition, it is only a matter of time before they follow in the tracks of the Afrikaners. For both Afrikaners and Israeli Jews there are always excuses on why control can't be surrendered, but be that as it may, these excuses won't change the logical conclusion of the decision to maintain total domination.
John S.
Posted by: John S. | August 12, 2007 at 22:24
-----------------------------------
I'll just reply to John's comment on my post, since Mike and the others can easily defend themselves.
"True, you didn't use those precise terms, but that doesn't change the dehumanization that you went on to repeat in this second posting."
I stated explicitly that I do not believe that any Palestinians are non-human. Indeed, I think that Palestinian fanatics are just as human as any other other group of racist thugs. It's because we're all human - all too human - that we can fall victim to hateful indoctrination.
Nor do I doubt that there are Palestinians - very many Palestinians - that don't "bite" or "go into a killing rage".
Unfortunately, however, there are very many Palestinian fanatics that would delight in murdering Jews. These fanatics and their indoctrination are not minor aberrations of Palestinian society; there is simply far too much of the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0FFjDAmGL0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yncV2AYGA8Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-gDXhFwPM4
(And the word "Yahud" doesn't mean "zionist" or "settler" or even "Israeli".)
Similar charges cannot be levelled by "people on both sides... just as easily". Of course, there are Israeli fanatics. But there is nothing to compare to the Palestinian indoctrinition, and the hatred this produces; a few Israeli children booing Nasrallah doesn't compare.
This hatred means that a one-state solution would end in disaster, and it may be the most difficult problem in solving the conflict in other ways.
Posted by: TC | August 13, 2007 at 00:51
-----------------------------------
John S,
I am pleased to see that you don’t have an ideological opposition to a 2 state solution. As I understand it your basic argument is that because of Israel’s ‘unwillingness’ to accept ‘real’ Palestinian independence a unitary state is the only way to go. Obviously then, if Israel was to withdraw from most of the West bank and allow for a contiguous Palestine state with full sovereignty you would support it.
I don’t speak for Pogrund. As I understood his article, he was quoting from the book meeting Mandela which I have actually read. In it they devote many pages to the position that the conflict in Israel and Palestine is more divisive than in South Africa. Perhaps you should read it before you jump to the conclusion that this argument makes Pogrund unqualified to comment on what Apartheid was. What in fact makes you so qualified to understand Apartheid?
Now your Jordan distortion. I never said and have never supported the expulsion of Palestinians in the West Bank to Jordan. Your accusation like most of your facts are false. Jordan was certainly part of the British Mandate of Palestine. It was administered as an occupied territory along with Western Palestine by the British from 1917 to 1920. The League of Nations officially sanctioned this mandate in July 1922. Jordan created as a separate administered territory later in September 1922. It only became independent in 1946!
Lastly I am no fan of Lieberman but you have misrepresented his position. He wishes to cede territory with an Arab majority in Israel as part of a peace plan. It would require the consent of the Arab residents. This is not Apartheid. The crux of the Bantu system was that people were forced to accept citizenship of territories they did not inhabit. Yes some black people did live in the homelands but most lived in White South Africa. This is not the case in Israel. The PA is not yet a sovereign government it is an interim mechanism to affect real independence. But you don’t seem to understand this.
Posted by: mike | August 13, 2007 at 10:41
Prof John Sigler writes: "Clearly, despite being physically there, Pogrund never considered himself part and parcel of any of the South African factions and plainly only has a cursory understanding of their views, attitudes, and outlooks."
Is he really suggesting that Pogrund's biography of The PAC's Robert Sobukwe shows a "cursory understanding" of his "view, attitudes and outlooks"?
I look forward to Prof Sigler's response.
I also refer Prof Sigler to the following:
From Publishers Weekly
Robert Sobukwe is the forgotten man of the South African anti-apartheid struggle, a founder of the Pan-Africanist Congress and chief mover in the anti-pass-law demonstrations that led to the 1960 massacre of unarmed protestors at Sharpeville. Imprisoned for eight years after the event and then banned by the South African government, Sobukwe was largely absent from the public eye from 1960 until his death from cancer in 1978. Pogrund, a journalist now with London's Independent , was a close friend who has written this biography in part to correct the historical record. The result is a consistently fascinating and moving portrait. More important, Pogrund places Sobukwe's life in the larger context of South African history, allowing American readers to understand the evolution of the system of apartheid with startling clarity. He touches, for example, on the government's decision in the late 1950s to reconstruct "the tribalism that had been on the wane" among black South Africans. Sobukwe wrote to the author,"I'll never write an autobiography, Benjie." Pogrund has done his friend great justice in this volume, an essential book on the South African struggle.
Copyright 1991 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
From Library Journal
This readable biography of Robert Sobukwe, leader of the Pan-Africanist Congress, is a welcome addition to the literature on the opposition movements in South Africa. Organized in 1959, the Pan-Africanist Congress, which grew out of a movement within the African National Congress that opposed the multiracialism of the ANC, headed a campaign for the mass defiance of the pass laws. The protest resulted in the Sharpeville massacre in March 1960, and Sobukwe was jailed for nine years. After his release and until his death in 1978, he was placed under house arrest, preventing him from engaging in political activity and severely limiting his interaction with others. Pogrund, a liberal South African journalist, became Sobukwe's close friend before his imprisonment. His detailed portrait of Sobukwe's strengths and weaknesses is a reminder that many remarkable individuals who were denied the right to participate fully in South African society still contributed to the development of political ideas. Recommended for public libraries and academic institutions.
- Maidel Cason, Univ. of Delaware Lib., Newark
Posted by: The Blacklisted Dictator | August 13, 2007 at 11:27
-----------------------------------
Wow! There are so many points, counter-points, half truths and different perspectives on the same issue trying to paint it positively or negatively that it's just becoming mind boggling ... and circuitous. Setting aside the obviously disprovable rubbish and ignoring the propaganda, I'll try keep it brief and to the point(s).
Quoting from John S above, I'll focus on these two lines. (I hazard it's worth critically re-reading his posting since it really brilliantly illustrates the problem, and while I doubt John is likely to re-evaluate his Weltaunschaung, it's certainly useful when talking to someone who is, and for re-evaluating one's owns positions should you be intellectually honest enough to embark on such a terrifying journey).
"then you have just justified every Palestinian child who knowingly cheers on or emulates the Palestinian freedom fighters as there is absolutely no doubt in their minds ..."
and
"Either the IDF has a deliberate and systematic policy of butchering children ... OR the IDF is utterly inept"
[I have my opinions on which it is in the latter, but it's irrelevant and let's stick to John's belief in their competence.]
The first of these points clearly indicates the "perception" vs "reality" problem, which to me suggests moral relativism,(not to mention a sucker punch by propaganda and a general inability to critically analyse the situation). Perhaps more than that, it suggests a perverse morality, but, it does in a sense feed off the second point/quote.
As to the latter point, it is clear to me with my limited statistical and ballistic knowledge, that the conclusion drawn, by John S (and the people he quotes), from the IDF operations and palestinian casualties is grossly wrong (alternatively it's a mix of cognitive dissonance and two-parts misinformation).
Again, I have my suspicions, but we'll leave them unsaid.
In theory, and again ignoring the "factual/non-factual" issue of some of the supporting comments, John paints a reasonable situation. A walk through Jerusalem, east and west, will dispel the careful observer of most of his illusions.
Posted by: Hillel | August 13, 2007 at 12:04
-----------------------------------
While slightly distasteful, or make that, rather distasteful, Gary raises an interesting point, which in some demented sense might shed some light on John's naming and shaming of Shamir, Ben Gurion and Begin as terrorists as well as his "understanding", and obvious sympathy, of how Palestinian children support those brave "freedom fighters". (John's words.)
Posted by: Hillel | August 13, 2007 at 15:43
-----------------------------------
Hillel and Gary, you really have no respect for people who have suffered under an oppressive racist dictatorship. That is why you can so easily make mockeries of the struggle and those who gave their lives for it. Gary's disdain for the struggle against Apartheid is reflected in this comment: "I imagine being involved in an necklace killing or burning down the house of an Inkatha/BC/anyone in a party other than the ANC/SACP/UDF are both big point scorers for struggle credentials."
Posted by: BlackSAn | August 13, 2007 at 17:03
-----------------------------------
TC:
The interesting thing here is that if you only look for extremism and the indoctrination of children with extremism on one side of the conflict (namely, the "other side") that is the only place you'll find it. The implication that Israeli extremists are "minor aberrations" whereas it is the norm on the Palestinian side is, quite simply, empty prejudice based on ignorance. Further, contrary to your suggestion, similar charges CAN be made on the opposing side just as easily:
Israeli children having fun stoning Palestinian woman: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2862859257830991010&q=Israeli+settlers&total=345&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=7
Israeli Children being indoctrinated at Gush Katif protest: http://www.dailymotion.com/bookmarks/Merkkava/video/x1g4m7_gush-katif-forever_new
Hebron: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7140706205358600137&q=Israeli+settlers&total=344&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
Anti-Arab pogrom in Tel Rumeida http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3130244922467421345&q=Israeli+settlers&total=344&start=40&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4
Kahane Chai: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2981485679070895354&q=Kahane&total=191&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
"Camp Meir" at Kfar Tapuah: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7340052794461658795&q=Kahane&total=191&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=7
...and on and on... I agree that "here is simply far too much" of this sort of stuff, but it isn't confined to the Palestinian side of the conflict by any stretch of the imagination.
"Unfortunately, however, there are very many Palestinian fanatics that would delight in murdering Jews." -- Just as there are very many Israelis that would delight in murdering Palestinians. Sorry, but the whole "our side" has a few nuts, but is in general innocent of wrongdoing; whereas "their side" is based on nothing but hatred argument is utter nonsense. Of course there are some differences. For example, Israelis can "get away" from the conflict when so inclined. In a mixed coffeehouse in Haifa one might be able to imagine there is no conflict at all or hidden behind the fortifications of an Israeli settlement one might be able to forget all about the "other" outside. Whereas, the vast majority Palestinians have no respite, no escape, and for them the resistance isn't some abstract political or religious concept (i.e. "Let's kill Jews because they are Jews") but instead represent desperate reactions to an utterly intolerable situation from which there is no escape.
Regardless, neither side is dominated by its respective extremists. Empty lip-service notwithstanding, if a majority of Palestinians were out to become suicide bombers, Israel wouldn't be facing hundreds of suicide bombers spread over years; but thousands of suicide bombers per month. Obviously this isn't the case. Conversely, the idea that Israeli extremists are just a tiny inconsequential fringe minority was completely belied by the anti-Disengagement protests in 2005. The sheer size of the extreme Rightist demonstrations Disengagement graphically illustrated that the extremist element in Israel isn't a "minor aberration" either (PHOTOS: http://www.worldpicturenews.com/web/ImageLoader.aspx?id=96144&context=custom&type=portfolio / http://www.worldpicturenews.com/web/ImageLoader.aspx?id=96172&context=custom&type=portfolio / http://www.worldpicturenews.com/web/ImageLoader.aspx?id=96646&context=custom&type=portfolio )
The key problem here - and this applies to both sides - is that the actions of the extremists is taken by the majorities of the opposing side as representative of all, most, or a majority of, the perpetuating side. Like it or not, neither side is dominated by their extremist elements, but since the actions of the extremists are treated as "representative" of all the "others," their influence is grossly disproportionate to their actual level of support. Thus when the settlers in Occupied Hebron riot and beat down Palestinians with the protection of the IDF; Palestinians see this as "representative" of all - or most - Israelis; OR when the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ, and the one Palestinian faction that I'm aware of that has refused any compromise with Israel at all) shells Sderot with their home-made "Qassam" rockets, Israelis see this as "representative" of all, or most, Palestinians. Both impressions are not accurate as is illustrated by the very simple fact that the vast majority of people on both sides are not actively attacking the other.
Mike:
"I am pleased to see that you don’t have an ideological opposition to a 2 state solution." -- Actually, I personally do not support the idea of ethnic states in general, but realistically - as most Israel advocates love to point out - the idea of the ethnic state isn't unique to Israel and remains a fairly popular notion for many states and peoples. Of course the catch is that most modern ethnic states are primarily homogeneous, having only very small ethnic minorities under their control (e.g. Greece or Japan) and such is not the case in Israel/Palestine. Be that as it may, should Israel surrender the requisite control to allow for a viable independent Palestinian state, then yes, I would support it. However, as I've made clear, I do not believe this will happen and there is no tangible reason to believe otherwise.
"As I understand it your basic argument is that because of Israel’s ‘unwillingness’ to accept ‘real’ Palestinian independence a unitary state is the only way to go." -- Fair enough.
"Obviously then, if Israel was to withdraw from most of the West bank and allow for a contiguous Palestine state with full sovereignty you would support it." -- Assuming it truly withdrew and surrendered the requisite control to allow for a functional and independent Palestinian state (meaning the Jordan Valley, the borders, the West Bank aquifers, Gaza natural gas, &c.), then yes, I would support the compromise and the continuation of the "Jewish State." However, it won't happen so it doesn't really matter.
"I never said and have never supported the expulsion of Palestinians in the West Bank to Jordan." -- No, but that was the clear implication. If this is not what you were suggesting, why mention it at all?
"It was administered as an occupied territory along with Western Palestine by the British from 1917 to 1920." -- Factually correct and this predates the Mandate.
"The League of Nations officially sanctioned this mandate in July 1922." -- True, but (deliberately?) misleading. The LoN did approve the Mandate in July 1922 TO GO INTO EFFECT in September 1923 and in fact the Mandate did not go into effect until 1923. This isn't some contested point, look it up virtually anywhere. By the time the Mandate came into effect Transjordan was already detached and recognized as a provisionally independent state - in a treaty relationship with the UK - that consented to allow the British to exercise Mandatory powers there. At no point was Transjordan ever part of the territory where the British were charged with establishing a "Jewish Home."
Assuming you're not being deliberately dishonest, perhaps you should study your facts before you charge that mine are "false."
"Lastly I am no fan of Lieberman but you have misrepresented his position. He wishes to cede territory with an Arab majority in Israel as part of a peace plan. It would require the consent of the Arab residents." -- Really? Care to document the contention that the Israeli Palestinians are to be allowed to vote on this? This isn't mentioned on the party website: "The responsibility for primarily Arab areas such as Umm Al-Fahm and the “triangle” will be transferred to the Palestinian Authority. In parallel, Israel will officially annex Jewish areas in Judea and Samaria. Israel is our home; Palestine is theirs." - http://www.yisraelbeytenu.com/ Nor have I ever seen this interesting proviso mentioned elsewhere. Further - as many Israel advocates like to point out - in absolutely all polling of Israeli Palestinians, while they do want greater equality and opportunity in Israel, virtually none would consent to leave Israel in favor of the PA. So, if this condition that you've cited is accurate, then it’s a total nonstarter anyway.
Blacklisted Dictator:
"Is he really suggesting that Pogrund's biography of The PAC's Robert Sobukwe shows a "cursory understanding" of his "view, attitudes and outlooks"? -- Fair enough. I can only answer this with another question though; assuming I am wrong with my contention, how could Pogrund have possibly reproduced paragraph 17 in his article (at least without an extreme disclaimer) or made the argument he did in paragraph 25 of the article I deconstructed (http://one-israel-palestine.blogspot.com/2007/08/benjamin-pogrund-blinded-to-reality-by.html) ? These contentions are patently absurd on their face, so if Pogrund really knew better - as you suggest - the only real alternative is that he was out to deliberately misrepresent reality, i.e. that he was being deliberately dishonest. Is this your contention? I personally don't know Pogrund at all, much less well enough to flatly declare him a liar, so the assumption of ignorance was being diplomatic.
Hillel:
First, without delving into an endless philosophical digression the problem isn't so much that of "'perception' vs. 'reality'" but more one of "perception = reality." More specifically, when an Israeli soldier murders a Palestinian child and when a Palestinian bomber murders an Israeli child, the perception is created that this is what "the other" is all about collectively, and this perception in turn determines the acceptable - and very real - response (that again creates new perceptions and the new responses dictated by them). The result is that today a large number of Israelis honestly believe that all, many, or most Palestinians have no other thoughts (much less any legitimate grievances) other than to "kill Jews." Likewise a large number of Palestinians honestly believe that all, many, or most Israelis have no other thought than to expel them from their homeland by whatever means (killing, terror, &c). I believe both these perceptions are incorrect - as shown by the actual actions of the vast majority of people on both sides - and thus the responses that are based on these perceptions are incorrect. Breaking the cycle requires a greater understanding of "the other" that, through the addition of new data, significantly alters the perception and thus the responses justified by these perceptions. Obviously increased knowledge of "the other" is the worst possible enemy of the ideologues on both sides and outfits like MEMRI can only function within the framework of ignorance.
As for the walk through Jerusalem, frankly there is quite a bit there - but more so in places like Haifa or Nazareth - that reinforces the suggestion that one state will be the future. In fact, walking through Jerusalem is a great device for thinking about the future because it highlights - even over emphasizes - many of the problems to be faced (ever just read the graffiti?) while at the same time placing it within a larger framework of already existing de facto community. Like it or not, with all its social tensions (not merely Israeli/Palestinian) and conflicts, it still constitutes one functional community which, compared to other divided cities like Belfast, has basically accepted co-existence, even if reluctantly.
BlackSAn:
"Hillel and Gary, you really have no respect for people who have suffered under an oppressive racist dictatorship. That is why you can so easily make mockeries of the struggle and those who gave their lives for it." -- In my view, a number of Pogrund's statements suggested the same, which is why I just assumed he didn't know what he was talking about, as opposed to assuming that he was being deliberately dishonest.
Posted by: John S. | August 13, 2007 at 21:04
-----------------------------------
Just my two cents:
I think the term historical Palestine in the sence that it is being bandied about is a bit misleading as the territory that comprimises, wether it included Jordan or not, only predates Israel and the Palestinian territories by about 30 years.
The area is over three and a half thousand years old and has had its border change many, many time wether it was Canaan, the Roman province of Judea or later an Ottoman province.
A more accurate, less loaded phrase should be used.
P.S. John S as a long time reader of this blog Steve and Mike have never advocated the expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank to Jordan either explicitly or implicitley. Please do not read into things that are not there.
Posted by: Ariel | August 13, 2007 at 23:08
-----------------------------------
John S.:
This exchange is exasperating; this is my final post.
Since I emphasised the hateful indoctrination of children, I first followed the link you provided under the heading "Israeli Children being indoctrinated at Gush Katif protest".
All this shows is Jews waving flags, embracing, crying and praying while being expelled from their homes so that Gaza could become Judenrein. No calls for genocide, no children marching, no children carrying guns, no babies wrapped in explosive belts. Here is the link once again, so that other readers can see for themselves:
http://www.dailymotion.com/bookmarks/Merkkava/video/x1g4m7_gush-katif-forever_new
Compare this to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0FFjDAmGL0
As for the Kahane Chai and Camp videos, you must know that Kahane's party has been outlawed as extremist by Israel. Which extremist Palestinian party has been outlawed? Indeed, it seems a prerequisite for any Palestinian party, at least any successful Palestinian party, that it be extremist.
While no context is given, I'm not going to defend the very small number of settlers in the other two videos. But I'm certainly not convinced by these videos of a parity between Israeli fanatics and Palestinian fanatics. Indeed, if this is the best you could provide, then it confirms further that there is no such parity.
One significant difference is how systematic the indoctrination of Palestinian children is, introduced into the Palestinian media and textbooks. Meanwhile, Israeli textbooks introduce the Palestinian "narrative".
Of recent interest is the Palestinian children's show "Tomorrow's Pioneers" on Al-Aksa TV. This has featured a mouse-costumed character (not Mickey, alas!) who teaches the children all about martyrdom. Since the character's death at the hands of the Zionists, the show has featured a bee-character. The latest episode is his visit to the zoo, where he attacks some domestic cats, swinging one from its tail, and torments the lions, throwing stones at them. You can see it for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ExZVimjST8
This is exactly how to produce sociopaths. The kid hosting the shows says briefly at the end that the demonstration is supposed to show how not to treat animals. I'd hate to see their demonstration on how not to treat Jews.
Posted by: TC | August 14, 2007 at 00:37
-----------------------------------
John writes:
""perception = reality." More specifically, when an Israeli soldier murders a Palestinian child and when a Palestinian bomber murders an Israeli child, the perception is created that this is what "the other" is all about collectively, and this perception in turn determines the acceptable - and very real - response "
A good point, very good point. It helps explain his position in detail, it helps "understand" the Palestinian position. It also helps realise exactly who "John" is.
Posted by: Hillel | August 14, 2007 at 04:17
-----------------------------------
As to a few of the other points on the page, in particular in John's postings, "Dilbert/SCott Adams wrote a good post the other day about the silent majority and the vocal minority.
Some thoughts in that direction, together with a thought or two on who and how to control the "vocal minority" will debunk most of John's theories...
Happy cogitating!
Posted by: Hillel | August 14, 2007 at 04:19
-----------------------------------
There was a movie on today about the Rwandan genocide. Which, following my exchange with John S., made me wonder. Sure not all Hutus "bite" or "go into a killing rage". But did their extremist militia ever hate nearly as much as the Palestinian fanatics do?
A one state solution for Israelis and Palestinians - yeah, right! I guess, though, it depends on what you mean by "solution" - a "final solution"? For both Israelis and Arabs - both have guns.
Posted by: TC | August 14, 2007 at 13:44
John S.
-----------------------------------
Ah, so Zionism (Applied or otherwise) is by definition racism. I see your point - like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland, words mean precisely what you want them to mean. How convenient. Of course Humpty Dumpty was a pompous fool.
The list of Palestinian youths who died in the inifadeh is sadly interesting. It begins with Mohammed al Durah who was killed by Palestinian weaponry, it being physically impossible for the Israeli forces to have shot him from their position.(http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=855&x_context=3)
We could examine the list further, note the high proportion of male youths (as opposed to children) who were taking part in skirmishes where weaponry was involved. I for one have never been to a "protest" where rocks were thrown at the police or soldiers - but regardless of how you view this it argues AGAINST a one state solution, not for it. Countries like marriages are founded on commonalities. You might just as well argue for the union of South Africa
and Zimbabwe. It would certainly help your northern neighbours.
I for one see hope that a Palestinian state may be established by Prime Minister Fayyed on the West Bank. He strikes me as a practical man
who puts economics and accountable administration ahead of ideology. Globalization and emerging markets are far too important an opportunity (and risk) to miss out on. Today's trade talks in Jericho between Israel, the P.A., Japan and Jordan are more indicative of future directions than your obtuse ramblings.
Kudos to TC, Mike and Hillel for being more realistic.
Cheers!
Posted by: L. King | August 14, 2007 at 18:28
-----------------------------------
TC: No surprises here. I posted a couple clips that did not include - as you say - "... calls for genocide, no children marching, no children carrying guns, no babies wrapped in explosive belts" - but where they were actually physically attacking people, that is, not pretending violence but actually engaged in it and you chose to ignore them. Quite understandable as there is no excuse for it. So, if the Palestinian children are in situations that "produce sociopaths," I can only assume that means that at least the settler children are already fully developed sociopaths. Whatever.
Anyway, to all:
Plainly the discussion has wound down to inconsequential matters - arguing over subsidiary points, arguing over subjective perspectives, and of course the routine ad hominem nonsense - as opposed to any of the substantive issues raised.
So, just to summarize:
First, genuine separation that might result in a sustainable peace isn't even on the agenda. The various Bantustan schemes (e.g. Gaza & Oslo in general) and ghettoization schemes (e.g. Qalqilyia or Hebron) is just a deferral of the problem, not a solution that could conceivably result in a lasting peace.
In that there is no empirical reason to believe that separation is on the agenda at all, there are essentially three alternatives for a sustainable lasting peace:
a) Genocide. As far as know, no Israeli faction - not even Kahanists - has ever openly called for genocide; so like separation, its pretty much a nonstarter since no one of any standing is calling for it.
b) "Transfer" or ethnic cleansing. This is certainly the direction that the Israeli far Right is heading in and it has been - and is currently being - called for by people in that camp. However, I've explored this possibility in detail in "Israel’s Ultimate Threat: A critical assessment of the viability of 'transfer'" - http://one-israel-palestine.blogspot.com/2007/06/israels-ultimate-threat-critical.html . Realistically, this isn't going to happen and really isn't even an option. It "sounds good" as a simple solution to those that support it; but once the actual mechanics and detail is reviewed, it becomes readily apparent that this isn't really on the agenda.
c) Continuation upon the current path: one state. No one claims this will be an easy process, but it is the direction that all aspects of the equation are moving in presently and there is no substantive reason to predict a meaningful change in course.
Continuing along the current path, the next stage is getting rid of the democratic pretenses (at in respect to "non-Jewish" groups) in favor of the "Jewish State" and creating a more openly admitted Apartheid state. I obviously argue that we're already at that stage, though reasonable people may disagree. For those, we haven't quite reached that stage yet, but are moving towards it. Either way, with the continuing demographic shift in favor of the Palestinians (coupled with massive Israeli Jewish emigration, which has now overtaken immigration) and growing realization that meaningful workable separation isn't on the agenda and further encouraged by the struggle of the Israeli Palestinians within the Green Line, it is virtually inevitable that the struggle will change from one of separation to integration. The early signs of this - including the fact that 25-35% of Palestinians have already reached this conclusion (via JMCC polling) and the Israeli Palestinians are laying the ground work for an integrationist struggle - are already readily apparent to any honest observer.
Quite simply, in the absence of some incredibly radical change in Israeli society and polity in the IMMEDIATE future, the writing really is on the wall. Arguing against the current reality - the movement toward integration - without suggesting a viable alternative is nothing more or less than "burying one's head in the sand" on the hope and/or the prayer that all the problems will magically take care of themselves. There is nothing unusual in this as it is much easier to ignore the situation than admit that some real compromises have become inevitable now.
In South Africa, the Afrikaners reached the conclusion that they were confronted with a stark choice: to either "fight until the bitter end" in full knowledge that to do so would probably result in the extermination of their unique people and culture; or to surrender control - baaskap - and their "national self-determination" in favor of keeping their people and culture alive in a multi-racial South Africa. It is only a matter of time until Israeli Jews face essentially the same question, though the contributing circumstances are significantly different. For the Afrikaners, their national existence was more important in the final analysis than the demand to maintain national supremacy.
Further, the Afrikaners - spearheaded by a number of nationalist intellectuals - realized (quite correctly) that time was not on their side and so were smart enough to negotiate a sustainable settlement from a position of strength, allowing them to maintain their wealth and standing inside a multi-racial / multi-cultural state. By almost all accounts, if they had chosen to "fight to the bitter end" through sheer technological superiority they probably could have maintained the Apartheid regime for another twenty to thirty years, but the ultimate price of doing so would more than likely be their national extermination.
In Israel, estimates vary on how long the status quo can be maintained and the Bantustan/ghettoization schemes may very well give them a little more time than would otherwise be available; but what is crystal clear is that the status quo is not permanently sustainable and day by day grows ever more untenable. Pretending it isn't so or just refusing to deal with the situation doesn't alter the outcome at all. In fact, there really isn't even need for a "one state" movement at all as this is a development that is happening all by itself; however, by facing up to the reality of the situation, the hope of people in my camp is to see the continuation of Israeli Hebrew culture, even if this means surrendering absolute domination. In the same way that the Afrikaner intellectuals recognized the options and chose to throw their weight behind a compromise that would allow for their national survival, so too do many Jewish one state supporters see themselves as playing the same role. The continuation of Israeli Hebrew culture is more important than the demand for political supremacy.
You can take the above however you want, but pretending as though the status quo will continue on forever and trying to defend antiquated notions of ethnic supremacy via antiquated arguments that don't affect the situation doesn't help Israel, doesn't help Israeli Jews, and doesn't help solve the problems. Keep in mind we're NOT talking about some abstract "distant future" problem, but situations that will have direct bearing within the next ten to twenty years.
If anyone is interested in continuing to discuss these matters, feel free to contact me via: http://oss.internetactivist.org/contact.html and we can continue in email or via another forum that is more appropriate. Otherwise, regardless of what you think of me or my arguments, if you really care about the Israel/Palestine conflict, if you really care about its resolution, if you really care for the fate of the participants (Israeli Jews, Palestinians, or both); it really is time that you lay fantasies and day dreams aside and start considering what can really be done and what the results of these actions will be.
Shalom/Salaam, John S.
Posted by: John S. | August 14, 2007 at 19:32
I refer Prof John Sigler to Joel Pollak's interview (13/8/2007) with South Africa's ambassador in Israel:
"Ambassador Gqiba seems as concerned about presenting a positive image of Israel to South Africans as he is about presenting an optimistic outlook on South Africa to Israelis. I asked him about the Israel-apartheid analogy, and he declined to endorse it, saying that it was easy enough to draw facile equations from abroad, but quite difficult to do so once one had actually seen the situation in Israel for oneself."
http://guidetotheperplexed.blogspot.com/
Perhaps Prof Sigler is guilty of drawing his own "facile equations from abroad" ?
John, you severely damage your own credibility when you assert that ethnocentrism is synonymous with racism in the opening of your piece. I was interested in reading your argument, but upon seeing that I knew that I would just be exposed to shrill, self-indulgent preaching rather than a thoughful exploration of the issues. You shoot yourself in the foot, fool.
Aaron is right. There are many ethnocentric states: Japan, Germany, China, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria... I could name dozens that do not offer citizenship or equal rights based on ethnicity, religion or other factors. No one accuses them of racism let alone advocates their dissolution. This constant harping on Israel is antisemitism pure and simple.
I find your articles very articulate and intelligently written. I also agree that a two state solution seems quite unworkable. So how is it that Abbas and Olmert are going to the US to discuss just that? Is everyone blind to the reality or are they all playing some kind of a pantomime for some reason? However, I don't see how a one state solution will work either. The Jews have a huge persecution complex since the holocaust especially, and are convinced that giving up sovereignty would equal their total physical annihilation - not something that they're about to agree to. The post zionists do not represent the average Israeli at all. And I don't see how you could legally demand that a sovereign state be forced to annext territory that is not its own and make its residents citizens. (I understand that you think that one day Israelis will do so wilingly once they realize its the only path to peace). I think the main difference between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and SA is that in Israel/Palestine you have many outside forces, such as Hamas, Syria, Iran that actively support the most extreme elements, which wasn't true in SA. In other words, even if the Palestinians accept that they can't achieve total victory, outside forces, such as Iran, who do not have to live under the conditions that the Palestinians are living, will continue to undermine any attempt at compromise.
Here are two questions for you, John - 1. What would the new state be called? 2. How did a Jew like you come to support the Palestininan cause?
Hi Aaron, thanks for the comment.
“John, you severely damage your own credibility when you assert that ethnocentrism is synonymous with racism in the opening of your piece.”
“Racism” is, of course, one of those nasty little terms that are used by people from all perspectives to reinforce whatever contention they are making at the time. Nevertheless, when it comes to state practice it is not unreasonable to turn to international law (which applies to states) for a definition of the term. I use the definition of “racial discrimination” provided by the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_icerd.htm) to define state racism. Specifically:
“Article I. 1. In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.”
Noting that this definition specifically includes discrimination based upon “descent, or national or ethnic origin,” ethnocentric states can be fairly characterized as practicing “racial discrimination,” and thus my use of the term “racism” in respect to ethnocentric states. For the record, Israel is a member of this Convention.
Of course I freely concede that reasonable people may disagree, but this is how I see the question.
Hello Abu Nudnik, thanks for the comment.
“There are many ethnocentric states: Japan, Germany, China, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria... I could name dozens that do not offer citizenship or equal rights based on ethnicity, religion or other factors. No one accuses them of racism let alone advocates their dissolution.”
First and foremost, yes, there are plenty of ethnocentric states and using my definition (see my comment to Aaron above) they too are engaged in racist practices toward others. However, one of the key differences, at least among the examples you provided that are legitimate (namely Japan, [South?] Korea, and Saudi Arabia) is that they do not maintain their ethnocentric states by excluding half of their de facto populations from equality within the state. To review your examples:
a) Japan is notoriously xenophobic and racist and contrary to your contention, I’m not aware of anyone who denies this at all. Although there is informal discrimination against its primary minority groups – the burakumin, the Ryukyuans, and the Ainu – they are not matters of official policy (at least not today) and these groups have full citizenship and legal protections. That is, Japan is not maintaining its current – and openly recognized – xenophobic and racist society by actively oppressing half its domestic population as is the case in Israel/Palestine.
b) Germany: Modern Germany, though largely homogeneous, is not an ethnocentric state today, despite the demands of their radical Rightists. Preference is given to migrants of German ancestry, but German ancestry does not provide any specific privilege over other legal citizens and residents in German law. If you are there legally, you officially have full equality. This is quite unlike Israel/Palestine.
c) China: This one is a bit tricky as China is such an enormous – and diverse – country. Further, unlike Japan or Germany, they do actively suppress significant non-Chinese populations, particularly the Tibetans and the people of Xinjiang, both of whom have active ethnically-based separatist movements. Nevertheless, China – quite unlike Israel – makes no pretense to being a state that allows ANY of its people (despite ethnicity) political rights, the right of dissent, freedom of speech, or of self-determination. By all accounts, China is an authoritarian state controlled by a single political party (whose members come from all ethnicities) and everyone else is excluded from any political standing whatsoever. Further, the minorities do constitute relatively small minorities when juxtaposed against the overall population and although the ruling authoritarian party is dominated by the Chinese minority, members of minorities that follow the party are invited to full participation within its ranks. Effectively racist, certainly; officially racist, not really.
d) Korea (I’m assuming you mean South Korea) is also, like Japan, staunchly xenophobic and racist and I’m not aware of anyone who contests this either. Yet, again like Japan, what few minorities do exist in Korea are afforded the same standing as any other citizen, although they do face unofficial discrimination.
e) Saudi Arabia: This country is more “religious centric” than officially ethnocentric, having very strict – and official – policies regarding non-Muslims. However, as many Muslims from elsewhere have firmly attested (often from their visits during the Hajj) there is also blatant Arab-centric racism throughout the kingdom as well. However, despite being an autocratic state led by one extended family (the al-Saud), Saudi Arabia has virtually no indigenous non-Arab minorities at all and its current status is not maintained by excluding people based on their ethnicity.
f) Syria: The Syrian state is very much akin to the description provided above regarding China, excepting that the ruling family (the Assads) are themselves members of a Syrian minority (the Alawites). It is a largely homogeneous state with a developed minority separatist threat (the Kurds) dominated by a single party (the Ba’athists) who do welcome members regardless of ethnicity.
What is obvious here, despite various differences, is that NONE of the examples you provided describe states that only maintain their ethnocentric identities by literally – and forcibly – suppressing half their domestic populations based on ethnicity, as is the case with Israel. Now there ARE other states that are comparable, Sudan for example, but contrary to your contention, no one refuses to condemn them as being racist just as surely as Israel.
Hi Barry, thanks for the comments.
“I also agree that a two state solution seems quite unworkable. So how is it that Abbas and Olmert are going to the US to discuss just that? Is everyone blind to the reality or are they all playing some kind of a pantomime for some reason?”
First there is the context: specifically everyone accepts that the Israel/Palestine conflict is a gaping wound on the region that resonates throughout the area affecting many different issues. This means that almost everyone involved in the region as a vested interest in pushing Israel and the Palestinians to negotiate with one another.
For Israel, I believe that it has a vested propaganda interest in showing a willingness to negotiate, while at the same time doing whatever is necessary to maintain the status quo as none of the alternatives are currently acceptable. Israel can maintain the status quo for a while, but ultimately it is not sustainable.
On the Palestinian side, I suspect that they remain hopeful that the world community – and especially the US – will push Israel into accepting a compromise that they can live with. Of course this probably isn’t going to happen, at least not for the foreseeable future, so they are building up to yet another disappointment.
Realistically, I expect absolutely nothing but a continuation of the status quo to come out of Annapolis.
“However, I don't see how a one state solution will work either. The Jews have a huge persecution complex since the holocaust especially, and are convinced that giving up sovereignty would equal their total physical annihilation - not something that they're about to agree to.”
The problem here is that you’re reading the one state idea as a possible solution as opposed to recognizing it as the current de facto reality. There is already one state and this is the starting point, the separatist two state notion (assuming one means a viable and sustainable Palestinian state) is in fact a much more radical suggestion than accepting the current reality. To quote the former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem, Meron Benvenisti:
“My preference, as a Zionist, is for a Jewish nation-state, but I fear that the historical process that began in the aftermath of the 1967 war has brought about the gradual abrogation of this option. Hence, binationalism is not a political or ideological program so much as a de fact reality masquerading as a temporary state of affairs. It is a description of the current condition, not a prescription. … Thus, a de facto binational structure is, willy-nilly, becoming increasingly entrenched, based on direct and indirect control by the Jewish ethnic group over fragmented subgroups: Gazans, West Bankers, Jerusalemites, and Palestinian Israelis.” [Meron Benvenisti, “Son of the Cypresses,” U. of California Press, 2007, p. 209]
“The post zionists do not represent the average Israeli at all.”
Not yet, but this is changing.
“And I don't see how you could legally demand that a sovereign state be forced to annex territory that is not its own and make its residents citizens. (I understand that you think that one day Israelis will do so wilingly once they realize its the only path to peace).”
Actually, I believe that Israel will become serious about a viable two-state solution eventually (as opposed to the ghettoization/Bantustan schemes that have been put on the table to date); but by the time Israel reaches this conclusion, it will no longer be an acceptable option from the Palestinian perspective. Like it or not, starting from the current reality, as long as there are Jews living in Palestine, they will remain intimately entwined with the Palestinian people, just as was the case before the Zionist project began.
“I think the main difference between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and SA is that in Israel/Palestine you have many outside forces, such as Hamas, Syria, Iran that actively support the most extreme elements, which wasn't true in SA.”
Not true. As is well documented, the ANC received massive aid and support (political, diplomatic as well as practical) from the Soviet Bloc throughout the Cold War and the even more radical Pan-Africanists not only received Soviet Bloc aid, but also aid and support from much of post-colonial Africa’s more radical regimes. They (all the anti-Apartheid forces) maintained extensive ties with neighboring radicalized or destabilized states like Rhodesia/Zinbabwe (compare to Lebanon), Mozambique, Angola and so on. Similarly, like Israel under US patronage today, the Apartheid regime was also strongly aided and abetted by the UK & US on the opposing side of the Cold War.
“In other words, even if the Palestinians accept that they can't achieve total victory, outside forces, such as Iran, who do not have to live under the conditions that the Palestinians are living, will continue to undermine any attempt at compromise.”
I honestly don’t believe this is true, but I freely grant that as a subjective opinion I can’t prove your contention wrong. Iran – despite its jackass president who luckily has very little real power – has many more pressing issues. I think Iranian support for Palestine is pragmatic, that is, it is popular propaganda, as opposed to an intimate guiding principle of its foreign policy. Israel/Palestine is just too far away and too unconnected to much more important matters to be of that much importance to Iran. Should the propaganda value of supporting the Palestinian resistance diminish, as would be the case in the wake of a sustainable peace, I believe Iran would turn away immediately.
I do think your argument makes more sense in respect to Syria, as Syria is undeniably using its support for the Palestinian resistance as a means of maintaining pressure on Israel. However, almost everyone – even Israel’s own strategic thinkers like the Jaffee Center - knows that this threat could be resolved by peace with Syria (that is a mutually agreed resolution to the Golan occupation).
”1. What would the new state be called?”
I have no idea, nor is it something I’ve wasted much time on. Today, the de facto one state – that is, the only viable state currently existing in Israel/Palestine – is called Israel. What it will be called in the future? Who knows. The “Federal Republic of Israel and Palestine”?
“2. How did a Jew like you come to support the Palestininan cause?”
Because in the end the demand for a strictly “Jewish state” is not going to end up well for the Jewish people, be they Israeli Jews or Jews elsewhere. The demand to maintain the “Jewish state” in a land that is – and will remain – largely populated by non-Jews is neither sustainable nor – at least in my opinion – even desirable. Like it or not, the indigenous Palestinian people have perfectly reasonable grievances and demands and if the Jewish side doesn’t reach a mutually acceptable compromise (recognizing that the acceptable positions on both sides are constantly evolving) then the Zionist enterprise will inevitably result in a complete and utter disaster. We’re still thirty years off from the state of Israel lasting as long as the medieval Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem (which survived 1099-1187 CE) and is today little more than a historical footnote; the idea that things will survive as they are today indefinitely is nothing more than a fantasy. It is time we face the reality of the situation and start dealing with it as opposed to digging our heads in the sand and hoping everything will magically get better.
Jeru-salaam, -shalom & -salem,
Could you kindly comment, whether my details are correct in a dissident essay in
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Expelled-Jews-statistics.htm ?
E.g. "...Tel Aviv - The Silicon Wadi?
Tel Aviv (literally: Dumb-Hill of Spring) was plain desert at the beginning of the 20th century. Today, in the advent of her 100th year celebrations in 2009, it is the Silicon Wadi (Valley) of the Mediterranean since 1990's.
It is United States that profits from Israel, rather than the opposite. Israel gets nearly 3 billion USD from USA annually, but open brain drain is its prerequisite. Astonishing number of 25% of the Israeli researchers have moved to the United States - and this figure does not yet include the people with double citizenship. The next largest drain of researchers are 12.2% from Canada, 4.3% from Netherlands, and 4.2% from Italy.
Before the Second Intifada, there were nearly 200 Israeli companies listed in the Nasdaq, at the Intifada the count dropped to 70. (The number is still greater than from all the European countries combined). It is said that the dollars are green since the Americans pull them down from the tree raw and fresh. The start-ups are imported straight from the garage, and scaling up of production in the "conflict hotspot" has been considered impossible. But the new Millennium has brought a change in tide.
In Israel, 20% of citizens possess a higher decree from the university. Over half of the export from Israel are High tech products (32 $ billion in 2007), compared to the 25% average of the OECD countries. Israel's GDP is about $200 billion. She exhibits second highest output of new book per citizen and more patents per person than any other nation. Nobels, by definition, are awarded to the people who have made services to the whole world, and 21% of the prizes have gone to this population of less that 17 million, taking both Eretz Israel and galut (diaspora) into account.
The population of Arabs under the Israeli government increased ten-fold in only 57 years. Palestinian life expectancy increased from 48 to 72 years in 1967-95. The death rate decreased by over 2/3 in 1970-90 and the Israeli medical campaigns decreased the child death rate from a level of 60 per 1000 in 1968 to 15 per 1000 in 2000 at the Westbank. (An analogous figure was 64 in Iraq, 40 in Egypt, 23 in Jordan, and 22 in Syria in 2000). During 1967-88 the amount of comprehensive schoold and second level polytechnic institutes for the Arabs was increased by 35%. During 1970-86 the proportion of Palestinian women at the West Bank and Gaza not having gone to school decreased from 67 % to 32 %. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita in West Bank and Gaza increased in 1968-1991 from 165 US dollars to 1715 dollars (compare with 1630$ in Turkey, 1440$ in Tunis, 1050$ in Jordan, 800$ in Syria, 600$ in Egypt. and 400$ in Yemen).
How has the United Nations reacted to such an impact especially in the field of medicine and health care? One-fourth of the judgements of the Human Rights Commission strike Israel.
There is a pious smoke screen on the industrial countries mediating peace to the Middle East. A collaboration between the Jews with their technology and science and Arabs with their oil and loyality has been a great nightmare for the Western countries. The intimate friendship between the cousin "races", as officially declared by Chaim Weizmann and Emir Feisal in Versailles peace conference, was deliberately mutilated. The Second Intifada could be called The Oslo War.
Aviv is Hebrew for "spring", symbolizing renewal, and tel is an archaeological site that reveals layers of civilization built one over the other. The Jewish population has been such a layer of native culture not only in the Palestine, and the expulsion of the native Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews from various Muslim countries since 1948 has been al nakba, catastrophe, for these societies..."
Recovering from hemorrhage in the left hemisphere of the brain,
Pauli.Ojala@gmail.com, evolutionary critic
Biochemist, drop-out (MSci-Master of Sciing)
Helsinki, Finland
PS. Jeshua ("Joshua") was the prophezied Prince of Peace of the Isaiah. The Jewish prince just isn't the king yet but considered a heathen and a pagan, in the city of peace.
Post a Comment