The truth does not win; the truth is just what is left when everything else is wasted
Quote of the day
Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
openDemocracy likes
NavigationOur writers |
 |
humanity and nationalism: a response to Omar BarghoutiPosts: Joined: 2003-01-17
I very much enjoy OpenDemocracy, and find it one of the few places on-line or otherwise where people who disagree can actually discuss matters with one another.
In that spirit, I would like to say to Mr. Barghouti that Zionism is Jewish Nationalism, as such it is no better and no worse than other nationalisms. Zionism is unlikely to disappear soon for the same reason that Arab Nationalism (of which Palestinian Nationalism is a branch)is likely to persist. It addresses some deep need to belong, and it provides solidarity in what seems a dangerous and lonely world.
One of the worst facets of any nationalism is the tendency to define others' needs as secondary to that of the in-group. There are many unattractive statements made by Zionists, as there are many unattractive statements made by Palestinians. Those of us who would like to see peace in the Levant whether as two states, one federal state or one unitary state, and I hope Mr. Barghouti is in this group, need to emphasize our common humanity, and search for national identities compatible with everyone's humanity. I am not sure that Mr. Barghouti's article meets this standard.
What might the elements of a peaceful resolution look like?
1) All of us are human, and all of us deserve full civil rights.
2) Neither Jews nor Palestinians are historically oppressors. Both have connections to the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. Both have suffered greatly in the 20th century.
3) God is not a real estate agent, nor does God administer a title office.
4) Most of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine lived as subjects of a decaying and autocratic Ottoman empire, then an autocratic British mandate. They have nowhere else to call home.
5) Most Jewish residents of Israel are refugees from places that do not want them back as citizens with full civil rights (whether Germany, Poland, Russia, Morocco, Egypt, Iraq, Iran ....). They have nowhere else to call home.
6) Both sides have practiced terrorism when powerless.
7) Both sides and their allies have made dreadful mistakes. Both sides have failed to recognize the humanity and desperation of the other side.
8) Both sides have suffered losses that cannot ever be fully recompensed. Justice cannot be perfect justice for one side and catastrophe for the other.
9) There is room between the Jordan and the Mediterranean for both peoples to co-exist and begin to repair the damage they have done each other.
10) There are 4 questions to be asked about a piece of land.What individuals have a right to visit this land? What individuals have a right to reside on the land? What individuals own the land? To what political entity does the belong, and who has rights of citizenship there. By conflating these 4 issues we can make any dispute unresolvable.
Submitted on Fri, 2004-04-09 16:10
Re: humanity and nationalism: a response to Omar Barghouti
> I am not sure that Mr.
> Barghouti's article meets this standard.
>
> What might the elements of a peaceful resolution look
> like?
> 1) All of us are human, and all of us deserve full
> civil rights.
I thought that the purpose of the article was to point out that the Israeli side, the one holding the key to the resolution of this dispute, does not truly accept your #1 element.
Using perverse guilt-assignment logic and manipulation of the historical narrative, most Israelis hold a world view in which Palestinians themselves, as well as other Arab countries, are the ones primarily responsible for the Palestinians' misery. Israelis, therefore, do not feel a moral obligation to address the Palestinians' lack of civil rights or to compensate them for their losses. This is a key factor blocking progress and, therefore, needs to be recognized and addressed.
In my view, the Israeli government should issue a formal apology to the Palestinian people. Although this step would surely go a long way towards building good will on the Palestinian side and does not require giving up land or taking a security risk, it is, unfortunately, unlikely to happen soon because of lack of a sufficient sense of a guilt amongst Israelis.
In the meanwhile, I, as someone whose forefathers helped establish the state of Israel and, therefore, participated in an act that predictably caused the misery of the Palestinian refugees, would like to take this opportunity to personally apologize to those refugees and ask for their forgiveness. Furthermore, as an officer who commanded a unit which patrolled Palestinian refugee camps in the West Bank, I would like to apologize to all those who were humiliated by my unit's presence and activities.
I am currently living in Canada. If I ever return to Israel, I plan to invest significant efforts and money to assist Palestinians in obtaining justice in reparation for my and my forefathers' sins.
Doron Dekel
Submitted on Sat, 2004-04-10 04:58
reply Re: humanity and nationalism: a response to Omar Barghouti
Gimpelthefoolz, Doron and others may be interested to read an article by Linda Grant, a British novelist who happens to be Jewish, published in The Guardian (UK) on 8 April 2004 (see Inside the Bubble at http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1187955,00.html ).
Grant lived says she found Israel to be a society in a profound state of denial. She was horrified to conclude that there may be no solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Grant talked to people on the Israeli left would doubt the feasibilty of a one state solution advocated by Omar Barghouti within any foreseeable timeframe. So, for example, Hilel Schenker, co-managing editor of the Palestine-Israel journal, the only publication jointly edited and run by both Palestinians and Israelis told Grant:
'[Belief in a one state solution] resonante[s] abroad, particularly among radical Palestinians opposed to the PA [Palestinian Authority] and anti-Zionist leftists...but there is absolutely no meaningful constituency in Israel that will respond to an international struggle for a single state. And given the level of mutual trauma that both people are experiencing, I doubt whether one can find such a constituency among the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza either. The PLO and PA are committed to a two-state solution, while Hamas and some angry desperate refugees want a Muslim one-state solution.'
Grant continues:
'To Gershon Baskin, co-director of the Israel-Palestine centre for research and information, the one-state solution is not utopia, but a recipe for genocide, "a plan that will, in my view," he writes, "lead to decades of cross-communal conflict and bloodshed that will turn Israel and Palestine into Sarajevo. (In Israel/Palestine we have had some 3,200 deaths in three years, in Sarajevo the conflict cost some 250,000 casualties before people came to their senses.)" Already, there is "a new generation of Palestinian and Israeli young people living in fear and breeding hatred. The collective memories and stories of this new generation are being filled with anger and deep desire to see the other side suffer." '
'After four months in Israel, and hundreds of hours of conversations, I found not a scrap of evidence that Jewish Israelis will ever agree to a peace deal that will result in them becoming, within a generation or two, a minority dependent on the good-will of a Palestinian majority in a region without democracy or any real human rights. As the novelist David Grossman told me, "There is not enough reassurance in the galaxy for Israelis." '
Is Linda Grant being too pessimistic?
Submitted on Sat, 2004-04-10 13:04
reply Re: humanity and nationalism: a response to Omar Barghouti
> Is Linda Grant being too pessimistic?
It depends on what you mean by pessimistic. I think Linda Grant has done a fairly good job over the past four months; those who are interested in similar endeavors might search for a series written on Israel by former AP correspondent Sylvana Foa for the Village Voice. If the goal to pound Israelis in being a minority again, then no, I don't think she was being pessimistic; no Jew with sanity, self-respect or a sense of history for Judaism will accept returning to being a minority without a Jewish state anywhere, particularly in a place like the Middle East. What many fail to understand is that Israel brings Jews security by its very existence; the violence and difficulty is secondary to that. Omar Barghouti is a guy who wants one big Palestinian state. The fact that he couches this in leftist terms is immaterial. Every day he persists in threatening Jews with this argument, he risks creating a consensus in Israel for a one-state solution - the one-state solution favored by the settlers who want a one-state solution. That is where one-state discussion inevitably leads.
There is denial on both sides, but particularly on the far reaches of the Israeli left, which continues to chant this mantra, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, that the PA and PLO want a two state solution. They haven't shown any evidence of that. They've told their people otherwise, educated their children to believe otherwise, and said otherwise themselves. The opposite is true of Israeli conduct during Oslo; they prepared their people for peace, educated their children for peace, and gave speeches for peace.
If she was talking about the two-state solution, then perhaps she is being overly pessimistic. The two-state solution was very close to being achieved before 2000, when Yasir Arafat decided to blow it up, rejecting a deal offering over 90% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, removal of most of settlements and responding by releasing a bunch of Hamas terrorists from jail and helping to convince Israelis that Barak was a failure. I am sure that we will get back to that point eventually.
Submitted on Sat, 2004-04-10 18:40
reply Re: humanity and nationalism: a response to Omar Barghouti
I visit Israel very often, and have many friends and family there. Denial is, indeed, the key word to understanding the Israeli psyche. The list of issues Israelis are in denial about is far too long for me to spend the time going through here. Certainly there is purposeful widespread disengagement from reality (the bubble in the title of Linda's article), just so people could continue to live normal lives.
The most fundamental truth Israelis are denying is that Zionism has failed and is, by all likelihood, doomed.
The sole aim of Zionism was to create a place where Jews could feel secure in their Jewishness. Ironically, it has created the exact opposite. Nowhere else on earth do Jews feel so threatened and fear for their future as they are in Israel. There is no place other than Israel in which Jews are systematically targeted for lethal violence (25,000 killed and counting), where they are so hated and despised, as in Israel. Furthermore, Israel has had little or nothing to do with the weakening and near-disappearance of anti-Semitism in modern western democracies (all forms of racial discrimination disappeared), and everything to do with its recent small-scale reappearance in Europe.
More importantly, Zionism's future prospects are bleak indeed. Israel is surrounded by a sea of Arabs and a world in which formal discrimination based on ethnicity and/or religious affiliation is increasingly unacceptable. Even if a 2-state solution is shortly implemented, and hatred is wiped out quickly afterwards, (both not very likely) a far higher Arab birth rates and a constant influx of Arab immigrants into Israel will continue to tilt the population balance against the Jews. Even if the discriminatory law of settlement (khok hashvut) is not abolished, there are no more significant sources of Alia (immigration) to increase the Jewish numbers. Probably the opposite is true - with the disappearance of the unifying siege mentality, increasing numbers of Jews would more readily leave to look for better life elsewhere. International pressure would force Israel to cancel all discrimination against non-Jews, allowing Arabs equal civil rights. As usual in Israeli politics, it is sufficient that a party obtains 15% of voters to become powerful, and the Arabs would, therefore, become powerful politically well in advance of becoming a majority. They would demand and obtain further weakening of the "Jewishness" of the country, dropping the bottom off of Zionism.
A good resolution to this conflict can only be found when it would no longer be possible for Jewish Israelis to live in denial of the failure and impending collapse of the Zionist dream. Like with the fall of communism, the Israeli economy has to collapse for this to happen quickly. It is already shrinking and will likely continue to shrink as long as peace remains unattainable, and, due to demographics and a disintegrating educational system, probably afterwards as well. Economical collapse would happen much faster if the US would withdraw its support and the EU would place trading barriers and, perhaps, sanctions against Israel. If neither one would happen before a 2-state solution is implemented, the collapse would be slower and prolonged (as I described above), but it is, unfortunately, inevitable.
I'm optimistic that, one way or the other, Zionism will disappear into oblivion in a generation or two, allowing both Jews and Arabs to live in peace and prosper.
Submitted on Sat, 2004-04-10 22:38
reply Re: humanity and nationalism: a response to Omar Barghouti
> The most fundamental truth Israelis are denying is
> that Zionism has failed and is, by all likelihood,
> doomed.
This is doomsday talk from an anti-Zionist. Zionism hasn't failed. Like any struggle for nationalism, it is undergoing test and test, passing each one.
> The sole aim of Zionism was to create a place where
> Jews could feel secure in their Jewishness.
> Ironically, it has created the exact opposite.
> Nowhere else on earth do Jews feel so threatened and
> fear for their future as they are in Israel. There is
> no place other than Israel in which Jews are
> systematically targeted for lethal violence (25,000
> killed and counting), where they are so hated and
> despised, as in Israel.
This is just a myopic reading. From the beginning, Zionists knew settling Israel would not be easy. But only someone who is unrealistic would look at Israel, a democratic state with overwhelming power in the region, as a failure and define security solely in terms of whether the Arabs are offering it. The point is that the Jews have it, not the Arabs don't want us to have it.
Furthermore, Israel has had
> little or nothing to do with the weakening and
> near-disappearance of anti-Semitism in modern western
> democracies (all forms of racial discrimination
> disappeared), and everything to do with its recent
> small-scale reappearance in Europe.
>
This too is incorrect; ask American Jews what Israel has meant to them and how having a Jewish state has impact their relationships with their neighbors. It has made an enormous difference. The notion that "all forms of racial discrimination" have disappeared from western democracies is a utopian fairy tale; Europe is rife with racism toward non-white, non-Christian people and has a serious antisemitism problem, not to mention its Islamophobia problem.
> More importantly, Zionism's future prospects are
> bleak indeed. Israel is surrounded by a sea of Arabs
> and a world in which formal discrimination based on
> ethnicity and/or religious affiliation is
> increasingly unacceptable.
This too is nonsense. It is accepted in most of the countries of the world and unofficial in just about every European country.
Even if a 2-state solution
> is shortly implemented, and hatred is wiped out
> quickly afterwards, (both not very likely) a far
> higher Arab birth rates and a constant influx of Arab
> immigrants into Israel will continue to tilt the
> population balance against the Jews. Even if the
> discriminatory law of settlement (khok hashvut) is
> not abolished, there are no more significant sources
> of Alia (immigration) to increase the Jewish numbers.
There are stil more Russian Jews and many American Jews, but if there is a two-state solution, there is no reason to believe that the Arab population will approach the Jewish population numbers anytime soon.
> Probably the opposite is true - with the
> disappearance of the unifying siege mentality,
> increasing numbers of Jews would more readily leave
> to look for better life elsewhere.
You can't make the argument both ways. Many Jews have left because of the violence. You can't argue that many Jews will leave because of the lack of violence. The opposite is probable.
International
> pressure would force Israel to cancel all
> discrimination against non-Jews, allowing Arabs equal
> civil rights.
International pressure would not be necessary; as soon as there is a final status agreement, any formal discrimination against Israeli Arabs will end. Before the second violent Intifada, Barak was moving toward granting Israeli Arabs greater civil rights.
As usual in Israeli politics, it is
> sufficient that a party obtains 15% of voters to
> become powerful, and the Arabs would, therefore,
> become powerful politically well in advance of
> becoming a majority. They would demand and obtain
> further weakening of the "Jewishness" of the country,
> dropping the bottom off of Zionism.
The Arabs are already politically powerful; every Labor PM has needed the Arab vote to get elected. It has not weakened Zionism; it has merely stregthened democracy.
> A good resolution to this conflict can only be found
> when it would no longer be possible for Jewish
> Israelis to live in denial of the failure and
> impending collapse of the Zionist dream. Like with
> the fall of communism, the Israeli economy has to
> collapse for this to happen quickly. It is already
> shrinking
It is actually expanding, from what I understand, and literally exploded during the 1990s.
and will likely continue to shrink as long
> as peace remains unattainable, and, due to
> demographics and a disintegrating educational system,
> probably afterwards as well. Economical collapse
> would happen much faster if the US would withdraw its
> support and the EU would place trading barriers and,
> perhaps, sanctions against Israel.
Neither will happen nor should happen; withdrawal of US aid is not, at this point, likely to make a great difference.
If neither one
> would happen before a 2-state solution is
> implemented, the collapse would be slower and
> prolonged (as I described above), but it is,
> unfortunately, inevitable.
>
> I'm optimistic that, one way or the other, Zionism
> will disappear into oblivion in a generation or two,
> allowing both Jews and Arabs to live in peace and
> prosper.
You're overoptimistic, and you're pushing, according to Gershon Baskin, a recipe for genocide based on your left-wing views.
Michael Brenner
Submitted on Sun, 2004-04-11 06:31
reply Re: humanity and nationalism: a response to Omar Barghouti
> Zionism
> hasn't failed. Like any struggle for nationalism, it
> is undergoing test and test, passing each one.
>
There is, of course, the option that I am right and you are in denial.
How can we tell the difference?
One option is to look at relevant facts. There are factual errors in your response, which I can point out. However, given the complexity of the issue, you could easily bring up other facts, and it would be a long debate that would consume a lot of my time and yours.
Another option is to look at trends in mood of Jews, both in Israel and outside. As the decades progress, are they feeling more optimistic regarding the future of Israel as a Jewish country? Do they feel Jews in the diaspora would do the right thing by coming to Israel? Do they feel Israeli Jews leaving Israel are doing the wrong thing? Is Zionism gaining increasing support in the diaspora?
As someone who frequently travels back and forth between Israel, North America and Europe, I feel confident in answering that the general trend for Zionism is, and has been for 20 years now, negative. Zionism is losing hope and momentum. Since the conflict will not be resolved shortly, this trend can only continue. In fact, it would accelerate, since Israel is increasingly seen, even by Jews outside Israel, as a country in moral decline. To support it overtly increasingly means to support oppression and corruption. I hear Jews in the diaspora increasingly saying: "Please don't associate us with Israel. We do not want to share the blame." This is, of course, a mild form of anti-Zionism, which, by all signs, would grow.
A third option, perhaps the most useful one, is to look at the conceptual fundamentals. I left Israel 15 years ago not because the situation there became unbearable to me. I left because I figured out that Zionism is fundamentally doomed and its death would be long and painful. Like communism, its self-destruction is a result of the concept itself, not of one implementation or another.
The concept of "Jewish democracy" is a contradiction in terms. As you already accepted, Israel's survival as a democracy depends on providing full equality to all its citizens. This means that government cannot give formal preference to Jewish citizens over non-Jewish citizens, Jewish customs over non-Jewish customs. In turn, this means that the country needs to shed its "Jewishness" in all but the most superficial aspects of pomp and ceremony. Therefore, it cannot last as an exclusive Jewish state.
It would be foolish to think that Israel can enshrine racial discrimination and get away with it forever. The formal Jewishness of the state would have to go. This is not to say that informal Jewishness would have to go as well. It need not and would not. But then, informal Jewishness is widespread in many places in the world. In fact, the largest Jewish city in the world is New York, not Tel-Aviv.
>You're overoptimistic, and you're pushing, according
> to Gershon Baskin, a recipe for genocide based on
> your left-wing views.
My hometown in Israel is Haifa, a racially mixed city. There was never any deep hatred between Jews and Arabs in this city, and, despite all the current troubles, there still isn't. Anyone who claims that a shared Arab-Jewish government is a recipe for genocide is either an ignorant or a manipulative fear-monger.
Jews and Arabs lived peacefully side-by-side in Palestine (and in most of the Muslim world) for millennia before Zionism, and they will return to peaceful coexistence once Zionism dies out.
Submitted on Sun, 2004-04-11 14:01
reply Re: humanity and nationalism: a response to Omar Barghouti
> Another option is to look at trends in mood of Jews,
> both in Israel and outside. As the decades progress,
> are they feeling more optimistic regarding the future
> of Israel as a Jewish country? Do they feel Jews in
> the diaspora would do the right thing by coming to
> Israel? Do they feel Israeli Jews leaving Israel are
> doing the wrong thing? Is Zionism gaining increasing
> support in the diaspora?
In my neck of the woods, support for Israel has increased a great deal since the beginning of the Intifada.
> As someone who frequently travels back and forth
> between Israel, North America and Europe, I feel
> confident in answering that the general trend for
> Zionism is, and has been for 20 years now, negative.
> Zionism is losing hope and momentum. Since the
> conflict will not be resolved shortly, this trend can
> only continue. In fact, it would accelerate, since
> Israel is increasingly seen, even by Jews outside
> Israel, as a country in moral decline. To support it
> overtly increasingly means to support oppression and
> corruption. I hear Jews in the diaspora increasingly
> saying: "Please don't associate us with Israel. We do
> not want to share the blame." This is, of course, a
> mild form of anti-Zionism, which, by all signs, would
> grow.
>
I bet you spend a lot of time around Jews of the far-left.
> A third option, perhaps the most useful one, is to
> look at the conceptual fundamentals. I left Israel 15
> years ago not because the situation there became
> unbearable to me.
I don't think you are exactly typical.
I left because I figured out that
> Zionism is fundamentally doomed and its death would
> be long and painful. Like communism, its
> self-destruction is a result of the concept itself,
> not of one implementation or another.
>
You may believe that, but most Jews and Israelis do not.
> The concept of "Jewish democracy" is a contradiction
> in terms. As you already accepted, Israel's survival
> as a democracy depends on providing full equality to
> all its citizens. This means that government cannot
> give formal preference to Jewish citizens over
> non-Jewish citizens, Jewish customs over non-Jewish
> customs. In turn, this means that the country needs
> to shed its "Jewishness" in all but the most
> superficial aspects of pomp and ceremony. Therefore,
> it cannot last as an exclusive Jewish state.
It is not any more a contradiction in terms than "Christian" democracy, which is exactly what prevails throughout Europe, where states are kept mostly white and Christian through immigration policy and culture.
> It would be foolish to think that Israel can enshrine
> racial discrimination and get away with it forever.
> The formal Jewishness of the state would have to go.
> This is not to say that informal Jewishness would
> have to go as well. It need not and would not. But
> then, informal Jewishness is widespread in many
> places in the world. In fact, the largest Jewish city
> in the world is New York, not Tel-Aviv.
This proves nothing. Even in New York, Jews are still only around 20 percent of the population, if that much. In Israel, Jews are 80 percent of the population. It the percentage, not the quantity, that matters.
> >You're overoptimistic, and you're pushing, according
>
> > to Gershon Baskin, a recipe for genocide based on
> > your left-wing views.
>
> My hometown in Israel is Haifa, a racially mixed
> city. There was never any deep hatred between Jews
> and Arabs in this city, and, despite all the current
> troubles, there still isn't. Anyone who claims that a
> shared Arab-Jewish government is a recipe for
> genocide is either an ignorant or a manipulative
> fear-monger.
Then Gershon Baskin is either ignorant or a manipulative fear-monger. I think you'll find that things will be different if Jews feel Arabs are trying to take over the state.
> Jews and Arabs lived peacefully side-by-side in
> Palestine (and in most of the Muslim world) for
> millennia before Zionism, and they will return to
> peaceful coexistence once Zionism dies out.
This is simply a distortion, albeit a popular one on the far left. Jews were always second-class citizens in Muslim lands, subject to special taxes and restricted rights. If this is the definition of peaceful coexistence, then Israel meets it now, even with some discrimination against Israeli Arabs.
Michael Brenner
Submitted on Mon, 2004-04-12 08:57
reply Re: humanity and nationalism: a response to Omar Barghouti
A bi-national state would not in any way resemble Haifa. It would contain a toxic mix of fanatical settlers, Islamic fundamentalists, and generations of young people scarred by hatred and their experience, on both sides, of intifada, and on the Palestinian side of refugee status in camps in Lebanon and elsewhere.
That's the reality it would start from.
I met a number of foreign correspondents working for the European media, publications that most people here would not think innately pro-Israel. I can't name names in terms of people's private positions, but no-one thought a one-state solution was remotely viable.
Submitted on Mon, 2004-04-12 10:01
reply Re: humanity and nationalism: a response to Omar Barghouti
mbrenner and doron are having quite a set to. I have to say that trying to dismiss your opponents view as 'this is nonsense' as mbrenner is doing, shows a real sign of weakness in his argument.This tactic is typical of those that think that assertion is a substitute for fact.
The accusation of those on the right that everyone that is critical of Israel is a 'left wing zealot' is itself nonsensical. In the UK the cricism of Isaeli policy is across the politcal spectrum. Tony Blair is not representative of the majority British opinion as he has too closely associated himself with Bush and his neoconservatives advisors.
The increase in anti-semitism in Europe is directly linked to the Israel/Palestine conflict. However there is also a consdierable amount of latent anti-semitism in the US among the Christian Right,but Muslims are figuring significantly more so with them now than Jews .
The backwoods anti-semitism has never disappeared.
The 'comfort' that mbrenner claims that Israel affords the diaspora Jews, was indeed a fact in the past but is now becoming the reverse. The pride that Jews took in the Israeli Defence Force during the 1950's to 1970's was based on the fighting qualities that it had shown against the Arab armies and it spoke directly against the view of the 'legendary' weakness of the Jews, particularly aftert the Holocaust , when it appeared that they went like sheep to the slaughter. The courage shown in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising was not noticed enough to eliminate the previous stigma of weakness or cowardice.
The situation is now totally different with much of the rest of the world, seeing the Palestinians as the victims of a brutal Israeli military.
Among the chattering classes in the UK and in Europe the following hypothesis is now being entertained, more or less. It is that the Jewish neonservative 'brains' figured out a few decades ago that having a secure oil suppy denominated in DOLLARS ,the petrodollar, (the supply of US Dollars via the printing presses is infinite)is vital to the US economy. It was perceived, after the Iranian revolution, that the US no longer had the secure strategic footing that the Shah of Persia provided and that under certain circumstances it could be persuaded to engineer another client State. Saudi Arabia had occupied this position in a sense but had a problem in that it had a fundamentalist basis. Iraq under Saddam in the 1980's was not an option but after the Gulf War it could be.
The opportunity for the neoconservatives came with 9/11 and a President who had a mixture of motives; the importance that he attached to a brand of Christianity that is called born again and is fervent in some people with a particular psychopathology; the feeling of the need to demonstrate his leadership qualities that had never been previously evidenced in any real way ( while Governor of Texas, the Lieutentant Governor had in fact been the States's main administrator); an idee fixe about 'freedom' and bringing it to the oppressed Iraqis; and a strongly held commerical and free market view because of his own priveleged background and friendship with a bevy of cronies from the oil industry.
There also appears to be a vindictive side to his personality as is evidenced by his poor taste in humour, when he made a joke about looking for WMD under his office table , at a time when US soldiers were being killed on a daily basis alongside very many Iraqis. It quite conceivable that this aspect of his personality allowed him to punish Saddam and not be too bothered about the ensuing collateral damage to Iraqi civilians.
The problem is that the likelyhood of the US creating the compliant, client State that it intends for Iraq, with its own man, Ahmad Chalabi or someone like him, who will act as their puppet, is now looking less clear. In fact it is likely that the neoconservative dream will backfire with a vengeance , as the Iraqis have identified the limited and flawed model of 'democracy' that the US wants, with a long standing Israeli plot to subordinate their country and government to Israel's interests.
Sometime in the not too distant future, the US will recognise that 1.5 billion Muslims cannot be subdued for the sake of Israel's security or even its own aim of hegemony,without it threatening its own interests, in terms of terrorism that kills people and /or disrupts the world economy. The lesson will be hard and as in Vietnam, it may take ten years or longer but it will happen. Without the support of the US , Israel will then be exposed in a way that it has never been before. All the nuclear bombs and other weapons will be of no avail. It will not be possible to eliminate other Muslim nuclear State/s such as Pakistan without facing the same fate.In fact the use of nuclear weapons and even newer smarter ones, with lower radiocactive fallout, will not be an option in such a small country and against people who have demonstrated that they are prepared for a martys death in confronting their enemy.
The neoconservative idea of creating a 'democratic' Middle East,is in fact a sham and is all about seperating the Muslims from their faith by introducing Western culture and 'values' in the hope that these will bring about its decline. This is the worst way of tryng to solve the enduring problem as the sheer hypocricy of those from one ancient faith trying to remove or bury another is obvious to all thinking Arabs and Muslims.
The only hope and it is doubtful if anything can succeed in the longer term, is that the clique of dangerous ideologues in Washington will be seperated from power and a new and different approach made to the region,under a multilateral umbrella, and which is not so one sided.
Message was edited by: brolly2_1
Message was edited by: brolly2_1
Message was edited by: brolly2_1
Submitted on Mon, 2004-04-12 00:59
reply Re: humanity and nationalism: a response to Omar Barghouti
M. Brenner:
"It's a state where Jews control their own destiny rather than being at the whim of a foreign power."
Sorry to disturb, but do you see why this remark can appear a bit odd, just as Sharon is demonstrating openly
his dependency on current US- administration support? Where would the "destiny" for the Israeli public be rooted if not at the goodwill of the worlds remaining super- power?
Submitted on Fri, 2004-04-16 09:33
reply Re: humanity and nationalism: a response to Omar Barghouti
> M. Brenner:
>
> "It's a state where Jews control their own destiny
> rather than being at the whim of a foreign power."
>
> Sorry to disturb, but do you see why this remark can
> appear a bit odd, just as Sharon is demonstrating
> openly
> his dependency on current US- administration support?
> Where would the "destiny" for the Israeli public be
> rooted if not at the goodwill of the worlds remaining
> super- power?
There is some truth to this. But it is the Israeli choice to be associated with the US in this way and the US choice to be associated with it, and frankly, it is very different from living in the diaspora as a minority. And frankly, having a state does not mean that it should have no allies.
Submitted on Fri, 2004-04-16 15:33
reply Re: humanity and nationalism: a response to Omar Barghouti
While I welcome your time in composing your response, I do find it a bit short on facts, as well as particularly curious in its logic.
First, Zionism is not Jewish nationalism. Jewish nationalism, to the extent it would exist, would have taken place in Europe -- the homeland of all but a few of those who claim a Jewish identity. It is not appropriate to define the illegal taking of lands in Palestine to be nationalistic because such would imply the territories of the Palestine belong to the Zionists. More appropriate, it is best to state that the acts by the Zionist in Palestine is an expression of colonialism and violence. This is the proper characteristic of the Zionist's expressions.
Second, it is inappropriate to use the term "Jewish", in this discussion. Although the term may serve as convenient label for Israelis, it does not precisely define nor reflect the opinions of a significant numbers of "Jews" in the occupied territories, the US, and many other places in the world. These persons do not support the occupation, nor Zionist practices aimed at emasculating or otherwise eliminating Palestinians and other Arabs in the disputed territories or broader Middle East.
The acts by the Palestinians are in fact a resistance movement. They seek less to capture a territory, than to minimalize losses.
Last, the conflicts cannot be viewed as one involving two equal sides that are in a struggle. The Zionists are in power, and their power is not matched nor checked by a countervailing Palestinian response. And, in the struggle, there is a complete lack of balance. To the extent any balance has existed, it chiefly consisted for US influences against unmatched Zionist aggressions in the region. Now, however, that the US has conceded to Zionists influences, it effectively foregoes position of moderating or acting as a counter-balance to Israeli acts of aggression, or Zionist occupation in Palestine.
Submitted on Fri, 2004-04-16 21:01
reply Re: humanity and nationalism: a response to Omar Barghouti
gollarym,
You need to learn a few things about Jewish demographic history first. The late demographic dominance of Ashkenazim (Yiddish Jews) in the Diaspora is the result of a demographic explosion in the post-medieval period.
Second, Jewish nationalism now and before modern Jewish nationalism or Zionism has always been centered on the Land of Israel. This has been the case throughout Jewish history, whether at home in Israel or in the Diaspora.
Also, let me remind you that no nation state practices slave morality in pursuing its national interests in the zero sum game of international politics.
Submitted on Sat, 2004-04-17 02:03
reply Post new comment |
|
|
