More on boycotting the settlements, and some reactions
Photo: Flickr / creap
Along with an apology for my recent quiet I hope you’ll accept this offering of some interesting reading, coming mainly out of Israel, on issues relating to the settlement boycott I’ve come out in favour of.
First, a Jerusalem Post editorial:
Beinart and Gal-On have good intentions, though they go about achieving their goals in a counterproductive way. They hope to neutralize the demographic threat to Israel’s Jewish majority represented by the millions of Palestinians living on the West Bank and Gaza.
And motivated by a healthy Jewish morality, they want to see the end to Israel’s rule over Palestinians.
Meanwhile, Beinart has proposed that along with the boycott targeting settlements products, a parallel effort should be made to buy goods and services produced by Israeli firms located inside the Green Line – an unabashedly pro-Israel move.
I disagree it’s counterproductive — to reply to the Post’s points in order: this isn’t intended to be the only way to bring about a peaceful end to the conflict, it’s just a way that everyday Israelis and Zionists can contribute ethically to that end; I choose not to buy from any settlement because those settlements are often being extended, and actively inflame tensions, having said that if the government of Israel came out and said ‘we’ll keep settlement X and Y and give you land Z in return’ and the Palestinians agreed I would likely reconsider — but that the Post considers “Zionist BDS”, as Beinart puts it, a phrase I incidentally think terrible, a legitimate Zionist viewpoint is reassuring.
Not so Isi Leibler though (as we all know):
The editorial makes the outrageous claim that left-wing Jews living in the Diaspora who call for global boycotts of Israeli settlements may be considered as acting within a Zionist framework. [...]
When [Diaspora Jews] call for global boycotts of Israeli settlements, they are effectively promoting delegitimization and paving the way for broader boycotts. Besides, unlike their delusional Israeli counterparts, they are mere observers, physically unaffected by the negative repercussions of their actions.
This Diaspora negation was something, I’m sure, Leibler would have despised in his day as an Australian Jewish leader. Israel is a project of all the Jewish people, and it would be tragic for me not to do something to help Israel (be it give to an Israeli charity or boycott settlements) just because I wasn’t living there. That makes little sense to me (and I and my fellow Australians would now like our millions of UIA dollars back, please).
Finally, from Gideon Levy, whose column about the settlement boycott contained this luminous point (which of course Antony Loewenstein completely misunderstood and took for him advocating complete BDS, but what can you do?):
Those who want to buy illegal products should buy Bagel & Bagel items, toilets made by Lipsky, cosmetics manufactured by Ahava, mushrooms from Tekoa, or wine from the Psagot or Golan Heights wineries. Those who want to bolster the settlement enterprise and reinforce it can buy these products and enjoy them.
But those who want to make a minimal act of protest against this sinful enterprise are invited to boycott it and refrain from buying from it. For my part, I shall continue to read the fine print on every product. The citizens of the world also have this right.
There is something about Leibler’s writing that strikes me. Those who yell, scream and try to censor are scared. They can see the future generation of Jews and Zionists claiming their mantle and saying they don’t want Israel to be like they do. We want Israel to be free and democratic, and unshackled by an immoral occupation. Talking about this, acting individually on this, terrifies this leadership.
Israel cannot sustain the settlement project and remain Jewish and democratic. It is simple. If my choice, as someone who wouldn’t readily come across something from a West Bank settlement anyway, is to refuse/boycott to economically contribute to national suicide, then that should be fine. But when my choice — and those of other liberal Zionists — evokes this extraordinary reaction, it shows something much deeper.
“There is something about Leibler’s writing that strikes me. Those who yell, scream and try to censor are scared.”
Come on dude, that’s a very easy and very self-righteous answer to give. You can do better than that.
Really? I disagree, MK. It’s all well and good to disagree, but to shun someone out of a Zionist conversation, or to actively try silence them, wreaks of fear. They’re protecting someone from something. And when plenty of good Zionists believe the same as me, and yet we’re marginalised, it certainly means something…
The whole paradigm you’re taking is this “well I represent the leading sentiment of young Jews and the older generation just doesn’t get it, so they’re trying to shut us out because they’re scared of change”.
It’s not true, it’s a very appealing way for you to think because you are a) vindicated, b) popular and c) playing this heroic role, leading the vanguard that will overthrow this outdated Zionist establishment.
But it’s not true. Most young Jews don’t agree with you, and Isis Liebler knows that. He’s not scared that he’s propagating an irrelevant point of view and it’s only a matter of time until people stop listening. He’s angry, because he sees in what you’re saying echoes of the Palestinian narrative that he’s been fighting against his entire life. He sees you claiming the mantle of “Zionist” while articulating what he sees as anti-Zionist ideas.
It’s very tempting to give easy and self-aggrandising answers to difficult questions, but don’t. You’re probably wrong, and being wrong never helped anyone win a debate.
Just curious, Liam, why you agree with a boycott on the settlements, yet you wouldn’t recognise the legitimacy of an all-out boycott? It’s not as if Israel is fucked up only in the settlements, and everything within the Green Line is fine. Consider the following article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/opinion/not-all-israeli-citizens-are-equal.html
You seem to have the problem most liberal Zionists have – you don’t realise the incompatibility between Zionism (as it has functioned since the state’s inception) and liberalism.
Biggins — I disagree there’s an inherent contradiction. Can inside-the-green-line Israel do a better job? Absolutely. That Times op-ed is a very sad and unfortunate product of an imperfect system. But it’s why I’m in the trenches fighting for recognition of those issues and trying to empower Israelis to solve them.
I’m not sure if you heard Daniel Sokatch speak over the last week or so, but you should take a listen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0h9A2by3d0 Countries all over the world continue to struggle with many of these questions, and Israel is no different. I’m sure it can survive and flourish in the democratic way you and I want/expect. But these things are works in progress, not overnight miracles.
Sokal’s historical discussion is quite astute, but he completely misses
the plot when he then goes on to talk about ‘harmonisable virtues and
values’ between Zionism and democracy. The US didn’t ‘harmonise’ slavery
with democracy, it dropped the former after a lengthy civil war.
Australia didn’t harmonise the racist White Australia Policy with
democratic principles, it simply discontinued the former. Can Israel
simply drop or change all its laws without becoming ‘post-Zionist’? The
right-wingers are actually correct when they say it can’t, because they
understand that the principle of Zionism implies maintaining a Jewish
majority and power over non-Jews within a state, thereby creating
2nd-class citizens. Yourself and Sokal are living in a dream world where
Israel can ‘do a better job’ with what are inherently ethnocentric
principles. Consider another article by Yousef Munayyer which rams the
point home:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/20/liberal-zionism-a-contradiction-in-terms.html
The problem as I see it, Liam, is that you, like other liberal Zionists, are sensitive and intelligent
enough to see what’s wrong with Israel at the moment, but because you
have been raised a Zionist, you are unwilling to go the extra step and
make the realisation that the political ideology you have grown up with
is in fact at the heart of the issue. Like Lincoln, you must make the step of rejecting slavery totally…
Em: your argument is not logically valid. Zionism is not slavery and it is not the White Australia party and undoing whatever harm it is doing does not require the dissolution of an entire national movement.
If we’re going to make the assumption that any ethnocentric idea is inherently evil and must be dissolved, how about we dissolve Native Title and go back to forcing Indigenous Australians to integrate with our culture? This idea that somehow one ethnic Aboriginal group can have land rights purely because their ancestors had certain practises is completely ethnocentric and prejudicial to anyone not identifying with their clan.
Of course the alternative is that there is a place for ethnic-based democracies and there is nothing contradictory about a democratic state that declares itself a homeland for the Jewish people, as a manifestation of the self-determination of its Jewish citizens, and structures itself to some extent according to Jewish values.
As I was saying to Liam, don’t choose the simple answer for a complex question. “Zionists are causing harm, therefore we must abolish Zionism” is a case in point for that maxim.
Non-sequitirs, MK. I never said Zionism was slavery or the White Australia Policy, I simply used them as examples to show how Sokal’s historical analysis is incomplete. Your naive characterisiation of Zionism ignores the argument of post-Zionist critics: there is certainly something contradictory about espousing democracy and at the same time upholding Jewish demographic and political domination (not merely ‘self-determination’ in your whitewashed phrase). You’re free to dispute Munayyer’s depiction of state discrimination against Arab-Israelis, but I’d prefer you didn’t ignore Zionism’s real-world ramifications on local non-Jewish inhabitants, which your last post has.
Your own analogy of Native Title misses the mark in many respects, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of what Native Title involves: Aboriginal groups must go a very long way in court to provide evidence of a continual connection to land. Crucially, if and when Native Title is granted, ***it exists alongside non-indigenous propriety rights***, and in fact usually gives way to those rights. Native Title rights include living in areas, having access to areas, being able to hunt, etc. Your analogy is in fact arse-backwards: although there is obviously a Jewish religious and historical connection to the land of Israel, the original inhabitants we are talking about, driven from their homes in quite recent times, are Palestinians. These people, although able to demonstrate connection to specific areas of land, are not entitled to anything like Native Title, although Jewish immigrants/settlers, most of whom would not be able to provide an ounce of the intense genealogical/historical proof required of Aborigines, are entitled!
My point is, MK, the Commonwealth of Australia is not, in 2012, an ethnic-based democracy, despite some fierce battles in the Aboriginal culture wars, as well as some of the anti-immigration ilk like Ms. Pauline Hanson. The second the Australian government decides to enact legislation designed to protect white Australia from the ‘demographic time-bomb’ of Aborigines and Asians, I’ll be just as vocal in my opposition to that. But it’s plain as day that there’s no intention to do that, while at the same time not only does the Israeli government continue to do just that, its ideological core contributes to its paralysing inability to deal with the real moral problems.
“Your naive characterisiation of Zionism ignores the argument of post-Zionist critics: there is certainly something contradictory about espousing democracy and at the same time upholding Jewish demographic and political domination (not merely ‘self-determination’ in your whitewashed phrase).”
I don’t ignore it, I disagree with it. I referred to “Jewish self-determination”, you referred to “upholding Jewish demographic and political domination” and then told me that it is not the same as self-determination. I agree with that. I’m not sure where “non-sequitur” comes into anything, but what you used there is a “straw man” argument.
Meanwhile, the point I was trying to establish re Native Title was that ethnocentric ideas are not necessarily evil when applied to public life, I was not equating it with Zionism. On the spectrum of how strongly an ethnocentric idea is applied, we can agree that Native Title is positive, whereas Nazi Germany is negative. Somewhere between the two lies whatever you want to call the current state of Israel (pun intended) and somewhere further towards Native Title is what Liam and I are getting at.
In essence, Liam and I are arguing that the Avigdor Lieberman and Danny Danon interpretation of “Zionism” is not necessarily the only way that Zionism can be manifested, same goes for everything that has been done until now. You are arguing that Zionism as practised is the only way in which the underlying principles may be manifested. I find your argument to be reductionist and wrong. I don’t see the tenets (as opposed to the historical practise) of Zionism as being incompatible with democracy.
You’re *still* ignoring the criticism and the facts on the ground by focusing on Zionism as ‘self-determination’. What does this self-determination mean in practice? Read Munayyer’s article! It means, for instance, running an immigration policy (Law of Return) which favours Jews over non-Jews, thereby controlling demographics to prop up a Jewish majority. How is that not upholding Jewish demographic and political domination? How is that compatible with democracy? It isn’t, and pretending that it can be is foolishness. On the other hand, take away that policy (better yet implement a Palestinian Law of Return), and in 50 years or so Israel isn’t Jewish any more. Can a Zionist aspire to that? Of course not. A political Zionist is committed to such measures (i.e. ‘tenets’) in order to rig a Jewish majority, which is why all ‘liberal Zionists’ are scared of the one-state solution, Palestinian Law of Return, etc… I’m glad we’re agreed at least that the historical practice of Zionism is incompatible with democracy, but I wonder how you can argue which parts are worth saving, given the political ideology has done so spectacularly badly, and it most definitely implies such policies as above. It strikes my funny bone to hear these kind of arguments – I can picture, by way of analogy, a ‘liberal’ Afrikaner accusing me of reductionism, and then going on to argue that ethno-centrism isn’t really bad, and even though apartheid has been bad in practice, it’s OK in theory…
As for Native Title, you seemed to not read my post, which emphatically made the argument that Native Title is NOT ‘ethno-centric’, since all it seeks to do is recognise land owned before the crown, which exists alongside other property rights. No non-aboriginal person is discriminated against in Native Title. You can play with your ethnocentric sliding scales all you want, but it only shows you don’t understand Native Title. You definitely don’t understand ethno-centrism either, which is an anthropological term, not a political one. Let me be clear: build a ‘spectrum’ of worldwide laws which are designed to preserve the rights of an ethnic group at the expense of another ethnic group. You may include Israel’s right of return, you may include the Nuremberg laws, you may include Apartheid, you may include Saudi Arabia’s ban on non-Muslim religious ceremonies, you may even include affirmative action. Wanna know how much of the spectrum I think is bad? 100%, MK. Call me a reductionist indeed.
I’m not sure exactly how many democratic countries have some kind of ethnic return immigration policy, but it definitely includes at least Italy, Greece and until recently, Germany – as well as most of South-East Asia, although these countries if you consider those countries democratic (eg Singapore, South Korea). This means that, for example, an “ethnic Italian” living in Australia is afforded a relatively easier immigration process than you or I (assuming you’re not ethnically Italian). When Tunisia was forming its new democracy, it decided to follow the Italian model, allowing a certain number of seats to be designated for representatives of Tunisians living overseas. This, to my mind, is not incompatible with democracy.
Re one state, I personally don’t like the idea because I keep picturing the former Yugoslavia and/or Lebanon – which to my mind are much better analogies than South Africa. Also, I do not look at South Africa today and think “now there’s a good model for how to resolve ethnic conflict!”, my thoughts are more along the lines of “well that’s a clusterfuck and a half”.
I don’t really see any positives in the model that you are proposing or how it would benefit anyone. When you allow 5 million people to immigrate to Israel en masse, what happens then? Do you expel the people who are now living in land that was owned by Palestinians 65 years ago, even though the farm is now an apartment complex that is home to hundreds? Do you compensate the current residents at all? After all, most of them were not alive when the grandparents of the new residents left. How do you integrate millions of unskilled welfare recipients into an advanced, high-tech workforce? More importantly, how do you prevent the people who are spoiling for a fight and now have no barriers in their way from doing so? You think your “non-discriminatory” solution would last long past the first shooting/stabbing/bombing, whoever the instigator?
“A single state with equal rights for all” is a great thought, but it is not a political model. When you start actually looking at the details of how this state might be formed, you either end up with discrimination, just in a different form (ie some kind of ethnic confederation with different governing bodies for Jewish and Arab citizens, or a Parliament with ethnic quotas a la the Lebanese model) or you end up back in 1947 with a civil war that probably causes another decade or two of bloodshed then leads us back to where we started (what do you think happens the day after elections, when the Jewish parties and the Arab parties disagree on everything?).
Also, we are not agreeing that the historical practise of Zionism is incompatible with a democracy, by any means. I agree that it has involved discriminatory practises and that there is room to improve, but I challenge you to point to a single democracy that has no discrimination. Democracy is, by its nature, a tyranny of the majority – we have just realised from history that the tyranny of the majority is better than any other form of tyranny. I agree that the absence of discrimination is something that liberal democracies should strive towards, but it is not a necessary condition for “democracy” to exist.Finally, Native Title is completely ethno-centric. What are the criteria for an individual to hold a Native Title claim, after it has been recognised that the claim extends to a certain clan? If you or I wanted to declare ourselves to be adherents to the ancient Aboriginal tradition of hunting endangered turtles in the Northern Territories, we would not be permitted; however, an Aboriginal person who has been born and raised in Adelaide but claims some sort of ancestry from the clan in question, considers him/herself to be a part of the clan and is accepted by the clan, could do so. Are you honestly trying to tell me that’s not an ethno-centric policy?
Dear MK (quite enjoying this exchange to the point where I thought I could introduce a touch of the ol’ intimacy),
Please do not mistake my critique of Zionism for proposing a ‘model’ or a ‘solution’. I very carefully do not propose solutions, only point out what I see is a problem, either moral or political, or, even better, pointing out hypocrisy. Nor do I advocate a one-state solution. In all honesty, I feel no need to advocate a one-state solution since I think such a thing is inevitable anyway given current Palestinian tactics. I don’t actually think your hypothetical scenarios of a one-state solution are that far-fetched. It’s important to be aware that yes, the ideal moral state would collapse in bloodshed. This is part of my point – Zionism has helped breed the collapse of a fairer-minded society. Everyone has dirty hands now, and they are only getting dirtier. The talk in Israel is becoming more reactionary. But it is not our job to proclaim some mealy-mouthed ‘liberal Zionism’. It’s time to tell the truth – Zionism was a big, big mistake. What can we do now with Zionism? Fucked if I know. I’m not a Zionist. But it doesn’t help to continue professing allegiance to the ideology. The State of Israel is today untenable in its current state. It is untenable not just morally, but politically and environmentally as well. Zionists are fighting a losing war, shouting into the wind. Why? Because neither the Palestinians nor its Arab neighbours want Israel there, and never have. Violence is an inevitable consequence of founding a state based on religio-ethnic identity in an area where the indigenous inhabitants do not share that identity. Therefore, it’s not up to me to propose road maps to peace. I wish the best of luck to anyone with a peace plan, it’s just that in the meantime I’ll happily point out the contradictions in their ideology. I happily do the same to nationalists, socialists, capitalists, anarchists, ‘centrists’, even democrats, etc.
BTW, I’m not in favour of ethnic return policies, and I think they are remnants of an old fashioned nationalistic 19th century approach. (Curious how most of the states that have such laws were in fact only founded in the 19th century, or the 20th. Can anyone spell ‘insecurity’?) For my money the French jus soli is compatible with a modern, globalised, liberal democracy – I prefer it over the German jus sanguinis any day.
Again, that old stumbling block, Native Title: You could in fact enjoy Native Title if you were accepted by a clan, and some white people in fact do, such as anthropologists. The point is you are a guest on the land of someone else, therefore you are subject to the rules of the host. This would be no different if a clan owned a house in Moonee Ponds. As for who gets to be the host, as I said, you need extensive genealogical/anthropological proof of an ongoing connection to the land, so there’s no double standard there. You might decry this as ethnic bias (not ethno-centrism, which is a word you are mis-using), but if there existed any non-indigenous Australians who owned land pre-Crown, they would presumably be granted a similar claim. The fact that such claims do not exist only reflects the history of the country. Native Title has a bias in favour of indigeneity, no doubt, but indigeneity is a subtly different thing from ethnicity, perhaps just as morally convoluted, sure, but you can hardly argue that anyone is hard-done by with Native Title (non-realistic examples of whitefella turtle hunting aside). Put simply, Native Title in practice is indigenous people claiming use for ‘empty’ land nobody else cares about. Whether or not there’s an ethnic bias (and I maintain it’s more correctly seen as an indigenous bias), it definitely does not fall under the category of ‘laws designed to preserve the rights of one ethnic group at the expense of another’. Under Native Title, inevitably it’s white people that have more say in what happens to the land in question, especially so when you consider the ethno-centrism (in its actual meaning) of our entire legal system in regards to property ownership. But yeah, you probably can’t kill endangered turtles. Shame.
Ok “Em” (since we’re on first-pseudonym-terms now), I have a huge issue with attacking the idea of a two-state solution without proposing an alternative. Of course the two-state solution is not easy to reach and there are gigantic hurdles in the way, however it is better than any other suggestion that I’ve ever seen. If you don’t have a better alternative and you are criticising what is essentially the best plan that the smartest foreign policy minds in the world have been able to come up with after working for decades on the issue, then all you are really suggesting is no solution – which is not a good idea at all. As I alluded to before, it’s all well and good to talk about a hypothetical solution without Zionism, but it’s quite another once you start thinking about what that would actually look like.
I also want to pick-up on two things that you said:
> “Zionism has helped breed the collapse of a fairer-minded society.”For something to “collapse”, it has to have been built in the first place. There has never been a “fairer-minded society” in that region and every other major ideological movement has been a hell of a lot worse than Zionism.> “Zionists are fighting a losing war, shouting into the wind. Why? Because neither the Palestinians nor its Arab neighbours want Israel there, and never have. Violence is an inevitable consequence of founding a state based on religio-ethnic identity in an area where the indigenous inhabitants do not share that identity.”
The Arabs do not and have never wanted Israel there out of pure racism. It was a lot to do with the fellow on the left in this photo: http://is.gd/Qj8gXh – he translated material from the fellow on the right into Arabic. You almost make it sound like you are justifying the violence against Jews in the area (which preceded Israel by several decades) because the Jews were nationalists – which was not a taboo form of ideology until the late 20th Century, well after Israel was established.
Moreover, I have a huge issue with the use of the word “indigenous”. Bear in mind that a) there have always been some Jews in the region and there was a Jewish majority in Jerusalem for hundreds of years before Zionism was even conceived (in its modern form at least); b) only around half of the original Israelis were actually European, the other half fled from the Arab states. Until Israel was established, there was no discernible distinction between Arabs living in the areas that are now Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and whatever you want to call the area between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean. That these became different nationalities is only because of the way that the British and French decided they would divide the area, these are all artificial countries (and as I’m sure you know, that has led to a lot of problems beyond the Israeli/Palestinian issue).
Bearing that in mind, why is a Jew who fled Damascus any less “indigenous” than an Arab who stayed in Damascus? Why is a Jew in Israel who can trace their lineage back to the 1890s not “indigenous”? In fact, if you are so against drawing rigid ethnic distinctions, is not not hypocritical to be referring to the “indigenous” people versus the “non-indigenous” ones? If Israelis aren’t indigenous, where exactly are they from?
I’m going to drop the Native Title thing because we’re going on a tangent, except to say that there are three criteria required for holding a claim, one of which is “Indigenous heritage”. No heritage, no claim under law.
MK, you have a nasty habit of mis-reading (or even not reading?) my posts. I don’t refer to the two-state solution in any of them, so having a go at me for criticizing the two-state solution is silly. In fact, I explicitly stated: ‘I wish the best of luck to anyone with a peace plan’. I’m not suggesting no solution, I just don’t have a solution, and as I’ve said I feel free to point out contradictions and hypocrisies where they occur. This ‘if you don’t have anything nice to say then don’t say anything’ approach is infantile bullshit. If you want to force a solution out of me I’d say something like ‘people need to stop being idiots’, but I am as aware as you are that idiots aren’t going to go away, and I believe nationalism (in any form) breeds idiocy. Therefore I am as captive as Israelis and Palestinians are to the cycle of destruction and rebirth. As for ‘smartest foreign policy minds in the world’, I don’t think such people have a good track record. Do you?
The ‘fairer-minded society’ I had in mind was not actually in the Middle East. It was the long history of the Jewish people in the diaspora, with their strong commitment to social justice. Tragically these kind of enthusiasms were killed off, on the one hand killed off by the Holocaust and ensuing communist regimes which tainted the idea of radical political change, and on the other hand killed off by socialist Zionism and its own troubled legacy. Whether victim or aggressor, Jews have lost something they once had, or are close to losing it.
On Jewish-Arab violence: ‘Justifying’ concerns morals. You’ll note that the passage you quote from me about Jewish-Arab relations carefully avoids any moralising. I simply pointed out the inevitable consequences of Jewish nationalism – violence. (Hint: any kind of nationalism breeds violence, but especially nationalism that involves a whole lot of rapid immigration, e.g. India/Pakistan) Once you’re done with your non-sequiturs about the taboo of nationalism and al-Husseini (did your Zionist training camp teach you to use that photo in every discussion, no matter what was being discussed?), you’ll realise that I understand that Arabs tended to be racist. That’s the whole point, both Zionism and its Arab reaction are inherently racist, non-inclusive projects. The history of the Middle-East conflict can be best represented by a guy staring into the mirror saying ‘fuck off, this bathroom’s mine’ while he clutches his gun.
Now as for your redundant ramble about ‘indigenous’, I was clearly not arguing who was and wasn’t indigenous. All I’m saying is that indigenous people (defined however you like) were mostly not Jewish at the time of Partition, and therefore did not take to the idea of a Jewish state. I’d also check your facts about the historical demographics of Jerusalem. These are of course hotly contested, but most people agree that after the Crusades, there was in fact a Muslim majority until the mid-19th century, and then it’s anybody’s guess when Jews became a majority until 1922.
Finally, I’ve never said I’m against drawing ethnic distinctions, I’ve said I’m against privileging one ethnic group at the expense of another. So once again, your point is lost on me.
I’ll probably write a better reply when I have time, but for now I’ll just quote you against yourself.
> “I don’t refer to the two-state solution in any of them, so having a go at me for criticizing the two-state solution is silly.”
So you’re honestly trying to tell me that when you said this:
> “I feel no need to advocate a one-state solution since I think such a thing is inevitable anyway given current Palestinian tactics.”
… you were not trying to imply that the two-state solution has already failed? I don’t see any other way to read that, please enlighten me.
>”You’ll note that the passage you quote from me about Jewish-Arab relations carefully avoids any moralising.”
Again, I don’t see how you can claim not to be moralising by saying this:
> ”Violence is an inevitable consequence of founding a state based on religio-ethnic identity in an area where the indigenous inhabitants do not share that identity.”
… especially in light of this:
> “I was clearly not arguing who was and wasn’t indigenous. All I’m saying is that indigenous people (defined however you like) were mostly not Jewish at the time of Partition”
I know you were not arguing who was and wasn’t indigenous, I was arguing that. You were making conclusions based on the assumption in your second sentence, and I was disputing that assumption. I also believe that the assumption you made stems from the relative moral judgment that you have made between the Jews and Arabs in Mandate Palestine, hence “moralising”.
Well, I owe you an apology MK. It appears that you’re not neglecting to read my posts, you’re just reading *too much* into them. If you read all the quotes you’ve taken out again, you’ll see that none of your accusations stand. Saying that Palestinian tactics will make a one-state solution a likely end result doesn’t imply criticism of a two-state solution, unless you always prefer the most likely outcome in any given scenario (maybe you’re one of those fabled swinging voters?). You’re confusing description with prescription. Again, same problem with the other two quotes. There’s no moralising in that quote, unless you take the view that ‘all violence is bad’. I don’t take that view. I don’t see what my ‘assumption’ in the last quote is. Please enlighten me. I don’t understand what a ‘relative moral judgement’ is either. Again, there’s no moral judgement in anything you’ve quoted. All you’ve quoted are descriptions of states-of-affairs, which may or may not be the case, but instead of arguing why they’re not the case you’ve wasted your time trying to pin me to something you’re angry about. Sorry, but just because you’re used to arguing against certain beliefs or judgements doesn’t mean I hold those beliefs or judgements. I like to think myself less predictable than that…
Ok, let’s take these two phrases:
1) “a likely end result”
2) “such a thing is inevitable”
I see a distinction there. You were definitely ruling-out a two-state solution originally. I’m happy to accept your back-pedalling on that if you want, but please don’t pretend that you haven’t back-pedalled.
If you are not ruling-out the two state solution anyway and instead are merely being critical of it, I still think my point stands re not advocating two states. If you’re arguing that Zionism must go but not providing a better alternative, why should anyone pay attention to you? If you’re not providing any kind of vision for the future, then what’s the point in criticising everyone in the present, even if you condemn all sides equally?
And the assumption I meant was that “indigenous people were mostly not Jewish at the time of Partition”. That depends completely on what areas you are talking about, how you define “indigenous people” and how closely you stick to the “time of partition” (ie on the night of the UN vote only, while the war was being fought etc).
I feel like I’m constantly lecturing you, but what the hell. Let’s accept number 2, MK. Is saying that a one-state solution is inevitable a criticism of all the alternatives? No. Again, we have the description vs. prescription distinction which you find difficult to understand. I also think illness is inevitable, it doesn’t mean I’m criticising public health… if you read what I originally wrote, in context, my meaning is quite clear. You’re just trying find something to be angry about.
Again, my own point about Zionism is much more powerful than the claim ‘it must go’. I am saying it *will* go. It already is going, especially with respect to the hopes and visions of Zionism’s first leaders. (I’ll ignore the waffling about partition – you know damn well what the statistics are, no assumptions required apart from the assumption that I am using the english language in its common, colloquial sense, not some mealy-mouthed weasel-worded rhetorical definitions befit of a lawyer or politican).
As for your most unpleasant question – ‘If you’re not providing any kind of vision for the future, then what’s
the point in criticising everyone in the present?’:
If you have been reading the words I have written at all, you’ll see that they contain many ‘solutions’. You don’t recognise them as such because you are accustomed to dealing with political ‘solutions’, preferrably with some easy descriptive tag – ‘Zionism’, ‘one-state solution’, ‘two-state solution’, etc. You miss the defence of the human against the obelisk of ideology – and so you miss everything. These ideologies we have will survive us, for sure, but they will also be survived by newer generations who are no longer tied to them, and can fully recognise why the ideologies were fucked up all along. My solution, MK, is one of consciousness – I’m asking you (and any others who care about such things) to consider to what extent your own thoughts and opinions have on the world around you, and whether you might in fact benefit from a shift in perspective. There’s a point to any engaged and sustained thinking, no matter how critical. If this doesn’t strike you as a solution, it’s your loss. You can go on re-arranging world borders like the short-sighted generation of politicans post-WWI, completely oblivious to the world outside, the *real* world, which continuously and gratuitously shifts and adapts without permission from ‘solutions’.
The quality of life is not measured in end-driven solutions like that. It’s the present we must face, and we must battle, because the present is the only reality we’ll ever know.
> “Is saying that a one-state solution is inevitable a criticism of all the alternatives?”
Insofar as it rules any of them out as viable options, yes — it is a criticism of the alternatives. Much as I appreciate your pseudo-psychological analysis of my motives, the reality is that your argument does not follow logically. If a one-state solution is inevitable and a one-state solution cannot coexist with any other solution (principally, a two-state solution), then saying that a one-state solution is “inevitable” necessarily implies that all other solutions will not come-about.
Meanwhile, your words do not contain any solutions. “Consciousness” and “a shift in perspective” are at best ideals and at worst wishful thinking, they are not solutions. “Engaged and sustained thinking” is very important and debate around broad ideas must be had, however it is not a solution. These things are necessary for finding solutions, but they are not of themselves sufficient to constitute “solutions”.
While you deride “ends-driven” or “political” solutions, a solution is something that is inherently political and driven towards some end. A solution requires actual human beings to engage in certain conduct, that leads to tangible and measurable outcomes. When we speak of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, we are seeking a solution that will end violence between the sides while creating as much prosperity as possible and allowing rights to be observed to the greatest extent possible — which includes respecting the individual identities and beliefs of the people in question, not imposing some kind of Western post-colonial moral relativism on everyone between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean and explaining to them that their national identities are in fact irrelevant.
A solution requires actions — political actions. It requires frameworks, negotiations, agreements, vision and conviction. It requires giving people a reason to act and a way in which to act. Your grandiose ideological discussion involves none of this. Your “solution” exists purely in abstract, it can persist only to the extent to which it floats in a world of “isms” and “ologies”. Throughout this discussion, you have been successfully avoiding making any kind of judgment on any practical policies or putting forward any of your own — the conflict can never be solved in this way. I never said that such discussions are not important or that they have no value, however they are only a part of the solution.
I understand your rejection of Zionism, it flows from your vision of the world as it ought to be. Unfortunately for you, your solution would only be sufficient for a world that is not real. Actually ending the conflict requires “playing the cards that we are dealt”, or so to speak. No solution can ever begin without a practical first step, and that is something that you are unable to offer.
“Your argument does not follow logically. If a one-state solution is
inevitable and a one-state solution cannot coexist with any other
solution (principally, a two-state solution), then saying that a
one-state solution is “inevitable” necessarily implies that all other
solutions will not come-about.”
MK, I wouldn’t lecture others on logic, since you’ve missed the logical possibility that there may exist a category of ‘temporary solutions’ – that is, a two-state solution would exist, and then over time become a one-state one. Inevitability, therefore, does not imply what you’ve stated. And my ‘argument’, if I have one, doesn’t concern that anyway, it concerns the difference between description and prescription, which you still refuse to understand or address. [It's getting tiring reading lengthy responses which don't address what I've actually written. When your latest post wasn't rolling out non-sequiturs (about moral relativism, or national identities being irrelevant) it was just spewing out blatant falsehoods ('a solution is something that is inherently political', 'throughout this discussion, you have been successfully avoiding making any kind of judgment on any practical policies' etc.)]
As for your discussion of ‘solutions’ and ‘practical first steps’, I had no idea the point of this forum was to produce them. If so, my sincere apologies for wasting your time with mere ideas and discussion. According to you, the conflict ‘can never be solved’ by my approach. I take it then you are a high-standing official in the Israeli government, furiously pumping out practical first steps for the roadmap to peace, which will no doubt all work, and you will win a Nobel Prize. Once again, so sorry. I had you mistaken for someone else!
P.S: Dialogue (or in this case, part-monologue/part-dialogue!) is *always* a practical first step. You couldn’t have ignored a more important possibility.
*universalism, not moral relativism
Clearly I do need to lecture you on logic. You weren’t criticising my logic there, you were criticising my premise. Meanwhile, I’m a little confused as to exactly what you mean. Are you suggesting that there may be two separate states established, but that they will then somehow merge into a single entity? Because I would seriously dispute that possibility.
Also, you haven’t called for dialogue in any concrete sense. Saying “there needs to be dialogue” is meaningless – everyone knows that, there has been actual dialogue for decades and nothing has come of it. You cannot impose abstract solutions on a political problem, you need to specify who will be participating in the dialogue and to what end.
That was essentially my point re “solutions” and “practical first steps” that you took such an issue with. I’m sorry if I haven’t expressed myself clearly, but what I was trying to get at is that completely abstract, ideological discussions serve no purpose if they aren’t connected somehow to a practical solution. You begin to discuss things that do not actually exist and forget that you are talking about real people who function in the way that human beings do. In this situation, the solution you come up with almost always causes more harm than good – as can be seen from the entire 20th Century experiment with grand narratives.
Anyway, I’m sick of your dancing around an actual answer here. If you are going to reply again, please tell me what you think of the two-state solution: whether it will work; if so, why? If not, why not?
I didn’t say ‘there needs to be dialogue’, I was trying to draw your attention to the fact that WE are having a dialogue. But again, you mis-read my post. So I guess I take it back, this is ye olde-fashioned monologue. It may well be that ‘you cannot impose abstract solutions on a political problem’, but then I also think it’s highly likely that you can’t impose political solutions on an abstract problem – i.e. Zionism. Doesn’t stop people doing it!
I take issue with your attack on ideological discussions. Ideology does exist insofar as it affects people’s behaviour, that’s the whole point of discussing it in the first place. The idea that a kind of practical solution exists, and that one should focus all one’s energies on it, is itself inevitably ideological. I don’t at all think the 20th century experiments with ‘grand narratives’ caused more harm than good, in fact I think that’s a highly contentious bit of crap that our consumerist and ‘economic rationalist’ virtual democracy governments are only far too happy to shove down our throats in the education system, because it so beautifully suits their own purposes. As Zizek has spent a while trying to point out, ideology is not simply a matter of seeing which account of reality best matches the ‘facts’. As soon as the facts are determined, we have already – whether we know it or not – made our choice, we are already within one ideological system or another. The real dispute has already taken place over what is to count as the facts, which facts are relevant, and so on. By telling me that what I’m talking about ‘doesn’t actually exist’, you’re presenting the classic example of an ideologue, not merely content to choose your own facts, you also want to define mine out of existence! Neither do I think that any of the things I’ve talked about are abstract. They’re no more abstract than bombs going off in pizzerias, and they’ve actually killed a lot more people.
And I’m happy to answer your question (and a bit confused as to how you think I’ve been dancing when you haven’t asked me that question until now): I think the two-state solution is a good compromise between two aspiring national identities without bruising too many kneecaps. The worst solution, as Churchill might say, were it not for all the others. To be honest, that’s a no-brainer. As for whether it will work, I have to play God to deliver the answer; the reason why I suspect that a one-state is inevitable (either instead of or after a two-state solution) is because, as I said earlier, I think Palestinian political tactics hint at this. They don’t have anything to lose, therefore time and demographics are on their side should they want everything (and I think a lot of them do). Nor will the rest of the world begrudge them that desire, given the slipping power of the US in particular. Either way I suspect it’s too late for happy endings, although, as I made pains to point out earlier, I’m all eager for people to act *as if* happy endings are possible. Seems to be the way happy endings happen.
What the bulk of my posts are trying to draw attention to is the contradictions inherent in Zionism, which are still ignored by liberal Zionists. These contradictions will always cause real-world, political problems, no matter what the solution to the mid-east conflict is. One is perfectly able to ask ‘do we need Zionism’? in the same way we ask ‘do we need the settlements’ or ‘do we need slavery’? I don’t see these questions as useless or impractical, on the contrary I see them as necessary discussion topics should old mistakes be recognized for what they are, and better policies promoted.