Israel (sigh)
I've never been all that thrilled with Israel. A polity based on the idea that an individual has a claim to property because of his membership in a ethno-religious construct should make any American cringe. A state that exists solely for the benefit of one ethno-religious group (no one may serve in the Knesset who does not support the continuance of "Israel as the land of the Jews"), should make us uncomfortable. A legal system that recognizes the authority of religious courts is one unfit for survival among humanity.
I'm not discussing here the validity of any "Jewish" claim to any chunk of land on the eastern Meditterrannean coast, because the issue is moot (although I would note that, archeologically, the territory under the Biblical King David's control is much smaller than is claimed in the Bible). I have a pretty strong ancestral claim to a chunk of land in Baden-Wuerrtemburg, but I doubt anyone would take me seriously if I knocked on a door on Hauptstrasze and told the owner to give me his house on the basis of my claim. And if I showed up with a bunch of Harings and took the house(s) by force, it would be recognized by all for what it were: violent theft, or conquest.
Nor do I give a crap about the historical authenticity of "Palestine" and "Palestinians". How long would those morons who do have waited before they recognized the validity of "America" and "Americans"? There is no territorial name or ethno-political affiliation in the history of the planet that predates somebody making it up. The fact that Palestine is a name with ancient roots (Phillistine, Pelasgian -- you know, Greek names), also is of no relevance. Any individual or group thereof can call themselves whatever the hell they want, and call the chunk of land they live on whatever name they can agree on.
So anyway, as a reasoning, true American, I got the big ol' cold prickly whenever I thought about Israel.
However, this was mitigated by the fact that Israel's polity is much more enlightened than any other state within 500 miles, as well as by things I was starting to read in the press. These sources of hope were not about occupation of Palestine, but of how Israel treated its non-Jewish inhabitants. To be clear, the religious courts and the ministry of culture should be eliminated, and the same secular and rational law should apply to all inhabitants, and individuals should be responsible for supporting the cultural insititutions they want supported. But when I read, for example, of a non-Jewish Israeli family successfully suing for the right to live in a "Jewish" settlement, I looked to a future when Israel could transition from a "land of the Jews (and whoever else we let live here)" to a truly enlightened, egalitarian, constitutional republic with a limited government, where religion, ethnicity, and language are a matter for the individual, not the state. In short, what I wish the United States could be.
Instead, I hear the intention to create a "pure, Jewish state" when Olmert talks about the border establishment.
I don't have a problem with a state defining its borders, nor even with Israel disposing of Palestine as it wishes: it has, for want of something more noble, the right of conquest over that territory dating back to the 1967 war. There is something troubling, of course, about creating a rump of a country, with no real economic basis for sustainability, cut off from Israel and also any economic centers in Jordan (or Jordan itself, depending on just what the "security zone" along the river turns out to be). One might conclude that Olmert's plan is to make it difficult to live in Palestine, leading to a mass exodus (if you'll excuse the term) that'll leave the territory free for later annexation without concern of a large non-Jewish population coming with it.
The associated concern, of course, is a false sense of security for Israelis, while Palestinians are left with limited alternatives to strapping bombs to their bodies and hopping the fence.
No, my concern is that Israel's going to backtrack on any progress in equalizing the status of non-Jewish Israelis with Jewish ones. That Israel shall adopt the old, "if you don't like it, leave" posture towards non-Jews, or maybe the "if we don't like you, leave" posture we are starting to see in parts of Iraq, and which we saw in Yugoslavia not too long ago.
I may be wrong. The majority of Israel appears to my limited view to be vaguely secular; the militant Zionists seem to be a minority, however pissed off. It's possible that the state shall start receding from support of culture on any basis, that detachment from the contentious settlements shall allow Zionism to fade away.
But as I think about it, the most likely scenario seems to be this: 1) Palestinians, faced with economic starvation, will step up attacks against Israel, bolstered by international allies -- the "third intafada" will incorporate all the tactics honed in Iraq; 2) Israel shall have to scrutinize Muslim citizens, and conduct counter-attacks into the territory it abandoned; 3) the continuing attacks shall radicalize the now moderate majority of Israelis, leading to greater willingness to drive non-Jews out of Israel and Palestine, to push the border to the Jordan river and drive anybody there before them to maintain a "pure, Jewish state".
And then? Well, 200 years from now, Israel'll be just like France, or any other nation-state that drove out minorities to establish itself, and even an enlightened, egalitarian, constitutional republic with a limited government, where religion, ethnicity, and language are a matter for the individual, not the state.
So really, why am I worried?
I'm not discussing here the validity of any "Jewish" claim to any chunk of land on the eastern Meditterrannean coast, because the issue is moot (although I would note that, archeologically, the territory under the Biblical King David's control is much smaller than is claimed in the Bible). I have a pretty strong ancestral claim to a chunk of land in Baden-Wuerrtemburg, but I doubt anyone would take me seriously if I knocked on a door on Hauptstrasze and told the owner to give me his house on the basis of my claim. And if I showed up with a bunch of Harings and took the house(s) by force, it would be recognized by all for what it were: violent theft, or conquest.
Nor do I give a crap about the historical authenticity of "Palestine" and "Palestinians". How long would those morons who do have waited before they recognized the validity of "America" and "Americans"? There is no territorial name or ethno-political affiliation in the history of the planet that predates somebody making it up. The fact that Palestine is a name with ancient roots (Phillistine, Pelasgian -- you know, Greek names), also is of no relevance. Any individual or group thereof can call themselves whatever the hell they want, and call the chunk of land they live on whatever name they can agree on.
So anyway, as a reasoning, true American, I got the big ol' cold prickly whenever I thought about Israel.
However, this was mitigated by the fact that Israel's polity is much more enlightened than any other state within 500 miles, as well as by things I was starting to read in the press. These sources of hope were not about occupation of Palestine, but of how Israel treated its non-Jewish inhabitants. To be clear, the religious courts and the ministry of culture should be eliminated, and the same secular and rational law should apply to all inhabitants, and individuals should be responsible for supporting the cultural insititutions they want supported. But when I read, for example, of a non-Jewish Israeli family successfully suing for the right to live in a "Jewish" settlement, I looked to a future when Israel could transition from a "land of the Jews (and whoever else we let live here)" to a truly enlightened, egalitarian, constitutional republic with a limited government, where religion, ethnicity, and language are a matter for the individual, not the state. In short, what I wish the United States could be.
Instead, I hear the intention to create a "pure, Jewish state" when Olmert talks about the border establishment.
I don't have a problem with a state defining its borders, nor even with Israel disposing of Palestine as it wishes: it has, for want of something more noble, the right of conquest over that territory dating back to the 1967 war. There is something troubling, of course, about creating a rump of a country, with no real economic basis for sustainability, cut off from Israel and also any economic centers in Jordan (or Jordan itself, depending on just what the "security zone" along the river turns out to be). One might conclude that Olmert's plan is to make it difficult to live in Palestine, leading to a mass exodus (if you'll excuse the term) that'll leave the territory free for later annexation without concern of a large non-Jewish population coming with it.
The associated concern, of course, is a false sense of security for Israelis, while Palestinians are left with limited alternatives to strapping bombs to their bodies and hopping the fence.
No, my concern is that Israel's going to backtrack on any progress in equalizing the status of non-Jewish Israelis with Jewish ones. That Israel shall adopt the old, "if you don't like it, leave" posture towards non-Jews, or maybe the "if we don't like you, leave" posture we are starting to see in parts of Iraq, and which we saw in Yugoslavia not too long ago.
I may be wrong. The majority of Israel appears to my limited view to be vaguely secular; the militant Zionists seem to be a minority, however pissed off. It's possible that the state shall start receding from support of culture on any basis, that detachment from the contentious settlements shall allow Zionism to fade away.
But as I think about it, the most likely scenario seems to be this: 1) Palestinians, faced with economic starvation, will step up attacks against Israel, bolstered by international allies -- the "third intafada" will incorporate all the tactics honed in Iraq; 2) Israel shall have to scrutinize Muslim citizens, and conduct counter-attacks into the territory it abandoned; 3) the continuing attacks shall radicalize the now moderate majority of Israelis, leading to greater willingness to drive non-Jews out of Israel and Palestine, to push the border to the Jordan river and drive anybody there before them to maintain a "pure, Jewish state".
And then? Well, 200 years from now, Israel'll be just like France, or any other nation-state that drove out minorities to establish itself, and even an enlightened, egalitarian, constitutional republic with a limited government, where religion, ethnicity, and language are a matter for the individual, not the state.
So really, why am I worried?
posted by heavynettle at 18:56
4 Comments:
"Whaling is Zionism. Whaling is Murder. Zionism is Murder." (Head Office, 1985)
I'm at a loss to answer that question, Sage Thrasher. But I'm glad you brought in the European question, because ultimately, that's what Israel is: a European colony. The Zionists weren't from Asia, but central Europe, and were not affiliated with the yahudii that were already in Palestine. As such, Middle Eastern Arab resistance to the state is based at least as much on memories of European imperialism as on any historic hostility to Jews in general.
It is interesting to note that one of the reasons Israel has no formal constitution is that religious folks there wanted no law higher than religious texts. Wikipedia may have its own biases, but it kind of makes sense, given the highly irrational claims made by Zionists anyway.
Again, (sigh).
I got the Head Office quote wrong, I think. It shoud be "Whaling is murder. Zionism is murder. Whaling is Zionism."
Whatever. David Gergen has a piece in the recent USN&WR that, according to the extracted blurb, objects to the assumption that the Bush administration has been hijacked by pro-Israel folk -- it's an insult to American Jews to say that.
Well, anyone who looks around knows that the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S. is not primarily Jewish: it's Christian evangelical. You know, that group of folks who think that if the Jews control Jerusalem, the end times are nigh. So saying the administration has been hijacked by pro-Israel folks need not be an insult to American Jews.
On the other point, U.S. policy has been pro-Israel since 1948 -- but that's because Israel is the least of evils (althought Turkey has been more useful to us -- hey, Turkish warplanes haven't strafed any U.S. ships) in a part of the world rich in a necessary resource. The actually hijacking has been by dogmatic Christians, and it's nothing new. It started in the first Congress under the Constitution (in 1789), when each house voted to stick a morning prayer into the daily business, and pay a chaplain to do nothing more than pray. "In God We Trust" (1863, 1956), the Protection of Marriage Act (1992) and amendment (hopefully never), and the general exemptions to law granted on the basis of faith and religion (well, Christian religion: Rastafarians still can't smoke pot legally) are all outgrowths of the various hijackings that have occurred.
Hence my comment about what I wish the U.S., and not just Israel, would be.
The fact that AIPAC is allowed to continue functioning as a political lobbying organization in this country after its executive officers have been caught red-handed funneling U.S. defense secrets to Israel says all you need to know about the influence of the pro-Israel lobby, both Jewish and Christian, in the U.S. today. And the fact that politicians are terrified to call AIPAC out on the carpet says all you need to know about their power. Of course, I must be a racist for evening noticing that, right? "Sigh," indeed.
At the very least you'd think anyone who lobbied on behalf of a foreign power, even a friendly one peopled with huge numbers of dual U.S. citizens, would need to register as foreign agents, if only to make their primary purpose clearer to the public. I'd say the same thing for any of the pro-Sinn Fein folks in Boston, Polisario supporters, Taiwanese separatists, and even lobbyists for his holiness the Dali Lama. Along with Israel, these folks may all share a common vision of political freedom for their own tribe, but all the same, the interests of our country (to clarify, that's the U.S.A.) and the interests of even the closest ally will never completely overlap and when they don't, folks need to admit it when they are putting U.S. interests second.
Oh, yeah - and another thing...So as not to lose perspective, Israel is a very good ally, even if our support for their imperialist policies has been stupidly unequivocal. Israel's policies in the occupied territories continue to be pure, unadulterated imperialism; but what they've done in the West Bank has made them convenient bugbears and scapegoats for a lot of shit done by their neighbors to their own people and, lately, to the U.S. 9/11 was about our support for Israel & the Saudi Royal family, at least in theory, but it was really just kind of nihilist violence against the us by dark age nincompoops who did it because...well, because they could and it made them feel good to do it. But the lot of the average Muslim/Arab is not affected in any way by Israel. And their lack of concern for other, non-Arabs or even Arabs who are ripped off or murdered in droves by folks like the governments in Khartoom or Tehran, let alone Damascus, smacks a little too much of hypocracy and makes the whole "Israel is the source of all evil" schick seem a little suspect, to say the least.
Post a Comment
<< Home