The Question of Israel

[Agathon]

Before Israel was founded, a Zionist leader who was to become its first president, Chaim Weizmann, said Israel would be Jewish in the same sense that England is English.

This was an idiotic hope. To be English, one merely has to be born in England. I could have been born in Israel, but that wouldn't make me Jewish.

I read this article a while back. It's a wonder that such rambling rubbish gets published. The truth about Israel is that it is a colonial state in an era where colonial states are no longer fashionable, and the only reason it doesn't get criticized more is that it is politically incorrect in the West to criticize Jews.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by LordShiva
For example, to excuse the failed occupation of Iraq, some western opinion-formers cite the presence of three distinct communities, Shias, Sunnis and Kurds. A country odd enough to be home to such a variety of peoples is, in their minds, an artificial state with arbitrary boundaries, doomed to disintegrate.

Under this argument, Iraq cannot make it as a democracy or even a nation because it is too poor or too fractious or too diverse.

If India didn't exist, no-one would have the imagination to invent it.

Hey! Why not give Iraq to India? Who better to show them the error of their ways?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

Given that the Arab population will enexorably overwhelm the Jewish population in the area, I doubt the majority of the population will really just sit there living on 30% of the land in "peace and harmony."

You think the West Bank will have a high pop growth rate forever? You dont think independence could be followed by stability and economic growth? You think Palestine will be the exception economic growth leading to lower birth rates?

You also think that whenever two states are adjacent, and one has a larger population, it inevitably leads to war? We should expect dozens of wars around the world in that case.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


This was an idiotic hope. To be English, one merely has to be born in England..

Weizmann, who lived in England, and had been born abroad, may have had a different view of how English society actually worked than you do.


Anyway, its largely semantics. If theyd called the state "Judea" instead of Israel, than all the muslims living in Haifa would be "jehudim" - IE Jews, in Hebrew.

What difference would it make? After all they ARE Israelis, now. The only thing that would matter would be differences in legal rights, correct? But there ARENT any formal differences between the rights of Israeli Jews and non-Jews. The only difference in law is the right to return for Jews. Thats a huge deal now, of course. When Weizmann was speaking, at a time when there were millions of impoverished eastern European Jews whom he expected to emigrate to Israel, and when there was no Israeli economy with wage levels likely to attract non-Jews from outside, the question of differential immigration rights simply didnt arise. The Zionists in their lobbying with Turkey, the UK etc kept asking for the right to immigrate - they didnt insist on the right to keep anyone else out, as it was a non-issue at the time. It didnt come till after 1948. The projection of post-1948 issues back onto pre-1918 statements is sheer anachronism.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

[I doubt most Palestinians feel towards Israel like those two men do, and you comment about "Western Hatred" is just stupid (no gentler way of putting it).

I suspect that the feelings of Palestinians is heavily driven by day to day realities, which in recent years has been roadblocks, curfews, economic disruptions, etc. I dont blame them for their hatred. I beleive that changing the reality can overcome that hatred, however.

And what the men you mentioned dislike is the whole notion of nationalism, so yes, they would not support a Palestinian national state any more than a Jewish national state.

Which was the point of the article.

[Sirotnikov]

India

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
You dont think independence could be followed by stability and economic growth?

I don't think you should assume that it will.

[lord of the mark]

LS - several points

1. Iraq might well have made it pretty well as a multiethnic state, had things gone differently in the late 50s - early 60s. However the Kurds and Shiites experienced things at the hands of the Sunnis between 1963 and 2003 that dwarf anything the larger groups in India have experienced at the hands of the state in modern times (I exclude the horrors of partition, as that was not, AFAIK, state run horror) Each country has its own history, and I dont think its possible to generalize from India.


2. Its not like India wanted to be part of a democratic, non-national commonwealth, even if that had been possible. India DID want to be distinct. Sure, Hindi speaking Hindus think subcontinent wide unity is the best outcome - dominant groups almost ALWAYS do. Muslims, and some linguistic minorities, didnt.

Most of the linguistic minorities have accepted the Indian state, however. Is that because having your own language dominant doesnt matter at all, and everyone who wants a national state based on language is a fool? Is is because of the role of English in India, a legacy from the Raj? Is it because in India civilization really IS "Hindu" and the real civilizational loyalty is to something that transcends the individual languages? Is is because external threats, including that from Pakistan cemented India together? Is the Hindi speakers willingness to subordinate Hindi to English (to some extent, at least) for the sake of India, really that much more impressive than the willingness of the Yiddish speakers in Israel to give up Yiddish entirely for Hebrew, a language with much less economic pull than Raj English?

3. To a great extent there is a parallel between the subcontinents experience and Zionism, but its not the charictature of Zionism we often get.

Theodore Herzl, in at least some of his writings, does not seem to beleive it necessary for ALL Jews to go to the Jewish state. Enough have to go, to remove the pressures that led to anti-semitism in Europe. He beleived that once the demographic fears relating to the millions of unassimilated eastern Jews was gone, it was quite possible western Jews could live in peace.

Achad Ha Am, who was far less focused on antisemitism than Herzl, saw Zion as mainly a cultural center, where a modest number of Jews would reinvigorate Jewish cultural life on a sound, national basis - there would always be a diaspora and a subtantial one, but it would receive its cultural dynamism from the national center.

Its certainly true, that today in the worlds largest Jeiwsh diaspora community, there are many Jews whose sense of "national deprivation" is satisfied by the existence of Israel, which paradoxically allows them to fully accept minority status in the society they actually reside in.

Now lets turn back to Pakistan. It could be argued, I would think that Pakistan A. Provided a home for those Muslims who were most "muslim nationalist" and whos presence in India would have been most disruptive. B. It took away from India most of the muslim majorty areas, where living in India would have been far less easy to accept than where muslims are modest minorities. C. It reduced dramatically the overall muslim pop of India, thus reducing the threat to the Hindus, and thus reducing intercommunal tensions D. It gave muslims in India a sense that there was a place where their unique culture was the state culture, and where it was fully expressed politically, so they could more easily accept living in a state where it was not.


Now, I feel a strong sense of being on thin ice, saying things about politics, culture, and identity in the subcontinent, that I barely know anything about. OTOH, the author you quoted, is willing to make huge statements about countries all over the world, without, AFAICT, any in depth knowledge on his part.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I don't think you should assume that it will.

I make no assumptions. There are risks with EVERY course of action.


Instead of wringing our hands, we should see what we can DO to make the Pal state more stable, and more prosperous.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

You think the West Bank will have a high pop growth rate forever? You dont think independence could be followed by stability and economic growth? You think Palestine will be the exception economic growth leading to lower birth rates?

Arabs in Israel, which has a stable economy, still grow faster than those of any jewish community save the orthodox. And of course, the Palestinians of the West bank are not the only Palestinians. Gaza will continue to grow, and so will the refugee camps.

The Palestinians will for a long time be poorer than Israel, and consequently their populations will continue to grow faster.

You also think that whenever two states are adjacent, and one has a larger population, it inevitably leads to war? We should expect dozens of wars around the world in that case.

You think the Palestinians, if they chose a rump state, would still not believe in their hearts that the whole thing is theirs? both sides might be willing to accept less than 100% based on expediency, but simple population pressures and economic pressures would invariably force lots of Palestians into Israel, and of course Israel will do all it can to keep them out, to prevent a demographic shift. That in itself will create tensions.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
What difference would it make? After all they ARE Israelis, now. The only thing that would matter would be differences in legal rights, correct? But there ARENT any formal differences between the rights of Israeli Jews and non-Jews. The only difference in law is the right to return for Jews. Thats a huge deal now, of course. When Weizmann was speaking, at a time when there were millions of impoverished eastern European Jews whom he expected to emigrate to Israel, and when there was no Israeli economy with wage levels likely to attract non-Jews from outside, the question of differential immigration rights simply didnt arise. The Zionists in their lobbying with Turkey, the UK etc kept asking for the right to immigrate - they didnt insist on the right to keep anyone else out, as it was a non-issue at the time. It didnt come till after 1948. The projection of post-1948 issues back onto pre-1918 statements is sheer anachronism.

Wait, what about the people who lived in that land in 1918? Shouldn't they have had the right to decide their own immigration policy? If you trully believe in the notion of National democracy, how can you possibly support, even in retrospect, the notion that Turks or Englishmen were deciding for Palestinians what the immigration policy for Palestine should be?

[GePap]

LOTM: what do you make of the current controversy about the Jewish National Fund? Do you support the idea of that land being allowed only to go to Jews, as opposed to any Israeli citizen?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

Arabs in Israel, which has a stable economy, still grow faster than those of any jewish community save the orthodox.

But those growth rates are declining, and if Israel gets serious (as she ought to) about social and economic development in arab towns, esp in the Galillee, they will decline faster.

And of course, the Palestinians of the West bank are not the only Palestinians. Gaza will continue to grow, and so will the refugee camps.

Yes, the higher poverty rates in Gaza are certainly in part related to the more unstable political conditions there, Gaza also needs peace.

The Palestinians will for a long time be poorer than Israel, and consequently their populations will continue to grow faster.

To become a significant miltiary threat, they need to not be that much poorer. There are many other complicating demographic factors, but I wont go into those now.

You think the Palestinians, if they chose a rump state, would still not believe in their hearts that the whole thing is theirs? both sides might be willing to accept less than 100% based on expediency,

Indeed.

but simple population pressures and economic pressures would invariably force lots of Palestians into Israel, and of course Israel will do all it can to keep them out, to prevent a demographic shift.

They only have to come in to work. They can commute home at night, as indeed settlers do NOW. Im not sure if you grasp how small the distances are. In any case the peace treaty will give each state the right to determine and enforce its own immigration policy.

That in itself will create tensions.

It will also create incentives for cooperation.

Im not saying there wont be tensions,as there are now between the US and Mexico, say. But I can still call mexicans my brothers and sisters. In the ME, both Israelis and (most) Pals will have still have many enemies driving them together in many ways.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Wait, what about the people who lived in that land in 1918? Shouldn't they have had the right to decide their own immigration policy? If you trully believe in the notion of National democracy, how can you possibly support, even in retrospect, the notion that Turks or Englishmen were deciding for Palestinians what the immigration policy for Palestine should be?

I was not intending to restart the debate about balfour, or the point at which Palestinian national identity, as distinct from Ottoman identity became real, or the justice of Jewish claims. I was simply clarifying one sentence by Chaim Weizman, which it seemed to me was being viewed anachronistically.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
LOTM: what do you make of the current controversy about the Jewish National Fund? Do you support the idea of that land being allowed only to go to Jews, as opposed to any Israeli citizen?

The JNF began life as a private organization, funded by donations from diaspora Jews to buy land for Jews to settle on. In '48, the state, with no vast surplus of appropriately trained personnel, and many other things to deal with, simply turned over management of state lands to the JNF.

The Supreme Court of Israel is right (I think theyve already rule on this) that state lands, or land that came to the JNF from the state, must be available to all on an equal basis.

Others are right, that the wishes of the donors relating to the use of their funds should be followed. The issue is disentangling state lands from "true" JNF lands, IIUC. I havent followed it all that closely.