Comments on: Obama is a Better Zionist Than Netanyahu

By: Natalie

Natalie — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:08:38 +0000

Ploni,
I am not sure if the reference to ‘Staatvolk’ was sarcastic or not – but I would have the same objection to any regime that has an official policy (backed up by many actions) to maintain a majority of one group (whether religious, ethnic or else).

As for the ‘Zionist left’ – I am not sure who you include in this category, if it is Kadima or Labor then I don’t actually see any significant difference between them and Likud on the 1967 occupation (the Likud is a little more honest and thus a little less contradictory).

As far as I know (correct me if I am wrong) the one group on the ‘Zionist left’ which has taken a real stand against the settlement movement is ‘Peace Now’ – a) I applaud them for their efforts, and their results at getting higher government transparency with regards to the entire enterprise (btw, I think that a greater level of government transparency is in the interest of all citizens regardless of their political leaning.)
b) As far as I know ‘Peace Now’ do not consider Gaza as occupied nor do they take a real issue with the blockade and were supportive of Israel’s assualt on Gaza earlier this year – which again would make Likud less contradictory.

I think that the occupation of people (ie – post 1967) is much more pressing than dealing with 1948, that is not to say that ignoring the refugees is the way forward.

Last, I fail to see why anywhere outside of Israel, the good of the Jewish people is better served by a political mechanism which takes care of the good of all citizens, yet in Israel the good of the Jewish people should be in conflict with such a system.

Oh, and another last, I also fail to see how conflating Zionism (a political ideology) with Judaism is better for Jews in or outside of Israel.

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:28:39 +0000

Regarding Pakistan India analogy of population exchange of some 20 million people at the partition of India. This was self- determination.

I don’t consider the Jewish Arab population movement during the period before and after 1948 a population exchange. It was cause and effect.

The causes:
increased immigration of Jews from Europe into the British Mandate, the Holocaust, more immigration and the formation of the State of Israel.

The effects:
Arab rejection out of fear of colonization (well justified), anger that the UN(read that Western countries) were imposing this.
The ‘48 war and it’s results (losses-humiliation-refugees) led to reprisals against Jews in Arab countries which lead to Jewish migration, expulsion, flight to the unready but welcome arms of Israel ( more immigration to Israel).

This so called “exchange” helped exacerbate the problems of coexistence and ultimately security for Israel. It did not help it.

There was so much pain involved on both sides, including what horrors many Jewish refugees had just come through in Europe, that any humanitarian today with a sense of history and it’s lessons would not want to prescribe any more transferring of anyone as a solution unless we are talking about hopeless militants on either side. Those can be sent to the moon.

If you look at the Pakistan India partition and exchange, since it is being brought up, you can see how this plays out and what it brings. Look at the whole picture, not the part of the history that suits your argument.

This is a good article : India and Pakistan:Partition lessons

http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/conflicts/india_pakistan/partition

By: Y. Ben-David

Y. Ben-David — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:58:42 +0000

David-
Thanks for the correction regarding Jinnah. I knew he didn’t speak Urdu and I know he lived in Bombay so I assumed he was not from the region of what would become West Pakistan.

George-
Since you call me “Y”, should I refer to you from now on as “G”?

By: David

David — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:17:54 +0000

YBD:

A couple of minor factual corrections (which don’t have any major bearing on your main argument). First, there is a difference between the Sudetenland and East Prussia. The Sudetenlanders were in Czechoslovakia, but the people of East Prussia lived in fully German territory, and hence were not expelled for being “fifth columnists” in someone else’s land. Their expulsion was part of a deal that took German territory and gave it (mainly) to Poland, in order to compensate Poland for the seizure of Polish territory by the Soviet Union.

Second, I’ve no idea where you got your information about Jinnah. His place of birth is disputed – either Karachi or Jhirk, according to the Wikipedia entry – but both towns are in Sindh, a province of what is now Pakistan. You’re right that his native language was not Urdu or Bengali, but Gujerati: but he also spoke Sindhi, which is the official language of Sindh. So I don’t think his ethnic credentials are seriously in doubt.

By: george hilborn

george hilborn — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:21:14 +0000

Y I how see such the unfettered analysis of the German situation(which is just plain assinine ) compares to the Palestinian situation. I agree there is no law that gives the Palestinians a right of return to their former homeland and for that matter I question if the UN mandates give Israel to the Jews as a homeland at the expense of the Palestinians getting -no land

By: Y. Ben-David

Y. Ben-David — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:05:19 +0000

TNM-
It wasn’t just Stalin who threw the Germans out of East Prussia, the Poles did it and the Czechs did it. The Germans were Fifth Columnists in their countries who aided the German rape of their countries. I have not heard any Westerners demand that the Germans be taken back there and the German government itself has not demanded a “right of return” to those places. So it is not just “Stalin”. I have also not heard anyone demand that Pakistan, a country set up on the basis of exclusivist religious identity (Mohammed Ali Jinnah, its founder, was not from the territories that became Pakistan, nor did he speak either Bengali or Urdu, the main languages of those regions) recognize a “right of return” for the Hindus who were driven out of their ancestral homes in those territories so that a “pure Muslim” Pakistani state could be set up. There is no basis in international law that requires Israel to recognize a “Palestinian Right of Return” since it what the Arabs who started the war, a war they defined as one of genocide, but which they, thank G-d, lost and for which they are paying the price to this day.

By: TNM

TNM — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:01:32 +0000

To Herbert Kaine –regarding the Sudeten Germans, do you you really think Stalin sets the proper example for Israel?

By: Raghav

Raghav — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:26:58 +0000

Without getting further into the weeds, I wanted to point out that a clear majority of francophones in Quebec did vote for independence in the 1995 referendum.

By: Ploni Almoni

Ploni Almoni — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:21:19 +0000

Correction to the above: I meant that it’s almost obscene to call Israel a democracy in the sense of “a democracy of all its citizens.” Ancient Athens was a democracy even though it had slaves, and in the same sense Israel is a democracy even though only the Jews are sovereign. But nowadays “democracy” usually means universal democracy.

By: Ploni Almoni

Ploni Almoni — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:15:10 +0000

Raghav gives a standard liberal/libertarian critique of democracy, which I think has some truth to it. The whole idea of a public good or general will is problematic, though there are good answers to your objections.

The specific case of Israel seems fairly clear, though. A large, politically homogeneous subgroup of the citizenry – the Arabs – do not even support the state as it’s presently constituted, i.e., as a Jewish state. Many don’t even recognize it as legitimate. This isn’t a matter of some law or regulation, it’s the existence of the state itself. You just can’t get more basic than that. It’s almost obscene to refer this situation as a democracy just because Jews cast 80% of the ballots or whatever and are therefore able to impose a Jewish state on the Arabs against their will. The same would be true with Canada if Quebec willed to secede and the central government “democratically” overrode it.