I was listening to Stephen Walt -- the Harvard professor who called out the Israeli lobby's harmful impact on U.S. interests -- on Fresh Air on NPR today.
Without surprise, Terry Gross repeated the canard about Israel being the only democracy and surrounded by hateful countries trying to destroy it. Walt had to reiterate his belief in Israel's right to exist and stated that the U.S. should admit if it is supporting Israel for moral reasons. If I was a bit more conspiratorially-minded, I would have concluded that the Zionists are putting these guys -- and Jimmy Carter -- up to provide the illusion of a debate.
Israel's most prominent critics in the United States are still Zionists. The problem with Israel is not the failure of this or that peace process, or even this or that policy, it IS an existential problem. There is no peace without resolution of the problem that Israel was a colonial creation, imposed by Europeans, that entailed the destruction of a country and the creation of a huge refugee population.
Mearsheimer and Walt shimmy around this. They say that support for Israel is a liability to U.S. interests? OK, but why is it? Without the history of usurpation and ethnic cleansing, there really is no issue. For that reason, their analysis misses THE fundamental contextual point. And that is why their work so far has been so disappointing (they fill-in-the-blank with talk of Israeli human rights violations against Palestinians -- which is not the real issue here)
Gross, in the same program, felt the need to air the opposite view, provided by Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League (I still know of NO issue requiring such stringent "equal" time practices).
She quoted from his new book, stating that M and W are not anti-Semites themselves, but provide "AID AND COMFORT" to anti-Semites.
It piqued my interest in this phrase, which we increasingly heard thrown at critics of George Bush. The charges of providing "aid and comfort to terrorists" by, for example, questioning whether we should torture Muslims the government thinks MIGHT be terrorists, refer to the legal definition of treason in the U.S. Constitution.
Article VIII, Section III, declares, that "adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort," shall be treason.
Interesting choice of language there, Foxy-man. Collapsing criticism of the pro-Israel lobby with treason against the United States... By compounding support of America's enemies and questioning the pro-Israel lobby, Foxman is exploiting the most baseless and hysterical logic of the war in terror.
By the way, I love Foxman's book cover. It looks like an anti-Semitic treatise itself, with the word lies scrawled over the Star of David. Also, the title, "The Deadliest Lies," is so grossly exaggerated, I had to laugh.
I cannot even conceive of any "lies" -- or claims made by Israel's critics -- that are as deadly as the reality of Israeli occupation and historical displacement. Israel's greatest danger is the outcome of its own actions -- of aggression, displacement, and continued occupation.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Aid and Comfort
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
bloody well said!
Awesome post ya 3ars!
I think the reason the conflict is diffcult is that Palestinians see it as a fight against colonialism while for Israelis it is a fight between two peoples for the same land.
It is possible to call third and fouth generation Israelis colonialists. But very few in the US and Europe would be convinced by this. To most Americans third generation Israelis are just as indegenous as the Palestinians.
So the conflict is one between two indegenous people in the minds of most Americans. Giving it a colonialist aspect does not hold water, especially to most Americans who themselves are second or third generation immigrants to the US.
"To Most Americans third generation Israelis are just as indigenous"
Which denotation of "indigenous" is Anonymous working here? Moreover, prefacing "just as" behind this American denotation of "indigenous" further problematizes the American perspective. However, I see the point that you are making and I have to agree with you, but only in part. First, I beleive that white Americans, many of whom whose ancestors were invested in and directly benefited from American colonialism, would champion the view you describe above, from both an experiential and perhaps (blatant) ahistorical/politically rationalist take on the view. However, a vastly growing number of Americans of color, regardless of which generation, would quickly dismiss what you are saying.
Moreover, it is in fact part of the "colonialist calculus" to craft language, especially hyper-political terms, to not only fit but further the colonial objective. Therefore, Americans reforming the essential meaning of "indigenous" to fit their own enterprise, and worldview," is self-serving and part of the project.
So, when asking what indigenous means, the more crucial question is to determine, are you down with Fanon or Sykes-Picot and Manifest Destiny?
Man, I'm slappin' palms with Franz baby!
Heh. Good (and terrifying) linguistic catch on Foxman there, Will. Couldn't Terry Gross get someone less...insane than his vicious ass?
And the creation of the State of Israel *was* a colonialist act, regardless of what Americans think. For the record.
PS - Khaled B, are you *that* Kahled B?
The one and only playboy...
Is this Saladin, that Saladin...
If so, I miss you, love you, and give you mad baraka!
ANON's argument highlights a very real perspective many people hold on any potential "solution" to the conflict -- how can we punish those Israelis who were born into the colonial project their parents or grandparents participated in?
This perspective, while very real, is one based on historical AND present fictions; so much so, that even the terms "indigenous", "colonial" etc have taken on convienient meanings to serve the colonial project itself -- but my boy Khaled B already said it more eloquently than I ever could.
The way ANON's argument is framed implies that colonialism ceased to exist the day after its "inaugural encounter" -- the day after the violent creation of the state of Israel occured -- and ignores the violent territorial expansions of the state of Israel we are witnessing now; the settlements they built yesterday, the settlements they built today, and the settlements they'll build tomorrow.
We have not moved away from the logic of the colonial past in the "war on terror" -- that war the state of Israel has been engaged in since day one; one which has entailed then and entails now -- as my other boy Derek Gregory put it in his latest book entitled (hey, how 'bout that?) "The Colonial Present":
split geographies of "us and "them," "civilization" and "barberism," and "Good" and "Evil"
Are any of these terms sounding familiar in their colonial articulations, or has the project already helped redefine them for us, too?
Thanks for the kind comments here. KB, Saladin, and QuiQui left little to be said.
I do want to state also that Israel's colonialism is also in the present. The settlers in the West Bank and E. Jerusalem are current, as are the various expansions still going on. And within Israel, there is still active building in Arab areas to disconnect Arab areas. Internal colonization is real (if you think that sounds like an oxymoron, as the "internally displaced" Palestinians, who make up 25 % of the Palestinians with Israeli citizenship).
It's fine if Israelis think they are native... the polity they are part of is a colonizing one. This historical dynamic is ultimately more important than public perception here or there.
Yes, the Israelis think they are native. The Americans think they are native and in 3 generations not one person with an ounce of common sense will view the Israelis as not native to the middle east.
The settlers can return to behind the green line just as happened to those in Gaza. Where can the people leaving inside the green line return to? That is why viewing the conflict as a colonialist one does not make sense. Both Israelis and Palestinians are fighting with their back to the walls. It is a fight between nations, not a colonialist problem.
Israelis have their backs to the wall? One million speak Russian. One million Israelis live outside of Israel, yet are counted in the census. Countless others have dual citizenship. Many go to Israel as a stopping point to US and Europe. many return to their countries, such as Morocco. Israelis have many places to go.
But that is not what I am calling for anyways. I just think there should be legal equality between Jews and Palestinians there. They should both live in one state and the refugees should have their rights. The Arab states will have to offer return or compensation to Jewish refugees from those countries. This is the only model for a lasting peace. Then Israelis will have dealt with their colonial legacy in an honorable way.
You are caught in the horns of a dillema. For now, asking Israelis and Palestinian refugees to get along in one state is not realistic. See the problems in Lebanon and Iraq. Even the chechs and the slovaks divided their country. The Belgians are also on the verge of a radical solution. What you ask for is a recipe for violence and a civil war and very few Israelis would support it.
In 50 years though, speaking of a "colonial" problem would defy common sense and your argument will not have a leg to stand on.
Therefore the only peaceful option is a two state one, however much you feel it is unfair.
And by the way, Israelis living in Israel are with their back to the wall. A small percentage have dual citizenships. You really believe a significant number of Jews is going back to Morocco?
Nekama's Troll Hammer would like a word with you.
Post a Comment