Victory through Other Means: The Hidden Logic of Anti-Zionism
One reader responded to my article admitting my preference for Zionism over universal liberalism by applauding me for my intellectual honesty. It would be good if anti-Zionists could respond in kind. A case in point of their dishonesty is provided by Muhammed Jabali’s “On democracy: There’s nothing ‘Left’ about the Zionist left” on the +972 blog.
The final paragraph is key: “That’s why there is nothing “left” about the “Zionist left.” And there’s a clear connection between voting for Tzipi Livni or Shelly Yachimovich, and supporting a Price Tag crime. The difference is encapsulated by your stance on the Altalena Affair: it is an internal discussion within the colonial forces. Whether colonization should be carried out with by more or less force, and whether it should consider international law or not. There is nothing in all of that to help you produce your social democratic identity in a shared space.”
In short, even the left-wing of Israeli society is racist and despicable. We can assume that Jabali feels the same about the right-wing. And yet at the same time we are told that Jabali and other anti-Zionists are pursuing a one-state solution in which everyone will be accorded the same rights. Given that you consider a vast majority of Israeli society to be beyond the pale, why on earth would you want them to be part of your new state? If I were surrounded by people who held such awful views, I would demand immediate separation and perhaps even international protection from them. But we are told that Jalabi & Co want to join together with the despised in creating a new polity without precedent in world history.
But wait. If the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza get a vote, as well as the descendants of Palestinian refugees, then sharing no longer becomes necessary. Because democracy would then mean a Palestinian-Arab state with Jews as second-class citizens, a mirror image of the state we’re told currently exists between the river and the sea, the state Jabali and the other anti-Zionists despise.
In short, the one-state solution is a vision for Palestinian victory. The high-minded rhetoric about peace and justice and democracy is a ruse; it cannot sit alongside the widely held view – honestly expressed by Jalabi – that Israel is a country where even the left-wing are irredeemably racist. That is, without us going through some kind of de-Nazification programme. But even the Germans were able to keep living in Germany. If you sincerely believe that there is a “connection” between voting for Tzipi Livni and setting fire to mosques (perhaps it’s akin to the “connection” between a BDS activist and a suicide bomber), then you are very optimistic if you think that a single democratic state will bring peace. That is, unless it is not peace you seek, but victory.
14 comments14 Comments so far
Leave a reply
‘In short, the one-state solution is a vision for Palestinian victory. The high-minded rhetoric about peace and justice and democracy is a ruse’
Absolutely. The dissolution of the one Jewish state in the world for qualities allegedly apartheid into a wider Palestinian (and other) Arab Muslim and Christian state and society, which can only be described as apartheid with regard to Jews, based on its history, by the very criteria Israel is judge so guilty.
Ghada Karmi refers to the P.L.O. euphemism for the fate of Israeli Jews in her biography, recounting a meeting with a P.L.O. leader in Lebanon in the early 70s. He says,
“‘When the Zionists took our country, they used force to get what was not theirs. Can anyone expect we should do less to get back what is ours?’ I stared at him, wanting him to continue. But he suddenly smiled at me and reiterated the famous Fateh fighting slogan, ‘Revolution until victory!’
As I got up to leave I realised that he had offered me nothing tangible for my organisation or any promise of a formal link with him; in fact, none of the things I had promised my group I would try and obtain. And yet I felt strangely satisfied, as if the mere contact with him had given me something more important, a sense of specialness and inclusion. To me, he seemed a hero and the true leader of our people.
I could not imagine, looking at him then, that there would come a time when I – when many of us – would feel differently; a time when he would lay down his arms and would strike a deal -the Oslo Agreements of 1993 – that guaranteed so little for us and so much for our enemy; would call an end to that ‘revolution until victory’; and, in spite of all that, would be reviled as a terrorist.”
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DuiB5iJ26KcC&pg=PA401&lpg=PA401&dq=revolution+until+victory+ghada+karmi+in+search+of+fatima&source=bl&ots=AjVXYbPYNq&sig=TEFfs8HOrEMKnxQbyGFSZwZr9jY&hl=en&ei=0LLkTunQKNSKhQem7unqAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
It should be remembered that at this time, the 1968 P.L.O. charter only allowed Jews resident in Palestine ‘before the Zionist invasion’ (at best 1947; more likely 1917) to become Palestinian citizens. Which begged the question of what would happen to most Israeli Jews.
‘Justice’, by definition, means a fair share all round. Which means a Jewish right of return, as well as a Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian one, the right for two peoples, historically exiled and dispossessed, to restoration and self-determination, not just one alone.
But this is not the ‘justice’ of the BDS movement, by and large, which sees justice as on the side of only one group, to all intents a purposes; a ‘justice’ very particular, nationalist and partisan.
Words like ‘justice’, ‘victory’ or ‘revolution’ can be used to cover a multitude of sins:
Is 29, 13
“Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men”
“Summum jus, summa iniura is a term Latin whose literal meaning is “absolute justice, of injustice,” or “the maximum fee, the ultimate injustice.” Cicero ( De officiis , I, 10, 33) cites as proverbial expression. A similar expression is in fact already in Terence ( Heautontimorumenos , IV, 5): Ius summum saepe summa est malitia (“the highest justice is often an evil”).
The term indicates that an uncritical application of the law – which does not take into account the circumstances in which its rules must be applied in each case and the purposes to which they should strive for – it kills the spirit, and can easily lead to commit injustice or even be tool to perpetrate injustice.”
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summum_ius,_summa_iniuria
Aristotle says perfect justice is only possible in a perfect society. BDSers, by and large, seek a perfect justice on behalf of Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians without seeking the same for the Jews concerned i.e. without constructing the framework of a perfectly just society for them.
That inequality, that injustice, has the seeds of disaster, at best, since it is hardly a situation most Israeli Jews will acquiesce in. And if BDSers seek to compel them, Israeli Jews will compel back.
Sorry for a long comment, please free to edit or delete as you deem fit, Alex.
“Revolution until Victory”
One recalls the language of Ben White
“This criticism applies to both Fatah and Hamas, though the former has been guilty of it for a longer period of time and with more devastating consequences. Over the past five years or so, the conflict between these two factions has frequently resembled a fight for who can occupy the Bantustan palace, rather than who can serve most effectively the unfinished Palestinian revolution.
…The Palestinian Authority and the Oslo structure shifted the discourse over Palestine – both domestically and internationally – from a discourse of rights (right of return, liberation, decolonisation and self-determination) to one of statehood and independence.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/01/palestinian-political-leadership
There is no room in Ben White’s discourse for a Zionist narrative of Jewish national self-determination, restoration or right of return; or Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian obstruction of it, since, in his view, to accord legitimacy to the former is to deny it to the latter.
He only sees the conflict in black and white, absolute evil versus absolute good. Quasi-religiously, in fact, ‘Zionism”s having the place in his discourse of ‘Judaism’ in that of traditional and patristic Christianity.
It is a quasi-faith system. Great theology, great ideology. Bad history, and bad politics.
Alex, could you spell out, in summary, how Israel as it exists now departs from international liberal-democratic norms within the 67 boundaries, putting the OT to one side and which of these differences you agree with / see as justified?
Also, why the presumption that a one-state solution would automatically result in a reversal of the status quo i.e. a state where Palestinian values prevail in a way that is also incompatible with liberal universalism?
I would like a stronger sense of why this is a dispute between rival nationalisms both incompatible with liberal norms, i.e. a zero-sum game and why advocacy of a liberal-democratic state with a Palestinian majority is doomed to failure.
The argument to me looks like: a one-state solution is impossible given the current situation, and its implementation could only be achieved by going to war. Therefore, by default the new status quo of a single state would be designed to consolidate the Palestinian victory.
Is it impossible to envisage a peaceful process leading to a single state? Is there no constitutional arrangement based on liberalism that could, over time, assuage opinion in Israel as well as satisfy Palestinians? Some kind of federal solution, or binationalism with equal priority given to Arabic and Hebrew?
Nick – I’m not the best person to answer that because I don’t think it really does that much, but here goes: Law of Return, certain land laws, and issues related to religion, although they discriminate more against non-Orthodox Jews(I am working on the assumption that de facto discrimination exists in most liberal democratic countries, to different degrees).
Second question: because the anti-Zionists are making the same argument they made in the 1940s, which can be applied equally to bi-nationalism as it can to partition. In short, Zionism has no moral basis here. If that’s the case, why on earth would an anti-Zionist be interested in provided for Jewish collective rights?
Your final question: It could happen in Utopia, and if we all wanted to live alongside one another. But we don’t. Jews and Arabs don’t want to live together.
The best federal model is India, imho. But it would still rely on much greater positive feeling between the two warring communities than we have here at the moment.
[...] herself has been at the forefront of attacking CAP).Good post on False Dichotomies regarding how the nature of anti-Zionist rhetoric poisons any possibility of a one-state solution where Jewish citizens are viewed as equal. Simply put, if you view [...]
While it is widely held that “Democracy” is good, that Israel is “Democratic” and ergo good (in a political sense if nothing else). It always brings a smile to my face when I ask Israeli Jews of leftest politcal leanings, “What would they do if Israeli Arabs (sic) become the voting majority?” i.e. What if Arab’ citizens of the Jewish State use Democracy to appropiate that very State? The answers are as amusing and they are numerous….. Let’s just say most Israeli’s are “Democractic” or “Leftist” as long as it furthers their own concept of Israel.
Of what you speak, Stuart, is a situation whereby Israeli Jews are turned into a minority in a Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian majority state i.e. a minority in a society that has Resisted Jews living in the land in other than the tiny numbers imperial Christianity and Islam decreed from the beginning of its modern nationalist movement.
Obviously that would be of concern to Israeli Jews, given the history of profound hostility to them from Palestinian and other Arab Muslims and Christians. That you find such concern amusing says more about you, Stuart, and nothing good.
Those who would dissolve the one Jewish state for its alleged apartheid qualities would dissolve it into a wider Palestinian (and even other) Arab Muslim and Christian society that can only be described as apartheid with regard to Jews, by those criteria, based on its history of the last 100 years, or longer i.e. would commit an act of injustice in the name of justice.
Again, Stuart, that you would find such a thing amusing suggests the contempt in which you hold the Jews concerned. But I am sure the feeling is mutual.
‘Is it impossible to envisage a peaceful process leading to a single state?’
My (doubtless well rehearsed) haepenny worth, Nick, albeit not so informed as Alex’s, is that it might be, were the right of return for both groups, Jews and Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians, to all the land, was guaranteed by a constitutional law with teeth.
Israeli Jews’ fear (as you know) is that, as soon as Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christians became a majority, the first thing they would do is revoke a Jewish right of return; given the fact that the whole conflict has arguably arisen from a modern Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian national/nationalist Resistance to Jews returning in above tiny numbers (and arguably conducting themselves as equals) a priori.
The latter point is one of which Stuart above seems unaware, or to have ignored. Which is a pretty spectacular omission, in my view. Even the 1968 P.L.O. charter denied Jews resident in Palestine after ‘the Zionist invasion’ (at the time almost certainly 1917; now retrospectively ‘translated’ by the P.A. as ’1947′) citizenship, begging the question of what would happen to most Israeli Jews. Hamas is still explicitly like that, at best, while the P.A. is ambivalent, arguably more recognising the ‘fact’ of Israel’s existence rather than her ‘right’ to do so (see the P.A. ambassador’s to India words to that effect).
Stuart may choose to ignore the history and track record of that hostility, for the purpose of amusing himself. Israeli Jews aren’t so daft.
Zkharya – For the record, you’ve completely misread Stuart’s tone. And he is an Israeli-Jew himself, with politics not too different to yours.
Zkharya- The point I was trying to make, and I failed to do so, was that Jewish Israelis in general, and those with Leftist leanings in particular, always claim the “moral high ground” by stating Israel is the only “true Democracy” in the neighborhood. Fine. The problem with the Left arises when one shows them that these very Democratic leanings of which they are so proud of can also spell the end of Israel as a Jewish entity. If I had to choose being having Israel remain Democractic but no longer under Jewish over sight, or non-Democractic but still contolled by Jews, I’d prefer the later….
Alex:
Firstly should ‘hidden logic’ not simply be written as ‘hidden agenda’? Be forthright, you know you want to.
With regards to ‘anti-Zionism’ and the OSS/TSS I think you’re hopelessly complicating things needlessly, at least speaking for myself. I truly believe ‘one-statism’ was born out of the genuine belief that the TSS is now simply a pipe dream. Those who in Israel advocate it are a tiny minority, what’s ‘left of the Left’. Please don’t give me your ‘Israel wants peace’ bullcrap: everyone wants peace but few seem to be willing to pay the price for it. Thus those like you, who advocate that a TSS is still possible cling to that irrational belief and thereby simply play into the ‘status quo’, which is the road to further colonisation and eventually a full blown Apartheid system with WB Palestinians as people without citizenship, nationality or political rights (worse than SA in many respects).
How, prey tell, am I to believe for 30 years in something that during that time has increasingly become a sheer impossibility, without losing ‘faith’???
Your otherwise laudable CfP initiative cannot deliver anything near a TSS either: how many members does it sport by now? 700?
No, Israel will continue its project of colonising all of Mandate Palestine, a mere continuation of Jabotinsky/Ben-Gurion objectives (you seem unaware of just how widely supported Israel’s expansionism really is among pro-Israel punditry, Jewish or Goyim alike) until there is no more Palestine. Then you’ll kvetch some more: ‘me and the other three Lefties in Israel didn’t want this! We resisted!’ (Did you f*ck!) If there’s a ‘hidden logic’ to write about, maybe that’s the one: perhaps your own ‘faith’ [in a TSS] has a ‘hidden agenda’; replete with crocodile tears when it’s really ‘game over for the TSS’? Because when Eretz Yisrael has finally been achieved, in what way will it harm you? Your sense of ‘ethics/morality’?
When once the TSS was possibly the only, yet always unlikely, way to Palestinian salvation, Israel and her imbecilic supporters/enablers have made any such solution impossible. Only outside forces can now save Israel from herself but you oppose that too, no doubt.
The belief that Arabs and Jews cannot live together peacefully is simply racist claptrap.
Meanwhile, also most charmingly, internally Israel is sliding into a sort of Religio-Nationalist fascistoid hellhole, not too far removed from its perennial nemesis in Tehran. From ‘Gabriel’ (who commented here in the past, I believe), on a HP post:
Very interesting post, Gert. Give me a few weeks and I will respond in full. I’ll be starting with the absurd idea that the one-state solution is somehow more realistic than the two-state solution.
Well, I look forward to it.
In the mean time a mere clarification. I don’t believe a OSS is necessarily more desirable or more probable than a TSS (but undeniably there are strong arguments in favour of a OSS), merely that Israel’s chosen path is very clearly (albeit inadvertently) in the direction of one state. You cannot have it both ways: too much Palestinian land’s already been frittered away, yet the trend continues unabated towards more expansionism. See also Bibi’s patently absurd rebuke of European/Russian condemnation of the latest tender for more housing units.
The current internal discussion about the settler ‘price tag’ acts of violence seems to focus on ‘good v. bad’ settlers, not so much about the settler movement itself, that’s quite telling too.
Apologies for a late reply, Alex and Stuart, and apologies for the misunderstanding.
Blwyddyn newydd dda, via Oberlin, Ohio.