Please, please, please– let’s hope that this time the Fateh-Hamas agreement can be made to stick, and the hard-pressed people of the Occupied Palestinian Territories be relieved of the economic strangulation and internal conflict to which they have been subject for far too long now!!
Here is the account in Arabic-language Al-Hayat of the agreement that PA President Mahmoud Abbas and the head of Hamas’s political bureau, Khaled Meshaal, concluded on Thursday evening in Mecca.
That account includes the text of the “Mecca Declaration” concluded there, and also the text of the “letter of appointment” handed by Abbas to the (Hamas) PA Prime Minister, Ismail Haniyeh. This latter text included this:
- “I call on you to be committed to the higher interests of the Palestinian people and to the preservation of its rights, and to work to realize them on the basis of the decisions of the Palestinian National Council, the Basic Laws, the document of national agreement, and the decisions of the Arab summits. And on that basis I call on you to respect the decisions of international legitimacy and the agreements that the PLO signed.”
Presumably, by accepting that letter, Haniyeh was agreeing to form his new government on that basis.
The Hayat reporters there in Mecca write that the parties agreed that Fateh will get six ministers in the new National Unity Government, Hamas will get nine, and the rest– including the all-important Interior Minister– will all be independents.
In this account, Al-Jazeera English gives this (still incomplete) list of portfolios:
- * Ziyad Abu Amr, an independent, is the new foreign minister.
* Salam Fayyad, from the Third Way party, becomes finance minister.
* The remaining ministerial posts include nine ministers from Hamas and six from Fatah.
* Four other ministerial posts will be distributed among other Palestinian factions.
* Five posts will be assigned to independent politicians not belonging to any political faction.
* Three of the independents will be nominated by Hamas and two by Fatah.
There is much more to say about this agreement than I have time to write here. I am not sure if it will “open the door” for whatever limp Palestinian-Israeli “diplomatic initiative” Condi Rice might be cooking up for later this month… At first blush, it would seem not to.
But for Palestinians living under horrendous conditions of international siege and threatened internal fitna (internal collapse/ civil war) inside the OPTs, that probably is not the first order of business. For them, the most urgent priorities are to ward off the fitna and to find a way to reopen the channels to the external aid that Israel’s inhumane economic siege has forced them to be reliant on.
This agreement– which was concluded under the direct auspices of both the Saudi King Abdullah ibn Abdel-Aziz and his Crown Prince, Sultan Ibn Abdel-Aziz– holds considerable promise of meeting both those goals to a significant extent.
Presumably, now, the Saudis have also undertaken to “underwrite” the process of intra-Palestinian reconciliation that they have so prominently brokered, by assuring the Palestinian parties– and the new government, which will be formed very soon– of the Kingdom’s financial support.
That is a new situation.
In brokering this deal, King Abdullah has moved decisively beyond the limits of the behavior toward the Palestinians– and Hamas, in particular– that the US has been seeking to impose on all members of the international community.
That is presumably why he felt he needed also to associate his Crown Prince with this action, as well.
(All this certainly underscores what I was writing here yesterday about the Saudis’ current stance on regional affairs.)
The reactions of the US and Israel to the deal have been notably frosty.
But what are the Americans going to be able to do about King Abdullah’s naughty transgression? I really don’t think they’re in a position to do very much at all. The Israelis may well try to block Saudi aid getting into the OPTs, or take other actions to block the implementation of the initiative… And the US and Israel may try to continue to support acts by rogue members of the notoriously ill-disciplined Fateh security services that are aimed at keeping the pot of internal tensions at boiling point. But given the near-unanimous jubilation with which the Palestinian greeted the news of the Mecca Declaration, any such rogue agents may have a hard time putting together their networks or building a following.
(Note that deeply embedded racism in that BBC account I linked to above. Though the text of the piece gives quite a lot of detail about the “jubilant scenes” that greeted the announcement of the agreement in Gaza, the headline says stiffly “Muted response to Mecca agreement”– as though the only “response” that actually counts is that of Israel and the United States!)
Anyway, for more on the jubilation in Gaza, see this account from Al-Jazeera English.
This is one of the most hopeful events I have seen from the Middle East in years. Since the USA and Israel polices are bankrupt, it might be in the Palestinian’s interest to make this deal work.
An editing comment on a spelling error. “fdecisively”
On a cautionary note, the heavyweight Saudi critics at both Al-Quds al-Arabi and Al-Akhbar say brokering this agreement in and of itself is still within the margin of maneuver that the US has assigned to the Saudi regime. What would be a sign of a shift is if the Saudi regime can follow through via lifting the Palestinian blockade and convincing the Europeans to resume aid. I did a summary of that view here
I’ve heard about the deal on the airwaves this morning. The main thing which they underlined is that Hamas had refused to recognize Israel. They didn’t even note the phrase you have quoted concerning the respect of the international treaties signed by the PLO.
The European Commission was giving a lot of help to the former PLO government(much more than the US). When Hamas came to power, they folded to the US pressions and (thanks to Barroso, Merkel and other right wing politicians) decided to cut these helps. There has been some workaround (an idea of Chirac) with the money going to the Palestinians through the NGOs, so that Hamas won’t be seen distributing help. But many NGO declared that it wasn’t their mission to distribute these aids and quite often refused to comply (it was a way to refuse the political dirty game adopted by the West against the Palestinian electoral choice).
Anyway, I’m not sure whether the deal broked by the Saudis will be enough to allow the return of the EU helps : they have been made conditional to the recognization of Israel by Hamas.
I hope that Saudi’s helps will be enough important to replace those formerly distributed by the EU.
Whoops, posted this to the wrong thread.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FCBCFEEA-B577-45AB-A4F7-670A4E6F92B8.htm
Hamas ‘will never recognise Israel’
The Saudi ruler hosted the Mecca conference from which emerged the Fatah-Hamas agreement [EPA]
Hamas has said it will never recognise Israel and that an agreement on a Palestinian unity government does not change the movement’s position.
Nizar Rayyan, a senior Hamas leader in Gaza, said on Friday: “We will never recognise Israel. There is nothing called Israel, neither in reality nor in the imagination.”
His comments were endorsed by a Hamas spokesman.
I’ll admit to being a bit confused about the difference between being “committed” to agreements and international resolutions, which is the language Fatah wanted, and “respecting” them. Is it possible to “respect” an agreement without being committed to it in some degree and implementing it through official policy? It’s obvious, though, that Hamas considers the “respect” language less binding. Does anyone know how Hamas intends to construe this language – i.e., will it (1) regard prior agreements and resolutions as guidelines rather than rules, (2) “respect” their terms for now but seek to renegotiate them at the earliest opportunity, (3) reinterpret their terms to favor Palestinian interests as much as possible, or (4) something else entirely?
Anyway, this is certainly good news. I hope it stops the factional fighting and leads to renewed diplomacy.
just curious, does anybody know of any Arab commentator anywhere, who thinks the Saudi king, in brokering this, “went decisively beyond the limits” imposed by the US?
I really hope this agreement is substantial as well. Palestinians were wasting lives with this infighting. They need unity, to rebuild the state and be strong enough to defend themselves against Israel.
Also, I hope the summit addressed the issue of funding Fatah received from the West. Fatah needs to distance itself from that funding in order for its commitment to Palestine not to be compromised.
Now though I’m very worried that the recent violent outburst concerning the archeology work being done near al-Asqa, that this dig is being done as some setup for the Palestinians to fall into war again.
I should say though that vadim has a point. Hamas has a set of issues regarding recognition that I thought John V. Whitbeck explained well in a recent CSM commentary. But this spokeman’s statement sounds like pandering to Iran. I worry that Iranian puppet strings will prevent Hamas from reasonable negotiation to get the acceptable circumstances to recognize Israel, just as how U.S. puppet strings have been keeping Israel hardline lately. Hamas needs to break some of those strings.
European and Russian Jews stole that land fair-and-square from the Palestians a generation ago. It seems reasonable that the Moslem Arabs living there should recognize a ‘Jewish State’, concede that they are the wrong religion, and abandon their homes to join the Palestinians living in squalid refuge camps in Lebanon and Jordan.
Something like that.
=====================
European and Russian Jews stole that land fair-and-square from the Palestians a generation ago
Sarge, you’ve been stuck in the trenches too long. Here’s a dispatch from HQ: half of Israeli Jews trace their immediate ancestry to “Arab states” in the Middle East, including Israel’s defense minister. I’m sure some of them were happy living as citizens of “Arab States” before being chucked out three generations or so ago (one generation maybe in tortoise years.)
So how’s that “War on Zionism” going? Sixty years and counting…you making any progress? Or is that another “war without end” like the one on terror?
I am a tortoise and proud of it.
Personnally, I’d like Israel/Palestine transformed into a true secular democracy that extends rights and full citizenship to all persons within its borders reguardless of religion or ethnicity – rather than the current religiously bigoted country that oppresses and subjigates those of the ‘wrong’ religion. Is that possible? Can Israel/Palestine be transformed into a true secular demcaracy? Probably not. The Israelis still want to kick out all the Moslems and create their Jewish State and the Moslems are so pissed off that at the first chance they get they will kill the Jews that stole their land and oppressed them all these years.
Anyway, if your idea of fun is to kick out all the Arab Moslems from a little chunk of land in the Middle East and create a military armed beachhead than good luck to you. Europeans did it in South Africa and it seemed to ‘work’ for some time before it collapsed. Me, I’m sick of paying for it with my tax money, sick of my country’s reputation and good standing in the world being deminished because we support the bratty little thug that Israel has become, and I’m sick of the USA fighting your proxy wars.
Maybe the best solution would be to get rid of Israal’s nuclear weapons and cut off the supply of high tech weapons and components. Then the Jews and Moslems can fight their 100-Year War with rusty AK-74s and the rest of the world can ignore all of you backwards, bigoted, religious “god gave us this land” fanatics.
Just my 2-cents.
Maybe the best solution would be to…cut off the supply…[to Israel]…of high tech weapons and components. Then the Jews and Moslems can fight their 100-Year War with rusty AK-74s.
For better or worse, the Israeli arms industry is cutting edge and Israel is one of the five leading arms exporters in the world. Impetus for this development ironically are Israel’s experiences of having foreign sources of weapons systems and attendant spare parts closed to them at inopportune times. (The French decision in 1967 by president De Gaulle to cut off delivery of Mirage aircraft already paid for by Israel is one such example.)
The Palestinian/Israeli problem is the core of the MidEast Troubles. Without a solution here, there will be no solutions anywhere in the area. Without dwelling on history, I will go directly to the solution.
First, Jerusalem becomes an International City and the Israeli capital is re-acknowledged as Tel Aviv. The Palestinians name their own capital.
Second, Israel pulls back to the pre-1967 borders.
Thirdly, the area of Jerusalem is physically defined to form many functions :
– The city will become host to most large-scale UN functions.
– Jerusalem will have a local security force and a UN security force of limited scope.
– The borders will be maintained by Israel and Palestine, either in tandem or separately.
– There will be an International airport.
– The area will be large enough to be physically defended and observe adjacent areas.
– The area will control the major highland aquifers, and oversee per capita national allocations.
– The area will allow a transnational journey by either nationality. By passing through Jerusalem, an Israeli transits N/S, and a Palestinian travels E/W. This allows Palestine to have international borders with Jordan and Egypt, but not Syria or Lebanon, respecting current treaties and civilities.
The area will be a duty/tax free area, and the allocated ownership will be dispersed to the “right to return” Palestinians, the displaced Israeli colonists, and all who have lost their homes. Internal agriculture (because of crowded conditions) will also be “eminent domained”, the owners compensated and they and the land are included in the allocation.
The Jerusalem area should be as small as possible, hence the agricultural exclusion. The land should be Israeli or Palestinian, as much as possible.
Jerusalem will be a service, marketing and manufacturing zone. Each family unit will be prorated by size, then entered into a lottery for both a plot of residential land and a plot of commercial value. The allocations will be random to negate ghettoes and insularity. The residential and UN infrastructure will be internationally funded and built immediately. The residents will have startup funding of some sort. The residents of Jerusalem will have ownership, equity, involvement, and potential.
They, and the UN personnel, will not abide terrorism, and will self-police effectively. The key to controlling terrorism is to remove the cause and the base. This will do both. This is a step towards World Peace.
Of course the response is muted, because nobody believes it will last. These are the folks who did 120 such agreements with King Hussein in Jordan, these are the folks that’d rather see Iraq destroyed than compromise with the other sect. Even their celebrations involve AK-47s and bullets, isn’t that a symptom right there? What is wrong with celebrating sans weapons?
The only change is that the Saudis will be bankrolling the Palestinians instead of the Euroflakes and the Iranians.
My bet is they are killing each other in two weeks tops.
“The Gaza Palestinians celebrated the Hamas-Fatah ceasefire with rifle fire for over an hour,” observes New Republic editor in chief Martin Peretz, “Can these people do anything without gunshots?”
(via Matthew Yglesias)
Welcome, Marty. More of your wisdom, please.
“The Palestinian/Israeli problem is the core of the MidEast Troubles.”
I’m going to be a heretic here and suggest that this is not true at all. The plight of the Palestinians is simply the most obvious and easiest to understand example of the subjugation and suffering of most of the region’s population as a result of their having the misfortune to live in a contested zone of strategic interest to nearly all of the world’s great powers. In fact, if the Israelis completely withdrew to the 1967 borders and the Palestinian resistance laid down their arms tomorrow, the “Mideast Troubles” would continue unabated. I’m not saying I don’t support such a move – I do. I’m just saying that ending this fight over dirt and water along the Jordan River is not any kind of key to resolving the global struggles for wealth and power that will continue to rock this region for the foreseeable future.
John C., you’re right. I’m amazed that Arabs have failed to work out exactly what America intends to do to them once it’s broken their will to resist. It’s called Latin America. Once we’ve installed governments to hand over the resources, the populations will be stripped of social services by the World Bank/IMF, flooded with US media and Disney and McDonald’s, and castrated into good little sweatshop slaves until they’ve “earned” the right to make white man’s money – maybe in 200-300 years. That’s what we did to the CHRISTIANS to our south. Imagine how much harsher we will be to Moslems. Yet I never hear Latin America mentioned by any Arab commentators as a sign of how global class war is carried out. Imagine how they’d fight if they knew what the voters of Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Uruguay, Venezuela, Ecuador, Chile, Nicaragua, Haiti and (if properly counted) Mexico now know. Lebanon and Iraq were the proof.
To put the Arab Middle East in a category with Latinos or Native Americans, and to view their possible future subjugation in parallel terms to the neo-liberal schemes of American imperialism in the western hemisphere is to miss the significance of the Islamic revival that is sweeping the Middle East region and beyond. Palestinians and Iraqis and Saudis etc. are not ten little wooden injuns standing all in a row, keeping faith in their rain gods.
I remember travelling to areas around Hebron, Nablus and Jericho in the 1980s when Israeli real estate developers were encouraging Anglophone Zionists to settle on occupied lands, “enjoy spacious living spaces with hilltop views,” and join the fight against “rebellious natives” on the “Wild, Wild West Bank.” In the mid-1980s there were regular ads to this effect in the “Jerusalem Post,” and cowboy Zionists would race their cars along newly paved highways with Israeli flags fluttering in the wind. This naive American sense of colonization in the Muslim world was shocked and shaken back to reality by the first Palestinian intifada before decade’s end, and then traumatized by the second intifada after Oslo.
There is no possibility the Arab Muslim world could be colonized in this way. The Israelis have pushed a terribly naive project to its bloody end, and the spread of militant jihadist Islam is the result. Sure, it is true that there are other roots to the conflicts of the Middle East than the implantation of Israel itself, but the implantation of Israel was the original causis belli for jihadist militancy in the 20th and 21st centuries, just as the Crusaders sacking of Jerusalem was the basis of the call to jihad in Islam’s 11th and 12th centuries. There are some facts of history that even amnesiac Americans can not deny, and we need to understand that today’s spirit of jihad is not going to be defeated until it achieves its goal just as it achieved its goal in the past.
No doubt the resolution of the Israel-Palestine issue will not end the conflicts and crises of the Middle East, but it will go a long way to ending the twisted politics that keeps our own American government administration internally divided upon itself. It would certainly end a good bit of the secrecy, conniving, and back stabbing that goes on in the halls of our government. And it would go a long way to restoring a republican form of government that is meant to represent the will of the people who live on American soil.
sd, with respect, I think your last paragraph is just fanciful. Our government is not at all “divided upon itself” when it comes to Israel or the strategic importance of US/Israeli military dominance in the region. There is almost complete consensus on the fundamental points. Will we eventually be driven out by Islamic militants? Maybe. But the IP conflict is a symptom, not a cause.
Following John C’s lead, I too will be a heretic, in another sense.
How many of you, deep in you hearts, believe that the Saudi Abdullah ibn Abdel-Aziz and Sultan Ibn Abdel-Aziz (father of the notorious Bandar Ibn Sultan, Bush Sr.’s adopted son) will actually broker a deal meant to ultimately benefit the Palestinian people? I wish it were true, but it isn’t. Time will tell.
[I share As’ad Abukhalil’s skepticism]:
“A Hamas leader yesterday took exception to suggestions in a section of the foreign media that the Makkah summit was “nothing but a PR exercise” for Saudi Arabia. “Saudi Arabia is a sovereign nation. As a leader of the Muslim world it has played its historic role in stabilizing the region. It has conveyed in unambiguous terms to Washington and other Western nations that unless and until the festering issue of Palestine is solved nothing is going to lead to an enduring peace in the region,” he said. “This accord reinforces Saudi Arabia’s historic role in the region and in the affairs of the Ummah.””
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=91958&d=9&m=2&y=2007
John C.
Tell that to former Secretary of State Colin Powell or Gen. Zinni. Or better yet, tell that to Lt. Col. Karen Kwitkowski. Of course you could tell the same thing to the Steve Rosens, Keith Weissmans, and Larry Franklins of America. I am sure they would agree with your statement that “our government is not at all ‘divided upon itself’ when it comes to Israel or the strategic importance of US/Israeli military dominance in the region.”
I am sure former President Carter and his old Ambassador to the UN Andrew Young would completely agree with your statement. Or perhaps former US Congressman Paul Findlay would have a few points to make in support of your statement. If it were possible to catch 80% of our Congressmen on Capitol Hill in a moment of complete candor, I am sure they would dispute everything Findlay has to say. I could go on John, but maybe you think these are just “fanciful.” Fanciful? The IP conflict is a “symptom”? Isn’t it time to stop such trifling non-sense?
sd, maybe I’m dull today, but I really don’t get your point.
I agree with John C. I think Sd wants to suggest that Zionism is a unique phenomenon without which there would be no Middle East problems. Whereas Zionism is only one very peculiar consequence among many in the Middle East and in many other places, of Imperialism. In that sense John C is right to say that the Palestine-Israel situation is a symptom. It follows that the problems will not go away even if there is a settlement in Palestine.
I think the intervention of the Saudi Kingdom is an extraordinary event. “The worm turns” is what one wants to say. I can’t recall anything like it in the history of the Saudi entity (which is not much older than the Zionist entity, by the way).
There is a long article at http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2010212,00.html in the (London) Observer about a historian, Tony Judt and an opponent of his called Alvin Rosenfeld, who says of Judt:
“In his writings he calls not for a two-state solution but for the dissolution of the state of Israel and a one-state solution, and everyone knows that in no time at all, were such a scenario to come about, Jews would be a minority within this newly configured state, and would be at the mercy of a population that’s not likely to treat them gently. Tony Judt is a kind of political fantasist, it strikes me.’
There seems to be an argument that goes like this: One-state will be the end of the Jewish state, and therefore it is anti-Semitic to talk of a one-state solution. Of course the SA struggle was carried forward on the basis of the slogan: “one-person-one-vote in a unitary state”. Now these Rosenfelds and people would make an anti-Semite of you if you applied that same slogan to Israel.
Israel is just a colony and in that sense a product of the general Imperialist system – so it is in that sense a “symptom”, if you like. Like all colonies it has to dismantle itself and transform itself. Nobody has to go into the sea but also nobody can put a lock on the “demographics”. That really is apartheid, no two ways about it.
Hey Dominic, Israel is a colony of who? Where is the mother ship that is sending the colonizers?
A one state solution? Try it on India and Pakistan first, and if it works come back and propose it.
First thr propaganda was about the 1967 occupied territories, now they have removed their disguise, their problem is really 1948. That is why refugees are not absorbed by their brethren. Keep the 1948 wound open and try to reverse history. That is waht one state means. Look at Iraq. These are the folks you want to comune with into a democracy? Have an Arab democracy work anywhere first.
Aye, there’s the rub.
It is very plain to see in Davico’s contribution how very quickly the argument for Zionism can turn into a general argument for confessional/racial apartheid. Zionism is here supposedly justified by comparison with the tragic partition of India.
In another moment the supposedly unique threat of anti-Semitism can be brandished. In the moment it can be swopped over into a universal theory of separations. This is a shell game, made to disguise the nature of Israel which is that of a colony, an anachronism, and a menace to all.
John C-
I originally suggested that there are divisions within the US government over the Israel-Palestine conflict. To the contrary, you argued that the US government is not divided, and that “there is almost complete consensus on the fundamental points (of the I-P conflict and presumably what direction American policy should head).” So I pointed out numerous examples, recent and past, where some Americans involved in government/politics clearly are divided from other Americans in government/politics, concerning the strategic value of America’s alliance with Israel as well as the plan for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict.
This hardly seems a debatable point. There is ample evidence of intense bureaucratic/lobbying battles over the Israel/Palestine issue, as there have been since the beginning of Israel when the departments of state and defense lined up against the recognition of the Jewish state, while President Truman’s personal advisors prodded him to recognize the new state. As I indicated in my last e-mail there are numerous Americans who served in government who could show you their battle scars (or jail sentences) for having taken one or the other partisan side of this issue.
Is it really “fanciful” to point out these obvious realities that indicate intense contested politics within the US government? If you argue that there is “almost complete consensus” on the “fundamental points,” I would ask does this include whether the US embassy should be in Jerusalem as opposed to Tel Aviv. That seems fairly fundamental. Does it include whether Jerusalem should be the eternal undivided capital of Israel, while the Palestinians are left with a bantustan in Abu Dis? That too is fundamental.
Does it include Israel’s perpetual hold on the Jordan River valley, on the Golan, on the Rafah crossing from Gaza to Egypt, on the underground aquifers in the northern West Bank? Does it include the continuation of a multi-billion dollar annual military/economic aid package to Israel even though Israel is now one of the world’s major arms exporters? In the years ahead all of these fundamental points are likely to be debated inside the US government. And I doubt that there is “almost complete consensus” on how they should be addressed.
I don’t mean to turn this issue from molehill into mountain. I thought it was widely understood. Of course government officials use diplo-speak when addressing the issue of Israel-Palestine, and all sides emphasize the consensual nature of their agreement on fundamental points. However, I know many people in US government who complain about countless instances of division and disagreement over the ISrael-Palestine issue.
I am not sure what Dominic means by his reference to “Zionism as a unique phenomenon.” I do not agree with this view. Numerous people, Walt and Mearsheimer among them, have shown that Zionists are actually the ones who stress the “unique” qualities of their own politics. The problem for the rest of us seems to be when we analyse Zionism or Israeli politics or Israeli lobbyists, as one would analyse any other political phenomenon in the world.
For me to suggest on the one hand that Zionists or Israeli lobbyists in America are largely responsible for America’s “special relationship” with Israel and for pushing a pro-Israel agenda, and on the other hand that there are other factions in American government and politics opposed to this agenda and opposed to the US-Israel “special relationship,” is to foment controversy. And yet this description of lobbying and politics inside the US on the Israel-Palestine issue is a description of how all lobbying and politics works. There are factions and debates and contests of power. In other words there are divisions.
I guess Dominic’s reference relates to the question of cause vs. symptom. I don’t understand the argument that Israel could only be symptom and not cause. Sure it is a symptom of many things in the world, but when one talks about the actual matter of Israeli politics, in order to distinguish it from American politics, it is only logical to assume that ISrael is its own cause. What is Israel supposed to be, a puppet of imperial marionettes acting behind the scenes? Is it secretly the creation of American oilmen or the British aristocracy working to divide the Muslim world? Israel is primarily the cause of its own self, its own people, its own founding generation.
In a sense the question of a country’s existence as cause or symptom relates to the same question of lobbies and factional politics, addressed in Walt and Mearsheimer’s essay. Any lobby pressing a particular agenda is responsible for the success that may come to its agenda. Otherwise, as Walt and Mearsheimer point out, the lobbyists would not be so energetic to push their agenda. This is how all lobbies work, and it is how all countries work.
America and Israel are separate countries. Their leaders have separate interests and pursue separate agendas. So why must there be an assumption that no divisions exist in America concerning the US alliance with Israel? Are we now supposed to assume that America has become identical to Israel, and vice versa?
Sd,
The lobbyists of Israel, and Israel itself, surely do possess agency and there is a specific history to their machinations.
But the general condition of Imperialism (nowadays repackaged as “globalisation”) will continue to generate problems, especially in the Middle East, whether these players continue in the field or not. Zionists did not cause Imperialism. It is the condition in which they have flourished, and of which they are in that sense a symptom.
The “cause” of capitalist Imperialism is intrinsic to a system in which “all that is solid melts into air”. Long before Zionism existed, capitalism’s propensity to “nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere” was noticed. The events of the turn of the 19th to 20th Century – the announced Imperialism in its (from then onwards continous) military guise – were not due to Zionism. These were the Spanish-American and Anglo-Boer wars.
Zionism cannot survive without Imperialism. Imperialism, always a make-shift system because of its internal contradictions, has made use of Zionism. But taking Zionism away will certainly not, by itself, take Imperialism away.
Jews have historic and cultural ties to the area that eventually became the Mandate. Zionism was intended to rectify the dispossession of those ties caused by the diaspora. Israel then is not a colony, and can’t be logically compared to actual colonies. The white people of South Africa had no ties at all, for instance, to any part of Africa, much less that particular part. Is there even such a thing as Africaans culture?
Israel can be a “Jewish state” by being a homeland for Jews and a safe haven for Jewish culture. Either the Israeli state or the one-state can enshrine that purpose by adapting a constitution with these statements written in. Make those statements like the Bill of Rights, wherein the Knesset could never make any law that could abrogate them. Then Israel or the one-state will be the Jewish homeland no matter what the demographics, while all Israeli citizens have full rights and the elected offices can reflect the whole population.
Inkan1969
Jews have historic and cultural ties to the area
This is right, there are no questions at all about this.
In same taken Christian and Muslims all had same ties from historical and cultural ties on the same land your talking about.
As you Holly Book taught you and religious rabies, Quran tell stories too, the history tell us those Canaan’s went from Iraq to Palestine land were not Jew in such and if we go deeper that Prophet Ibrahim (ص) is not a Jewish.
Israel then is not a colony, and can’t be logically compared to actual colonies. The white people of South Africa had no ties at all, for instance, to any part of Africa,
What about these Jews from around the world that Israel collecting them from USA, Europe and India China and Africa all these guys ” The white people and black Africans and others had ties“ on Palestine land?
In same talking can the Christians do the same and asking for this land also on claims they have a ” historic and cultural ties to the area”?
Then Palestine can be to homeland to Christians and Muslims too not just for “ Israel can be a “Jewish state” by being a homeland for Jews and a safe haven for Jewish culture.
Then Israel or the one-state will be the Jewish homeland no matter what the demographics,
Why not the opposite will be OK include the Jew with one nations all under same law what the difference if you call for “Then Israel or the one-state will be the Jewish homeland no matter what the demographics,”
I don’t find your rejection of ” Israel then is not a colony” and you arguing this, look very shaky and short of understanding what is “Colony” means.
Dominic,
I expected you to say something like that because you were the one who brought up the issue of Israel’s uniqueness. Can you name me one other state/country in the world which has the same unique relationship to this thing you call “imperialism?” Besides, perhaps the tiny casino islands of the Caribbean? To me your argument sounds like the kind of thing someone would say if they were looking to make excuses for the state leadership of Israel and these leaders’ own problems.
Sd, I don’t see what your problem is. Every place has its peculiar singularities. But every place shares the same human and historical context, in this case the general global system of capital known for over a century as Imperialism. Israel is a colony with a foundation myth like any other colony. The peculiarities of its foundation myth do not have any bearing on whether it is a colony or not. Nor do colonies have to have “mother ships”. (But what is true, by the way, is that Hollywood so-called science fiction is full of colonialist propaganda and white-race special pleading). The USA did not cease to be a colony when it achieved political independence from Britain.
Another peculiar thing about Israel is that it is a colony that institutionalised itself just at the point when nearly all the other colonies started crumbling, even to the point now where some of the most entrenched settler regimes (e.g. Bolivia) are being overturned.
The great historic change of the twentieth century and still continuing into the 21st is decolonisation. Israel’s uniqueness is above all about this stupid attempt to go up against the profoundly progressive human historic tide.
“why American public opinion tends to favor Israel so strongly even though the evidence clearly demonstrates (in their eyes) that Israel is the principal author of violence and suffering in this conflict.”
“During the six-month period studied, NPR reported the deaths of 62 Israelis and 51 Palestinians. While on the surface that may not appear to be hugely lopsided, during the same time period 77 Israelis and 148 Palestinians were killed in the conflict. That means there was an 81 percent likelihood that an Israeli death would be reported on NPR, but only a 34 percent likelihood that a Palestinian death would be.”
The Illusion of Balance
Israel’s existence is down to the ideology of Zionism – the belief that there should be a Jewish state which would mean an end to the centuries of anti-Semitism and oppression that Jewish people have faced. The appalling genocide of the holocaust was for many, the final impetus for the creation of such a state.
Unfortunately, many of the assumptions and arguments in favour of Zionism are, as John Rose points out, based on half-truths and myths. The biggest lie, that Israel was a “Land without people, for a people without land”. This myth has been returned to, time and time again. Rose quotes, Israeli Prime Minister Peres in 1986,
”The land to which they came, while indeed the Holy Land was desolate and uninviting; a land that had been laid waste, thirsty for water, filled with swamps and malaria, lacking in natural resources. And in the land itself there lived another people; a people who neglected the land, but who lived on it. Indeed the return to Zion was accompanied by ceaseless violent clashes with the small Arab population”
While Peres at least acknowledges the existence of the Arab population, “small” is not the correct description of a people numbering at least 650,000. His description of their “neglect” of the land shows a level of racism towards a people who had successfully farmed and lived on the land for centuries.
John Rose – The Myths of Zionism
“This position chimes with the rhythms of Jewish history, especially, paradoxically, in the Middle East. More than 2,000 years ago, long before the fall of the second temple in Jerusalem in AD 70, the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria addressed this very question. “Homeland”, patris, was one’s place of birth and education. There was Jewish pilgrimage to the temple at Jerusalem, but this meant reluctantly abandoning patris to visit what Philo called not “homeland”, but a “strange land”.”
We need a post-Zionist leap of faith
Dominic,
This is not a problem for me. I just wanted your confirmation that Israel is the only counrty with this peculiar singularity about its realtionship with imperialism. And I wanted you to confirm that you agree Israel should (on its own) initiative put an end to this peculiar singularity because it is simply stupid, as you put it. In other words Israel should not wait around for the end of imperialism, in the larger sense of the word, before ceasing its stupid behavior. And this was my original point: Israel is the cause of itself; it is responsible for its own behavior, and thus it is not merely a symptom of something larger. Therefore at the end of the day we are in agreement.
Sd, we are not in agreement. Our disagreement is becoming more stark and clear. You say that because Israel is the cause of itself it is not therefore a symptom of something larger. I’m afraid this argument is the same as the philosophical basis of fascism. It amounts to saying that where there is agency the objective circumstances are of no consequence. It amounts to saying that there will either be a “triumph of the will”, or not, regardless of history.
The pure subjectivism that becomes fascism in the end is what I reject. I also reject the miserable anti-humanist post-modernism which always wants to tell us in all circumstances that “there is no alternative”. It is only in the understanding of both subject and object and the relationship between the two that we can move.
I must also categorically reject your idea that Israel is the only country with its particular singularity. South Africa had the same peculiarity and we called it “colonialism of a special type”. There is nothing new or unique in Israel. On the contrary it is as stale and banal as can be. There is also no such thing, as inkan claims, as “ties to the land”. What are these ties? Shoelaces? Foreskins? You only have to put up a little bit of resistance to the Zionist nonsense and it starts to become infantile. It would be comical – if this settler state was not armed to the teeth. That, also, is just like South Africa was before.
Dominic-
I can tell you prefer argument for the sake of argument. There is no point in trying to have a discussion, instead of an argument, with someone like yourself who makes as many logical fallacies and ungrounded assumptions as you merely to grind your own multiple axes. I leave you and your “we” to “move” by “understanding the relationship” between “both subject and object”…whatever that means. It was nice trying to have a discussion with you, but I can see that I, after having been caught thinking along “imperialist” and “fascist” terms, am simply not in the same intellectual league as your Highness. When your magnum opus in political literature comes out can I get a signed copy?
Yes, well, thanks for the unintended de facto experiment. You have proved once again for me that it is fine to cite Adolf Hitler as a bogey-man, but to mention the actual substance of fascism is taboo to the mental inhabitants of “The West”. Which tells me that the beast is still out there. The “will to power” is still quite de rigeur and the idea of reaching for the gun as soon as you hear the word culture is not dead by any means.
Once again, we agree. This is despite your need to play the contrarian intellectual game. I realize I am one of the dreaded mental inhabitants of “The West,” but can I still get a signed copy of your book …. whenever it comes out? I bow down humbly in the presence of a political genius. You are the philosopher-king, Dominic, the annointed one! May the world soon work in accordance with your ideas! Amen or Proletarian Unite, whichever you prefer.
sd,
You and I are both guilty of “miserable anti-humanist post-modernism” according to Dominic. However, I agree with D here, even though he completely hijacked my original argument. He makes an important point about the connection between what is sometimes called “exceptionalism” and fascism. You want to expose the Zionists as uniquely evil or wrongheaded, but this lets them define the terms of the debate.
Thank you, John C. You are a scholar and a gentleman. And reality-based.
John C. and Dominic,
Interesting consensus, at least in theory. But when did I ever indicate I wanted to “expose the Zionists as uniquely evil or wrongheaded”? This bit about Zionists being “unique” was Dominic’s idea, as he expresssed it in relation to what he calls “imperialism.”
If Dominic would for once in his life think through the logic of his own argument, instead of habitually acting in contrarian ways, he would realize that just as the former South Africa had a “peculiar singularity” in relation to the forces of “imperialism” and yet was able to initiate its own transformation of the former apartheid regime (albeit with considerable pressure from political forces in “imperial” socieities), so too Israel should be able to initiate its own transformation of what Dominic calls “stupid” and retrogressive policies despite its own “peculiar singularity” in relation to the forces of “imperialism.”
In other words I am not the one insisting on Israel’s unique evil or wrongheadedness. Dominic is the one who wants to wait around for the end of imperialism, generally speaking, before Israel is pressured (like South Africa was pressured) to cease and desist its “stupidity.” However, this is not the way the fight against apartheid in South Africa proceeded, so to insist on Israel’s distinction here is precisely to argue for the “unique status of Israel” that you claim I argue for. Frankly, I think both of you have had one too much to drink, and your heads are orbiting in fantasy around one another.
I never bought into this idea of Dominic’s that cause and symptom are separable, as if one can be present without the other. It was not true in the case of the former South Africa, and it is not true in the case of Israel today. The healthy analysis of politics is always a matter of degrees, and I think to a degree the “stupidity” of Israel is greater than the “stupidity” of the former South Africa, mainly because the actions of Israel, rooted as they are in religious nationalism within a surrounding Muslim majority society, are stoking the flames of a long religious war that may sink the 21st century in tremendous bloodshed.
For this reason alone I favor stepping up pressure on Israel to stop its stupidity, just as South Africa was pressured to stop its earlier stupidity. Why postpone this pressure until the end of the dreaded “imperialism” that does not exist in the real world because it is imaginary and only Dominic still believes it is true? Is the fight against Yankee imperialism the basis of your theoretical consensus?
I can see it now, Dominic and John C. take to the streets in protest: “Down, down Yankee imperialists! Fight, fight Zionists for every last inch of the Holy Land! While you still have time grab more of the Temple Mount and the Jordan Valley before the end of America’s dreaded imaginary imperialism!!” Can you imagine if street protesters had argued this case for apartheid South Africa? “I am sorry Nelson Mandela you can rot in prison like Marwan al-Barghouti because all of us sophisticated anti-imperialists in the intellectual classes are waiting for the collapse of the American empire before we seek progressive change for your people.”
Somehow I doubt this is the basis of your theoretical consensus, but I still bow down in humility before the great Philosopher King.
“Frankly, I think both of you have had one too much to drink, and your heads are orbiting in fantasy around one another.”
Entirely possible in my case.
Peace Bro.
Oooooohhhmmmmmmmm Maaaaaaaani Pedme Hung.
“Wisdom is better than might, and there is nothing better for men than to eat their bread with enjoyment, drink bottles of wine with a merry heart, and find pleasure with the women they love, for all is vanity under the sun, a chasing after the wind, and yet the earth abides.”