No place for Israel in Middle East, says Iran’s Ahmadinejad

[Random]

If you wish to oppose BDS then you have an obligation to explain what the alternative is? How else to pressure the Israeli state to grant Palestinians their rights?

People who are critical of BDS, or the groups carrying out BDS propaganda in Europe, don't have to have an alternative in order to raise criticisms. The fact that there seems to be no alternative to BDS is itself a major sign of how bad things are. I've seen no sign that BDS will actually bring about the changes that will give Palestinians better conditions. So we need to, at the very least, talk about alternatives. And in the meantime I agree, there's no better option as far as I can see.

 

[dylans]

People who are critical of BDS, or the groups carrying out BDS propaganda in Europe, don't have to have an alternative in order to raise criticisms. The fact that there seems to be no alternative to BDS is itself a major sign of how bad things are. I've seen no sign that BDS will actually bring about the changes that will give Palestinians better conditions. So we need to, at the very least, talk about alternatives. And in the meantime I agree, there's no better option as far as I can see.

Sadly the alternative is utterly bankrupt. A continuation of guerilla actions and armed resistance. Something that has proven a disaster for Palestinians. If BDS is presented as a strategic alternative to that then I am all for it. BDS represents a call by Palestinians for international solidarity in the face of a move away from armed actions. As such I think it is the duty of those of us who support their struggle to respond to that call, especially if they feel, as I do, that the path of armed struggle is counter productive.

So those opposed to BDS have to provide not only an alternative to BDS but one that doesn't mean a return to the dead end of futile armed resistance which, I guarantee, a desperate and hopeless people will return to if they see no alternative. So be warned. By all means criticise BDS but if a serious and viable alternative strategy isn't put forward to replace what is essentially an experiment in international solidarity and peaceful direct action then don't be surprised when pizza parlours begin to be blown up again in Tel Aviv.

BDS critics also have to provide a convincing explanation as to why BDS doesn't and can't work. I have little sympathy for those who argue against BDS on the basis that it hurts Israelis. Frankly, I couldn't care less if it does. The only issue as far as BDS is concerned should be the question "does it work?"

 

[Random]

BDS critics also have to provide a convincing explanation as to why BDS doesn't and can't work. I have little sympathy for those who argue against BDS on the basis that it hurts Israelis. Frankly, I couldn't care less if it does.

I'm not very well informed about the progress of BDS, but is there really any sign that it will be able to lead to a South African-style mass consumer boycott?

And like I said, demanding that people who criticise also have a real alternative to put in offer is simply an attempt to not think about alternatives at all.

 

[dylans]

I'm not very well informed about the progress of BDS, but is there really any sign that it will be able to lead to a South African-style mass consumer boycott?

And like I said, demanding that people who criticise also have a real alternative to put in offer is simply an attempt to not think about alternatives at all.

I think its early days and I am prepared to give it a go.

As I said above, by all means criticise it but the onus is on its critics to put forward an alternative. I am all ears.

 

[Random]

As I said above, by all means criticise it but the onus is on its critics to put forward an alternative. I am all ears.

You're not really paying attention to what I've posted twice. Criticism can lead to alternatives, but it doesn't have to start with alternatives.

 

[dylans]

You're not really paying attention to what I've posted twice. Criticism can lead to alternatives, but it doesn't have to start with alternatives.

I know what you are saying and I am paying attention. I just disagree with you.

I have zero interest in people criticising a strategy and dismissing a call for solidarity from those resisting occupation unless they offer an alternative.

 

[Random]

I have zero interest in people criticising a strategy and dismissing a call for solidarity from those resisting occupation unless they offer an alternative.

Well, like I said, I think that does no favours to any tactic, to place it effectively above criticism.

 

[dylans]

Well, like I said, I think that does no favours to any tactic, to place it effectively above criticism.

Its not placed above criticism. Its a request that any criticism be constructive

 

[frogwoman]

The Jewish character of the Israeli state is the elephant in the room amongst those who call for a two state solution. Its not said but it implies an acceptance of the zionist logic that Israel can only exist as an ethnic state. Otherwise why call for two states unless it is tacitly accepted that Jews and Palestinians can not share a state ie that a secular state is both impossible and undesirable?

Calling only for an end to occupation assumes that the occupation is the cause of the conflict and not a symptom. It assumes that a zionist state ie a state built on ethnic exclusivist terms can live peacefully alongside its neighbours. It misses the historically obvious point that Zionism is the cause of the problem, the cause of the occupation and that it is inherently colonialist and aggressive.

The other elephant in the room is the increasingly obvious fact that a state built on post 67 occupied land will simply not be viable. It would be a state entirely reliant on Israel. It would be like gaza today. A prison with Israeli jailers at its walls. A state with no economy, no independent domestic or foreign policy, no military, no water provisions, no sea or land access. A bantustan.
These are both facts that follow from the call for two states and such a solution would be no solution at all. An israeli state on those terms would still be an apartheid state for its Arab citizens. A palestinian state on those terms would be a bankrupt rump.

i know all of that.

im just increasingly disillusioned with the way these aims are being carried out. its not like i disagree with the concept of palestinian solidarity. but any solution has to also involve the israeli working class, and i mean actually involve the working class not just a privileged few who are able to, for example, escape military service without suffering undue damage. or can afford the damage that sanctions etc would entail, who can afford the possibility of losing their jobs or further austerity programmes. what are they doing about this? because you know as well as i do that a solution can't take place if it doesn't involve the israeli working class. perhaps i'm wrong but i don't really see that the bds movement is reaching out to the israeli populace besides a small group within an activist milieu. i'm willing to be proved wrong but I don't see it, and I also don't see people in the PSC and similar organisations challenging anti-semitism consistently and effectively.

 

[frogwoman]

Maybe I'm wrong and it's different where you are but that's what I've experienced over here

 

[frogwoman]

As for an alternative I am sorry but I don't have one. But I just think how is it gonna be a mass movement if people don't address this stuff? I hope I'm wrong btw.

 

[Knotted]

The second because he rejects on principle the end of zionism and the Jewish state.

I really don't think that's true. His position is pragmatic and legalistic and he's scared of losing broad support for the Palestinian cause and he wants celebrities like Jimmy Carter on board. He's not a liberal, more a stagist ex-Maoist. He favours the no state solution but a two state solution as a basically permanent interim. He sees international law as the moral guideline the masses will gravitate to now that Marxist-Leninist ideologies have failed. I really don't think he gives a stuff about the existence of a Jewish state as a matter of principle.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I really don't think that's true. His position is pragmatic and legalistic and he's scared of losing broad support for the Palestinian cause and he wants celebrities like Jimmy Carter on board. He's not a liberal, more a stagist ex-Maoist. He favours the no state solution but a two state solution as a basically permanent interim. He sees international law as the moral guideline the masses will gravitate to now that Marxist-Leninist ideologies have failed. I really don't think he gives a stuff about the existence of a Jewish state as a matter of principle.

What kind of 'permanent interim' would it be, though? As dylans has said, the Palestinian side of a 'two-state solution' would not be a viable, independent entity. It would be dependent on Israel, and as such, the so-called 'two-state solution' isn't really that at all. If he favours this as some kind of permanent fudge, what he's really advocating is a permanent marginalising of the Palestinians. That's no solution at all, and won't be seen as a solution by the Palestinians it marginalises, and so it is simply a continuation of the conflict on different terms.

 

[Knotted]

What kind of 'permanent interim' would it be, though? As dylans has said, the Palestinian side of a 'two-state solution' would not be a viable, independent entity. It would be dependent on Israel, and as such, the so-called 'two-state solution' isn't really that at all. If he favours this as some kind of permanent fudge, what he's really advocating is a permanent marginalising of the Palestinians. That's no solution at all, and won't be seen as a solution by the Palestinians it marginalises, and so it is simply a continuation of the conflict on different terms.

I'm inclined to agree, but you could say something similar about ending South African apartheid. The broad masses are still living in abject poverty and are still marginalised, but the state's brutality and racism has been alleviated. I think it's much the same thinking for Palestine. Get rid of the worst and most obvious aspects of oppression ie. occupation in Palestine or apartheid in South Africa and then maybe one day there will be a socialist revolution. Stagism.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I've just watched the interview Froggie posted.

He appears to be arguing against a very specific position - one that calls for immediate right of return for 6 million Palestinians. He also argues that you can't use legal justifications if you're not prepared to accept Israel's legal right to exist. He has a very narrow legalist mindset here - one that's typical of political scientists ime - basically that you can't pick and choose the law, that you have an obligation to obey all laws to expect protection from the law. I don't accept this personally. If a law is unjust, bollocks to obeying it. That's simply one version of deference to authority - an authority over which you have zero influence. It assumes that laws are made in some kind of universally equitable way. I would rather consider what is just than what is lawful. And a law that would force a fragmented, dependent, economically unviable state upon Palestinians is not just. It also would not bring peace. Could not bring peace. It isn't a solution at all.

He also talks about only taking positions that he can defend in public. But he's arguing a false dichotomy here - that either you have to accept the 'legal' two-state solution or you are 'calling for the destruction of Israel', which he probably rightly says is not something you're going to win support for. But that isn't the only position. I've argued on here, and so have others, that a one-state solution would have to involve painful compromise from both sides, including the Palestinians giving up on their absolute right to return to land their ancestors lived on. There would need to be a process of negotiation.

I'd like to hear him arguing against a more nuanced position that acknowledged the Isrealis' part in forming a new single state. Seems to me that he's taking the easy, rather lazy route of arguing against the most extreme, simplistic anti-Israeli position, while suggesting that this is the only position there is on the 'one-state' side of the argument. I think his interviewer was trying to say as much, but Finkelstein is older, more experienced and more erudite than him, so he didn't get very far.

 

[Knotted]

He appears to be arguing against a very specific position - one that calls for immediate right of return for 6 million Palestinians.

Not quite. If I remember rightly, what he actually says is quite bizarre. He's arguing against calling for the return of the 6 million refugees but not arguing against their right of return. I'm not quite sure what he imagines is being called for - the enforced return of 6 million refugees against their will? He's obviously very concerned about alienating liberal Zionists.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm inclined to agree, but you could say something similar about ending South African apartheid. The broad masses are still living in abject poverty and are still marginalised, but the state's brutality and racism has been alleviated. I think it's much the same thinking for Palestine. Get rid of the worst and most obvious aspects of oppression ie. occupation in Palestine or apartheid in South Africa and then maybe one day there will be a socialist revolution. Stagism.

Well everything is always a work in progress. South Africa is a work in progress. But I would think that winning political rights is a necessary first step if you wish to alleviate poverty, address inequality, etc. The Palestinians lack a Mandela figure who could reach out to the Israelis. Mandela always said that he was not anti-white, only anti-white supremacy. He always stressed that an end to apartheid was in everyone's interests. That would be the way forward here, I think, stressing that a real solution to this problem - a single state in which Palestinians and Israelis live side-by-side - would be in the interests of both Palestinians and Israelis.

 

[Knotted]

South Africa is a work in progress.

Progressing to what? I believe John Dugard has claimed that poverty in South Africa is worse now than it was under apartheid.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not quite. If I remember rightly, what he actually says is quite bizarre. He's arguing against calling for the return of the 6 million refugees but not arguing against their right of return. I'm not quite sure what he imagines is being called for - the enforced return of 6 million refugees against their will? He's obviously very concerned about alienating liberal Zionists.

That's a reasonable case, I think. The Palestinians have a right to return, but they may be prepared to give up that right in return for a settlement. But it is for them and them only to decide. I'm still puzzled, though, as to what that settlement would be. If it would be Israel returning behind its 1967 borders and the Palestinians being given a fractured state, I don't see that as a reasonable offer, tbh. This is about ownership of the best land, isn't it? Israel hanging on to all the best land doesn't sound like a great deal to me.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Progressing to what? I believe John Dugard has claimed that poverty in South Africa is worse now than it was under apartheid.

Immediately following the end of slavery in the US, some argue that the newly freed slaves were in many cases materially worse off than they had been under slavery. Taking a longer-term view, ending slavery was a necessary first step towards improving the lives of black people in the US. But it took time.

 

[Knotted]

Norman Finkelstein's legalism stems from two sources (I believe).

1) There are certain legal victories that shouldn't be squandered. A while ago the ICJ came to a near unequivecal position about the illegality of Israel's seperation wall and that decision included pronouncemenets on the status of Jerusalem, borders and settlements. The 1967 borders are Israel's recognised borders under international law and the settlements are illegal. Also on the right of return there is concensus amongst human rights organisations. Finkelstein is saying "don't look these gift horses in the mouth".

2) He has a theory which states that international law is a powerful moral force in the modern world and the most powerful position around which to rally. He wants mass protest movements united under the slogan "we are only demanding our rights". You could call it a civil rights approach, but there is Gandhian influence as well "fight against not for what you persoanlly think is morally wrong but against what the broad masses already know to be wrong". This is why he talks about the "cult" of BDS. Gandhi headed a religious cult but this cult's moral beliefs did not dictate Gandhi's politics.

I am playing devil's advocate here of course. I don't agree with NF. But I think he has a point. BDS has not been accompanied by any mass movement of the Palestinians and the Palestinian civil society organisations that call for BDS aren't mobilising a mass movement. Personally I think that both the BDS and the legal approaches are somewhat cosmetic without the Palestinians being mobilised along the lines of something approximating the first intifada.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

He calls for pragmatism, which I agree with. However, he also says that advocating a single-state solution is not a pragmatic position. I don't agree with that.


I still think his position is a little confused. On the one hand, he says that if you want to use the law, you must respect the law, which means accepting Israel's pre-1967 borders. He says very clearly that Israel has a legal right to exist. But on the other hand, he says that the right to return cannot be denied. He dismissed the fancy language of cognitive dissonance given by his questioner in that clip, but he does hold two contradictory positions at the same time.

 

[Knotted]

I think there is a contradiction.

On the one hand he wants to use the slogan "we only want to enforce the law".

On the other hand he doesn't want to apply that slogan to the refugee question, although he accepts that the right exists he doesn't like that consequences of the slogan and so he only wants to call for a just settlement.

I've got to say I think it is serious misjudgement on his behalf to argue that international law has this broad appeal. I think most people are either dismissive of it or they will use it inconsistently for their own ends. I think he has been reading too many Amnesty International papers.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I've seen this position before from political science types. It's the idea that you are morally obliged to obey the law even where you disagree with it - individuals have no moral right to break the law. It's a common position in the US, I think. But it's a silly one. Our moral obligations are not to the law. That's simply an abrogation of the very idea of morality. We can have a moral obligation to break the law.

He seems to see on some level that there is a flaw in his thinking here, but not enough to abandon that thinking. Hence the cognitive dissonance.

 

[Random]

Hope no one objects ot me posting this link here: "Survey, conducted by Dialog on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, exposes anti-Arab, ultra-nationalist views espoused by a majority of Israeli Jews." http://www.haaretz.com/news/nationa...t-apartheid-regime-in-israel.premium-1.471644

 

[frogwoman]

Hope no one objects ot me posting this link here: "Survey, conducted by Dialog on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, exposes anti-Arab, ultra-nationalist views espoused by a majority of Israeli Jews." http://www.haaretz.com/news/nationa...t-apartheid-regime-in-israel.premium-1.471644

in which case what do you do? you won't rid the population of these views by sanctions etc. And shouldnt an anti fascist approach be looking at the conditions (created by the israeli gov't and business etc) that lead to fascist ideas being supported anyway ... not trying to exacerbate them as sanctions would do ...

 

[butchersapron]

2) He has a theory which states that international law is a powerful moral force in the modern world and the most powerful position around which to rally. He wants mass protest movements united under the slogan "we are only demanding our rights". You could call it a civil rights approach, but there is Gandhian influence as well "fight against not for what you persoanlly think is morally wrong but against what the broad masses already know to be wrong". This is why he talks about the "cult" of BDS. Gandhi headed a religious cult but this cult's moral beliefs did not dictate Gandhi's politics.

He wrote a very interesting short book on What Gandhi Says recently.

 

[Pickman's model]

in which case what do you do? you won't rid the population of these views by sanctions etc. And shouldnt an anti fascist approach be looking at the conditions that lead to fascist ideas being supported anyway ...

so, the destruction of the zionist entity's the only sensible way forwards?

 

[frogwoman]

so, the destruction of the zionist entity's the only sensible way forwards?

depends what you mean by destruction.

 

[Pickman's model]

depends what you mean by destruction.

i'd like to say israel back to 67 borders and establishment of a viable palestinian state, but i think we all know that's not going to happen. a one state solution would be good, but that's rather unlikely too. in the face of zionist intransigence it's hard to see what could be done to resolve the situation short of the departure of the zionists.