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

[ViolentPanda]

There is no place for Zionism in the Middle East.

I am puzzled why people regard this statement as so outrageous and as a call for genocide of Israeli Jews. If someone were to say there is no place for Apartheid in Africa would we accept the interpretation of that statement as advocating the genocide of white South Africans? If someone made the statement calling for the end of the Islamic state in Iran, would we interpret this as a call for the murder of Iranians?

No, of course not. Zionism is a political ideology. An ideology of religious nationalism. One that states that Israel is a state by and for Jews only. In a land where many people are not Jews this can only be a racist/apartheid and supremacist project, one that by definition means the exclusion and denial of rights of non Jews. Calling for the end of such a state is a democratic demand.

I disagree with you.

I'll happily state that "there's no room for the dominant heavily-nationalist form of Zionism as espoused by the state of Israel's political establishment and their American supporters in the Middle East", but I find no harm in those Zionisms which are about co-existence (and these were prevalent, once upon a time) and "living where our fathers lived". Zionisms that espoused the regeneration of eretz Israel, on the other hand, that support a mythical culturally-pure Jewish state, they can kiss my fundament.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not true. Right up until the last minute the US were sowing assets into the revolution, to give them leverage on policy at a later date. As usual, they attempted to stack the deck in favour of US interests, but this time it didn't work, purely because the grassroots sentiment against accommodationism was too strong.

They initially had thoughts of an accommodation with Castro, too.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Dylans you are such a walking pamphlet

Read that as "wanking prophet" and wondered how the fuck a wanking prophet operates!

 

[dylans]

Bonkers bruno

Well it may be unpalatable to recognise this fact and I wish it were otherwise but it remains true. There is no significant opposition to the occupation amongst Israelis. What there is is tiny, isolated, intimidated and despised. Please, prove me wrong. Show me a single example of any demonstrations of any numbers against the occupation, against the gaza siege, against caste lead, against the Lebanon war, against the flotilla killings, in support of the hunger strikers, against administrative detention, against the settlement and expansion programme. You can't because there has been none.

When the recent demonstrations for social justice rocked Tel Aviv, anyone who so much as raised the occupation was met with abuse and violence. There is no anti zionist left of any significance in Israel. I wish this weren't so but just because we wish it don't make it true

 

[ViolentPanda]

running dog - a treacherous running dog at least get your insults right!

And if you don't fit the word "lackey" in there somewhere, it's just not insulting enough.

 

[dylans]

I disagree with you.

I'll happily state that "there's no room for the dominant heavily-nationalist form of Zionism as espoused by the state of Israel's political establishment and their American supporters in the Middle East", but I find no harm in those Zionisms which are about co-existence (and these were prevalent, once upon a time) and "living where our fathers lived". Zionisms that espoused the regeneration of eretz Israel, on the other hand, that support a mythical culturally-pure Jewish state, they can kiss my fundament.

Zionism has never been about coexistance. It has since its inception been about expropriation and land theft. It is a form of religious nationalism. One that says all jews, regardless of nationality, regardless of ethnicity, regardless of class, have something in common against all non Jews and that all Jews constitute a nation. It is a project to build a state on those terms, a Jewish state. Except, in that land there are many who are not Jews. A Jewish state then can only, by definition, mean the exclusion of those who do not belong to the nation. For this reason, all Zionism is racism and is antithetical to democracy because a democratic state cannot be based on the deliberate exclusion of citizens on the basis of religion or ethnicity which is precisely what a state defined in religious terms, as a Jewish state, must do. Only a secular state with equal rights for all regardless of religion can be called democratic

 

[ViolentPanda]

Zionism has never been about coexistance. It has since its inception been about expropriation and land theft. It is a form of religious nationalism. One that says all jews, regardless of nationality, regardless of ethnicity, regardless of class, have something in common against all non Jews and that all Jews constitute a nation. It is a project to build a state on those terms, a Jewish state. Except, in that land there are many who are not Jews. A Jewish state then can only, by definition, mean the exclusion of those who do not belong to the nation. For this reason, all Zionism is racism and is antithetical to democracy because a democratic state cannot be based on the deliberate exclusion of citizens on the basis of religion or ethnicity which is precisely what a state defined in religious terms, as a Jewish state, must do. Only a secular state with equal rights for all regardless of religion can be called democratic

Okay, what is Zionism? Is it merely what you contend above, or is there more to it, a broader sweep to the ideas? Is it all Herztlite nationalism? and describably as you describe it above?
I know plenty of Jews besides myself, who know a tiny bit about the history of our people and what has and is being done in our name, who are well aware that descriptions of Zionism such as yours don't encompass the entirety of Zionism.

But, as usual, dylans knows best, eh?

 

[dylans]

Okay, what is Zionism? Is it merely what you contend above, or is there more to it, a broader sweep to the ideas? Is it all Herztlite nationalism? and describably as you describe it above?
I know plenty of Jews besides myself, who know a tiny bit about the history of our people and what has and is being done in our name, who are well aware that descriptions of Zionism such as yours don't encompass the entirety of Zionism.

But, as usual, dylans knows best, eh?

I would define Zionism as religious nationalism. The idea that members of a religious group, in this case Jews, constitute a nation and a people and an attempt to build a state on those terms.

In this sense it is similar, and in many ways a mirror image of the Islamic nationalism of the Pakistan variety where Jinnah argued that the Muslims of the subcontinent could not live with non Muslims and constuted a nation solely on the basis of their shared religion. It is no accident that both Pakistan and Israel were born at the same time and the similarities do not end there. Both were born in the aftermath of horrific violence and bloodshed. Both tried to square the circle of creating a state based on religion that was also a secular state, both are states built on permanent fear and hatred of their neighbours, both define their nations by excluding citizens, or at least denying equal rights to citizens, on the basis of faith. Both struggle with the internal contradiction of attempting to unify groups of very disparate people from many different ethnicities on the basis of religion. Both owe their existance to large scale immigration etc

I always find it ironic that these two nations which are portrayed as the nemesis of one another actually have more in common than they think.

 

[dylans]

But, as usual, dylans knows best, eh?

I don't "know best" at all. I am merely putting forward my view on a discussion board. You are free to disagree with that view but I would suggest you do so without being so fucking obnoxious about it.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I would define Zionism as religious nationalism. The idea that members of a religious group, in this case Jews, constitute a nation and a people and an attempt to build a state on those terms.

I'm not interested in your definition specifically, but in the definition normative to "everyone". There were socialist Zionists in Palestine decades before the Herzlites settled there in any numbers, people who didn't expropriate land, but paid a fair price and were given title for land to form kibbutzes on, who sold their produce at fair prices at local markets to anyone who wanted to buy it, regardless of faith.
You piss on them with your one-sided definitions.

In this sense it is similar, and in many ways a mirror image of the Islamic nationalism of the Pakistan variety where Jinnah argued that the Muslims of the subcontinent could not live with non Muslims and constuted a nation solely on the basis of their shared religion. It is no accident that both Pakistan and Israel were born at the same time and the similarities do not end there. Both were born in the aftermath of horrific violence and bloodshed. Both tried to square the circle of creating a state based on religion that was also a secular state, both are states built on permanent fear and hatred of their neighbours, both define their nations by excluding citizens, or at least denying equal rights to citizens, on the basis of faith. Both struggle with the internal contradiction of attempting to unify groups of very disparate people from many different ethnicities on the basis of religion. Both owe their existance to large scale immigration etc

I always find it ironic that these two nations which are portrayed as the nemesis of one another actually have more in common than they think.

Hmm, major stumbling block for your point: Being an Israeli is not primarily concerned with the citizen being an adherent of Judaism, being a Pakistani is, to a much greater extent, about the citizen being a Muslim.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't "know best" at all. I am merely putting forward my view on a discussion board. You are free to disagree with that view but I would suggest you do so without being so fucking obnoxious about it.

Pot, kettle, sooty arse, old chap.

 

[dylans]

I'm not interested in your definition specifically, but in the definition normative to "everyone". There were socialist Zionists in Palestine decades before the Herzlites settled there in any numbers, people who didn't expropriate land, but paid a fair price and were given title for land to form kibbutzes on, who sold their produce at fair prices at local markets to anyone who wanted to buy it, regardless of faith.
You piss on them with your one-sided definitions.



Hmm, major stumbling block for your point: Being an Israeli is not primarily concerned with the citizen being an adherent of Judaism, being a Pakistani is, to a much greater extent, about the citizen being a Muslim.

Adherence? You mean practicing Jews? You can be a secular Jew yes but in Pakistan you don't have to be a practicing Muslim either.

However Israel is a state that gives primacy to Jews, regardless of practice. Its a Jewish state. The right of return gives automatic citizenship to any Jew from anywhere in the world on request while Palestinians are denied citizenship entirely and Israeli Arabs are increasingly second class citizens. Regardless, in Pakistan there are none Muslim minorities too, Christians, Ahmadis (denied the right to call themselves Muslim by Bhutto) and Kalash, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Sikhs. There are Pakistani citizens from all these communities yet they live in a state defined as Islamic

This is also a common feature about religious nationalism. It is not so much adherence or practice that matters so much as inclusion and definition and conversely exclusion.This blurring between belief, faith, identity and nation is one of the contradictions of religious nationalism. Who is or isn't not a member of the nation is often contradictory and blurry.

 

[dylans]

I'm not interested in your definition specifically, but in the definition normative to "everyone". There were socialist Zionists in Palestine decades before the Herzlites settled there in any numbers, people who didn't expropriate land, but paid a fair price and were given title for land to form kibbutzes on, who sold their produce at fair prices at local markets to anyone who wanted to buy it, regardless of faith.
You piss on them with your one-sided definitions.
.

Who cares? They are irrelevant to this discussion. We are talking about the political ideology behind the state of Israel as it exists now and as it has existed since 48. A state built on the idea that all Jews constitute a nation and the attempt to build a Jewish state on that basis. This is Zionism, this is what is meant by Zionism by those of us who are opposed to it. This is what is meant by Zionism by those who are fighting for the democratic rights of Palestinians and this is what is meant by Zionism by those who are living under its jackboot

 

[ViolentPanda]

Adherence? You mean practicing Jews? You can be a secular Jew yes but in Pakistan you don't have to be a practicing Muslim either.

Not true, you have to at least nominally be a practicing Muslim. My foster-parents were as secular as they come, but when they went back home to visit, they had to pretend to be observant, or else there was all sorts of shit to deal with. There may not be a law, but social mores dictate that if you're not of another faith you're either a practicing Muslim or an apostate.

However Israel is a state that gives primacy to Jews, regardless of practice. Its a Jewish state.
The right of return gives automatic citizenship to any Jew from anywhere in the world on request while Palestinians are denied citizenship entirely and Israeli Arabs are increasingly second class citizens.

The state of Israel does give primacy to Jews. I haven't argued anything different. It's one of a large number of examples of why the state of Israel, as currently composed, shouldn't be allowed to exist. A nationalist-Zionist state of Israel serves no-one but a few hundred thousand children of Jabotinsky, and a bunch of US politicos and religious fruitbags.
I'm merely stating that "Jewishness" is not fundamentally about worshipping Yahweh in the way that being Pakistani is about being seen to be a worshipper of Allah.

Regardless, in Pakistan there are none Muslim minorities too, Christians, Ahmadis (denied the right to call themselves Muslim by Bhutto) and Kalash, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Sikhs. There are Pakistani citizens from all these communities yet they live in a state defined as Islamic

Mostly treated as second and third class citizens, except in their enclaves, by a state which sees itself as an Islamic state whenever it is convenient to do so.

This is also a common feature about religious nationalism. It is not so much adherence or practice that matters so much as inclusion and definition and conversely exclusion.This blurring between belief, faith, identity and nation is one of the contradictions of religious nationalism. Who is or isn't not a member of the nation is often contradictory and blurry.

It's always blurry, in every case. Even the way German-ness was constituted between '33 and '45 underwent many revisions, whether for reasons of political expediency, or in order to re-focus sentiment.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Who cares? They are irrelevant to this discussion. We are talking about the political ideology behind the state of Israel as it exists now and as it has existed since 48. A state built on the idea that all Jews constitute a nation and the attempt to build a Jewish state on that basis. This is Zionism, this is what is meant by Zionism by those of us who are opposed to it. This is what is meant by Zionism by those who are fighting for the democratic rights of Palestinians and this is what is meant by Zionism by those who are living under its jackboot

Is the implication here that I'm not opposed to Zionism? I do hope not.

 

[dylans]

Not true, you have to at least nominally be a practicing Muslim. My foster-parents were as secular as they come, but when they went back home to visit, they had to pretend to be observant, or else there was all sorts of shit to deal with. There may not be a law, but social mores dictate that if you're not of another faith you're either a practicing Muslim or an apostate.

You are describing social pressures not the ideology of the state. Pakistan was created for much the same reason as Israel. It was a victory for the idea that Muslims could not coexist with non Muslims. It was born as a safe haven for Muslims of the subcontinent and born in the bloodshed of communalism. It was primarily about identity not faith. Of course, because it defined identity in terms of religion then faith was never far away but I would suggest that the pressures you mention for people to practice has more to do with the particulars of Islam than with the intention or goals of the Pakistani project.

Mostly treated as second and third class citizens, except in their enclaves, by a state which sees itself as an Islamic state whenever it is convenient to do so.

Yes, like Israeli Arabs. Remember my point is not that Pakistan doesn't oppress its minorities, it does, but that exclusion is inherent in the nature of religious nationalism by definition. In Israel's case , Palestinians of course are not treated as second class citizens . They are excluded entirely and forced to live under military occupation.

It's always blurry, in every case. Even the way German-ness was constituted between '33 and '45 underwent many revisions, whether for reasons of political expediency, or in order to re-focus sentiment.

Absolutely correct. Nationalism is at its heart imaginery and subjective. You are part of the nation if you feel you are and if you are included to the exclusion of others.​

 

[dylans]

Is the implication here that I'm not opposed to Zionism? I do hope not.

No not at all. I know you are . I am however a bit puzzled by you wish to take exception to the definition I gave. When you say you are opposed to Zionism both you and I understand that you are using the definition that I gave.

 

[ViolentPanda]

No not at all. I know you are . I am however a bit puzzled by you wish to take exception to the definition I gave. When you say you are opposed to Zionism both you and I understand that you are using the definition that I gave.

As I've always made clear on Urban, I believe that just saying "Zionism" isn't actually definitive, it tars all with the same brush when for some Zionism isn't a matter of nationalist politics in the state of Israel, it's a yearning to properly belong that doesn't necessarily include occupying the land that was Judea and Samaria. I refuse to condemn such people because they haven't earned my condemnation, and it's a yearning even Stalin imperfectly attempted to satisfy, albeit for his own quasi-anti-Semitic reasons.

 

[Random]

Frogwoman, I can see your point about the harm sanctions will do, but what is a feasible alternative

 

[elbows]

Frogwoman, I can see your point about the harm sanctions will do, but what is a feasible alternative

In terms of the harm sanctions can cause, I suppose we have to consider whether the campaign actually expects to achieve anything substantial on this front, or whether its more about making gestures which keep the cause in people minds and at least keep some propaganda pressure on Israel.

I doubt that many people actually expect to see Israel brought to its knees by sanctions, therefore it is possible to support the sanctions campaign without fearing the side-effects of the campaign being a staggering success that succeeds that isolates Israel.

What will actually lead to the situation changing one day? One or more of the following seem plausible:

A reconfiguration of superpower balance, or in the amount of influence lesser powers & developing countries have.
A shit in the USA's objectives in the region, either due to the previous or next point, or something like the oil running out.
The fate of the neo-liberal economic project.
Mass popular movements in key countries.
A shift in the balance of Israeli internal issues, including the expectation that the demographics will eventually alter the landscape considerably.

 

[frogwoman]

Frogwoman, I can see your point about the harm sanctions will do, but what is a feasible alternative

honestly mate i don't know. what i do know is that a sanctions campaign that was successful (and even one that was unsuccesful) would run the risk of alienating a huge portion of the israeli w/c, which is already frequently absent from any kind of discussion on the "left" in israel

dylans, is in some senses correct to point out the weaknesses of the left in israel but his reasons would i suspect be different to mine - campaigns such such as the refuseniks campaign have been to some extent dominated by those who can afford a criminal record, can afford to spend a few months in jail and who have access to sicial and economic capital that means that they won't suffer many ill effects

the israeli wc have been largely absent from discussions of the occupation

there are signs of hope i think, i think the fact that there have been an increasing number strikes such as the Haifa chemical factory and the strike of public sector workers and social workers which have included israelis and palestinian workers is a positive thing. i think that last year the israeli gov't were terrified of the "revolutions" reaching israel.

I just think that putting pressure on the us government and the eu to impose sanctions has the potential to create a very negative impact and i'm not sure what "the alternative" is

 

[Deareg]

Froggie, Would you have used the same reasoning to oppose sanctions against apartheid South Africa?

 

[frogwoman]

to be honest thats not an easy one, i've got family history connected with south africa, i think the sanctions did have a big effect in ending the regime, but it was not the only factor. i think the situation there was quite different though, in SA you had a small rump of white colonists who were largely living in the lap of luxuiry (and in many, probably most cases still are) whereas in Israel that is simply not true

sorry dude, i don't really have many answers to this at the mo, will try and think about it more tomorrow

 

[frogwoman]

I also think that the south african left could have done a lot more to address the issues which led to support of the regime among the afrikaner population. I don't however think that the two situations are exaclty the same. Most israelis don't live the way that most white south africans do. the rural afrikaner w/c are a minority within a minority. most israelis don't live that way - if you go to SA even today you will see that the white south africans still own most of the wealth and that a huge majority of them live in a way that the majority of people in britain would find unimaginable. many of them (israelis) have immediate history of persecution, anti-semitism etc and are living in basically slums.

 

[Random]

I doubt that many people actually expect to see Israel brought to its knees by sanctions, therefore it is possible to support the sanctions campaign without fearing the side-effects of the campaign being a staggering success that succeeds that isolates Israel.

That is pretty much my position. Even if this campaign is basically treading water, it's still better than nothing, and objecting to it based ideas that Israel will starve like Iraq are a red herring.

Jewish Israelis also need these campaigns to exist, to have Israel's occupation challenged. Becausen they are a rump, of a few million in am Arab world of hundreds of milions. And one day their patron will fall, and they may simply be expelled, like the French Algerians were. It's the Israeli left's role to defend living standards, and they need to be supported. But that defence needs to come at the expense of the occupation budget, not by continuing business as usual.

 

[Mad4ziz]

I am not Jewish. I believe that the Palestinians are suffering and have suffered wrongs and injustices at the hands of the Israelis. That requires remedy; recompense.I have no doubt that there are stubborn narrow minded religious zealots in Israel who wouldn't be my choice to have a chat with. But I think we need to put this in a broader perspective. Hitler tried to eliminate the Jewish race. He killed 6 million Jews. The state of Israel was a reaction to that fact. It has now turned into a ghastly concentration camp in its own right. One or two nuclear explosions will "wipe Israel off the map" as threatened by the Iranians in a second holocaust. That is why I believe Israel will attack Iran before Iran is completely nuclear capable, unless Iran decides not to acquire those weapons. The Israelis will not rely on the rest of the world to protect them from a second holocaust. I find the whole situation terrifying.

 

[Knotted]

The main argument against BDS seems to be that it makes life difficult for liberal Israeli's who might oppose the settlement expansion etc. And that's why I am in favour of BDS - it upsets the complacent shoot and cry crowd.

 

[Random]

That's a rather selfish and counter productive reason to support BDS.

 

[Random]

And to mad4ziz I'll just say that Israel being set up in response to the Shoa is simply untrue. But I'll leave VP to properly destroy that claim.

 

[Knotted]

You think? Here's Max Blumenthal and Joseph Dana putting it better than I could.

We began to understand the power of the cultural boycott in disrupting the apathy that pervades middle class, urban Israeli society. Apathy allows Israelis to live in comfort behind iron walls while remaining immune to the occupation and innoculated from its horrors. The culture of apathy allows them to watch the news and let out a groan of concern without thinking seriously about political engagement.

What worries me is if the Palestinian question becomes an administrative problem. What to do with them? What's practical? I think the situation is safer when Israelis are angry - because it's a minimal recognition of Palestinian humanity. BDS won't change anything, but it might help prevent something horrific.

I should say that I'm not particularly enthusiastic about sanctions - the cultural and academic boycott seem quite effective though.