T Nation

Holocaust, Apartheid and Colonies

A challenge facing pro-Palestinian politics in the USA

By Bill Fletcher

"A national march and rally sponsored by the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation is scheduled to be held in Washington, DC June 10th. Commemorating the 40th anniversary of the “6 Day War” between Israel and several Arab states, and the resulting Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, the march seeks to bring attention to the on-going plight of the Palestinian people and US complicity in their prolonged suffering.

Pro-Palestinian politics in the USA has faced a series of difficult challenges. Virtually every criticism of Israeli intransigence and US collusion is met with charges of alleged anti-Semitism. Consider, for example, the outcry that accompanied the publication of former President Jimmy Carter’s provocatively-though correctly-entitled book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Leaving aside that scholars and human rights activists around the globe-including from within Israel-have drawn appropriate comparisons between the Israeli occupation and South African apartheid, the more important fact was that anti-Palestinian forces wished to frustrate any broad dialogue on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. One means of undermining such discussions, to which I would like to call attention, was a shrewd tactical ploy: accusing President Carter of supposedly not giving greater attention to the Holocaust in his book.

It is worth pausing here for a risky moment to consider this attack because it has been used-and not just with President Carter-as an ideological trump card in many discussions of the on-going Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The Holocaust, though not unprecedented in modern world history, was unique to pre-World War II Europe in one critical sense. As the noted writer Aime Cesaire put it so brilliantly, speaking of the European: “?what he [the European-my note] cannot forgive Hitler for is not the crime in itself, the crime against man, it is not the humiliation of man as such, it is the crime against the white man, the humiliation of the white man, and the fact that he applied to Europe colonialist procedures which until then had been reserved exclusively for the Arabs of Algeria, the ‘coolies’ of India, and the ‘niggers’ of Africa.” [Discourse on Colonialism (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2000, p.36. Emphasis in original.]

Cesaire’s statement helps one grasp why it was that there was silence in Europe and North America at the annihilation of 10 million Congolese under the whip of Belgium’s King Leopold; the genocide against the First Nations/Native Americans in the Western Hemisphere; and the Turkish genocide against the Armenians. Simply put, these groups did not count; they and their experiences were irrelevant precisely because these groups were either not European or allegedly not ‘civilized’ Europeans (depending on how one understands the ethnicity of Armenians).

The terror of the Holocaust has been used since World War II to justify the colonial creation of the Israeli settler state. Did the Jews deserve a state as compensation for the crimes committed against them by the Nazis, compounded by the global silence? Absolutely! But the choice of Palestine and the construction of a state on top of a pre-existing social formation reflected the sort of settler mentality found in other settler states, e.g., the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, apartheid South Africa, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. From the settler framework, history begins and ends with the experiences of the settlers. Even the Irish, oppressed by Britain for hundreds of years in what the Irish aptly describe as “racial oppression” (the proto-type, according to the late US Marxist scholar and activist Theodore Allen, for the system of white supremacist rule imposed on colonial North America), allowed too many of themselves to become foot-soldiers for settler states when they fled the horrors of their own persecution, ignoring the similarity between the oppression that they had suffered and that which they helped to perpetuate.

President Carter’s book on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict did not address the Holocaust for a very good reason: the Holocaust cannot and never will justify the destruction of the Palestinian people being carried out by the Israeli state. Yet this fact remains highly controversial in the USA in large part because the settler mentality that would ignore the pre-existing social formation of the Palestinians and, therefore, proceed to divide up their land without a modicum of consultation with their people, is the same settler mentality that justified bacteriological warfare (under the auspices of 18th century British general Lord Amherst); the Trail of Tears; Wounded Knee; the seizing of Oklahoma after it had originally been granted as a homeland, against the First Nations/Native Americans here in the USA.

Thus, elaborating pro-Palestinian politics in the USA runs smack against the construction and reality of the racial-settler state mentality that both the USA and Israel share in common. This, in addition to the lack of a firm, pro-Palestinian constituency in the USA, helps to account for the monumental challenge for pro-Palestinian forces here at home. The expansion of a pro-Palestinian movement, particularly in a post-9/11 environment, therefore necessitates a strategy analogous to the anti-apartheid solidarity movement, but with very important qualifiers. For the purposes of this commentary, I will reserve my suggestions to this one area, i.e., the active deconstruction of the settler myth.

In the case of supporting the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, there was no constituency in the USA that had significant ethnic linkages with the Afrikaaners in South Africa. Even though the Afrikaaners, as part of their settler myth, liked to present themselves as victims of history, this simply did not pass the straight face test in any portion of the world. People came to understand the realities of the apartheid settler state without truly understanding the system of settler states. Thus, the blatant oppression of the Black majority by the white minority became more and more difficult to explain, even when attempts were offered to introduce Cold War politics.

In the case of the Palestinians, the situation is markedly different. The Nazi genocide against the Jews will never be forgotten. The combination of the existence of a Jewish population in the USA with ties to both the victims and survivors of the Holocaust, along with the reality that Europe and North America largely ignored the pleas for help against the Nazis, thus joins with a settler framework that is completely blind to the Palestinians because their-the Palestinians’-reality is considered irrelevant, or at best, secondary, to the reality of those who suffered under Nazism. The work of progressive and Left forces in the USA who are pro-Palestinian must emphasize that the past (and in some cases, present) persecution of one group does not justify displacing an uninvolved third party from their land. The settler’s reality is not the reality, but is only a portion of a total equation. Restricting one’s vantage point to the problems of the settler condemns one to supporting the ‘right’ of the settler to preserve their existence irrespective of the methods and consequences. Not only is this morally bankrupt but it is also politically insane since the final result will be interminable war, and quite possibly, mutual destruction. "

/****/

Whatever one’s position on the conflict, this thought-provoking piece should stir up some interesting debate. Can you find anything to refute in this piece? Personally, I do share a similar opinion with the author and don’t see much to add besides quoting H. Truman:
"I am sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.? President Harry Truman, quoted in
“Anti-Zion ism”, ed. by Tekiner, Abed-Rabbo & Mezvinsky.

“Leaving aside that scholars and human rights activists around the globe-including from within Israel-have drawn appropriate comparisons between the Israeli occupation and South African apartheid”

A quite normal logical fallacy is to appeal to authority or to appeal to majority. The fact that “experts say so” or “most people think so” doesen’t lend legitimity to an argument.

The comparison between Israel and the South African apartheid-situation is in no way appropriate and in no way propotional. It is an argument that neither attacks Israel politics in a rational way or solves problems OR an argument that helps the Palestinian cause. It is an argument that is solely designed to polarize the argument and act “more holy than the pope”. I could give quite a few examples, but here are the first:

  1. Palestinians in the entire Israeli judicial system, including the Israeli Supreme Court.

  2. Palestinians in the entire political system of Israel, including the current government.

  3. Palestinians in the entire federal beuracracy.

  4. Palestinians have the same rights as Israelis on all areas where it is practical possible.

This quickly invalidates the “Israel is apartheid”-claim, and shows that it holds little, or no substance. One can wonder what the motivation behind these claims are. I would recommend reading the commentary by Alan Dershowitz on Jimmy Carter’s book (not you lixy, everyone opposing your views with intelligence and sources are “biased”, so don’t worry about Dershowitz’ book).

The West needs to quit trying to civilize the Middle East and North Africa. Kick all arabs back to their native countries and let 'em indulge in their tribal warfare, beat their tom-toms, and herd their goats.

Any incursions outside their pit of hell, nuke 'em back to the Stone Age.

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
A quite normal logical fallacy is to appeal to authority or to appeal to majority. The fact that “experts say so” or “most people think so” doesen’t lend legitimity to an argument. [/quote]

Agreed. That’s why the author doesn’t present it as an argument and says “leaving aside”.

Proportional? Probably not. Appropriate? Definitely.

[quote]I could give quite a few examples, but here are the first:

  1. Palestinians in the entire Israeli judicial system, including the Israeli Supreme Court.

  2. Palestinians in the entire political system of Israel, including the current government.

  3. Palestinians in the entire federal beuracracy.

  4. Palestinians have the same rights as Israelis on all areas where it is practical possible.[/quote]

No, sir! Those you refer to as “Palestinians” are in fact Israelis.

Your argument is like calling black Americans “Senegalese” or “Jamaican”.

I sense the Anti-Semitism wildcard coming…

Seriously, your question is legitimate but when so many people inside Israel and all across the spectrum - from leftist intellectuals to ultra-orthodox Jews - denounce it as a criminal state, you have to start considering that there must some substance to those claims.

Is that an elaborate scheme to get into Natalie Portman’s pants? Nevermind…

I delight in reading Dershowitz’s exchanges on the issue with the “doves”. To any impartial outside observer, Alan gets a beating everytime. The most notorious case being the Finkelstein case in which Dershowitz was forced to deflect the debate. Hence, the DePaul scandal.

When it comes to strength of arguments, proper documentation and support of scholars, Alan clearly lost the case.

But enough ranting about Dershowitz. The original idea in the article wasn’t the Apartheid comparison but rather the “settlers’ mentality” who dismiss the indigenous locals as mere inconvenience. Let’s please focus the thread on that.

[quote]lixy wrote:

Whatever one’s position on the conflict, this thought-provoking piece should stir up some interesting debate. Can you find anything to refute in this piece?[/quote]

It really doesn’t stir up interesting debate - it merely parrots the banal “white colonialism” theory that gets traction among naive wannabe radicals. You, predictably, have this in your playbook, and little else.

The history, first of all, is bad. To no surprise, all evil in the world is the result of European conquest, where everyone else is a “victim” of white people. The tragic engine of history shows us that “colonialism” has been the ordinary course of business among all humans, and Europeans are actually the ones responsible for the shift away from it.

Take for example the “white man’s” “genocide” of Native Americans. Before the European arrived, what were the Indian tribes doing? The same thing as European nations - existing, moving around, and yes, conquering one another. Pushing tribes off of resourceful lands. Slaughtering each other in the name of rivalry and competition for resources.

So this limited notion of the modern left-wing type is based on a nakedly partisan selection of history. Coming from Lixy, no surprise.

And it is only recently that the “Palestinian problem” has been revised to be an “Israeli colonial” problem. For years, after the Arab countries got their asses handed to them, this was not a concern - everyone knew exactly what the real problem was: Arab nations simply wanted the destruction of Israel.

Then, when it became apparent that Israel wouldn’t slide into the water giving way to the Arab nations, suddenly there came a new tactic: start whining about the Palestinians as “vicims” of Israeli occupation and oppression as a way to begin the process of elimination of the Jewish state. Since outright aggression didn’t work (three cheers for democratic warriors and technology), try and open up the possibility of getting rid of Israel by way of guilt.

Palestinians could have a state yesterday if they were interested in co-existence with Israel. The trendy theories - well, are they trendy anymore since no serious person believes them anymore? - of neo-Marxist “colonialism” is nothing but a new (bad) argument to advance an old agenda.

Lixy, you are one trick pony.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
A quite normal logical fallacy is to appeal to authority or to appeal to majority. The fact that “experts say so” or “most people think so” doesen’t lend legitimity to an argument.

Agreed. That’s why the author doesn’t present it as an argument and says “leaving aside”.

[/quote]
Another logical fallacy nevertheless… As long as he infact USES it, it doesen’t aquit him stating “well, leaving aside”…

You most certainly got my point, but you try to answer it with semantics, how cute… Should i call them ethnic palestinians inside Israel then? :slight_smile: What kind of label did you want me to use? Your response is totally on the side of the point and well… smell like a strawman.

You can sense what you want, isn’t it a bit ironic though, that the “hey, you call me anti-semite” is a “wildcard” fare more used than the actual accusations of anti-semitism…

[quote]

Seriously, your question is legitimate but when so many people inside Israel and all across the spectrum - from leftist intellectuals to ultra-orthodox Jews - denounce it as a criminal state, you have to start considering that there must some substance to those claims.

I would recommend reading the commentary by Alan Dershowitz on Jimmy Carter’s book (not you lixy, everyone opposing your views with intelligence and sources are “biased”, so don’t worry about Dershowitz’ book).

Is that an elaborate scheme to get into Natalie Portman’s pants? Nevermind…

I delight in reading Dershowitz’s exchanges on the issue with the “doves”. To any impartial outside observer, Alan gets a beating everytime. The most notorious case being the Finkelstein case in which Dershowitz was forced to deflect the debate. Hence, the DePaul scandal.

When it comes to strength of arguments, proper documentation and support of scholars, Alan clearly lost the case.

But enough ranting about Dershowitz. The original idea in the article wasn’t the Apartheid comparison but rather the “settlers’ mentality” who dismiss the indigenous locals as mere inconvenience. Let’s please focus the thread on that.[/quote]

Riight, Finkelstein, which lost the trial on his false accusation “won” beacause a biased wikipedia-article say so…

You have to do better than this my dear swede…

“To any impartial outside observer, Alan gets a beating everytime.”

Right… :slight_smile: I fixed that for you:

“To any LEFTWING far from UNBIASED observer, Alan gets a beating everytime”

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:

Whatever one’s position on the conflict, this thought-provoking piece should stir up some interesting debate. Can you find anything to refute in this piece?

It really doesn’t stir up interesting debate - it merely parrots the banal “white colonialism” theory that gets traction among naive wannabe radicals. You, predictably, have this in your playbook, and little else.

The history, first of all, is bad. To no surprise, all evil in the world is the result of European conquest, where everyone else is a “victim” of white people. The tragic engine of history shows us that “colonialism” has been the ordinary course of business among all humans, and Europeans are actually the ones responsible for the shift away from it.

Take for example the “white man’s” “genocide” of Native Americans. Before the European arrived, what were the Indian tribes doing? The same thing as European nations - existing, moving around, and yes, conquering one another. Pushing tribes off of resourceful lands. Slaughtering each other in the name of rivalry and competition for resources.

So this limited notion of the modern left-wing type is based on a nakedly partisan selection of history. Coming from Lixy, no surprise.

And it is only recently that the “Palestinian problem” has been revised to be an “Israeli colonial” problem. For years, after the Arab countries got their asses handed to them, this was not a concern - everyone knew exactly what the real problem was: Arab nations simply wanted the destruction of Israel.

Then, when it became apparent that Israel wouldn’t slide into the water giving way to the Arab nations, suddenly there came a new tactic: start whining about the Palestinians as “vicims” of Israeli occupation and oppression as a way to begin the process of elimination of the Jewish state. Since outright aggression didn’t work (three cheers for democratic warriors and technology), try and open up the possibility of getting rid of Israel by way of guilt.

Palestinians could have a state yesterday if they were interested in co-existence with Israel. The trendy theories - well, are they trendy anymore since no serious person believes them anymore? - of neo-Marxist “colonialism” is nothing but a new (bad) argument to advance an old agenda.

Lixy, you are one trick pony.[/quote]

Interestingly enough, a lot of support from USA came from Woodrow Wilsons anti-imperialism/self-realisation program…

ironic, isn’t it? :wink:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Take for example the “white man’s” “genocide” of Native Americans. Before the European arrived, what were the Indian tribes doing? The same thing as European nations - existing, moving around, and yes, conquering one another. Pushing tribes off of resourceful lands. Slaughtering each other in the name of rivalry and competition for resources. [/quote]

Surreal apologism. How about the poor Africans taken by force from their lands to serve as slaves?

When you use quotes around Palestinian problem, is that some kind of satirical way of saying there is no problem?

Where are the Palestinian people in all of this? What’s their sin? Should they suffer the consequences of the hostility towards Israel exhibited by some ill-advised Arab leader?

Agenda? Explain to me why so many Jews and Israelis uses those arguments?

Whatever, horse!

[quote]lixy wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Take for example the “white man’s” “genocide” of Native Americans. Before the European arrived, what were the Indian tribes doing? The same thing as European nations - existing, moving around, and yes, conquering one another. Pushing tribes off of resourceful lands. Slaughtering each other in the name of rivalry and competition for resources.

Surreal apologism. How about the poor Africans taken by force from their lands to serve as slaves?
[/quote]
Yes, USA was the only nation in the world using slaves…? or…? Slavery has been and is a far greater in muslim parts of the world than in the western world, what is your point?

With this, you practically label the Palestinians as children, without the posibility to affect their own lives… which ofcourse is wrong. The palestinians themselves chose NOT to accept their own nation in 1948, blaming “ill-advised Arab leaders” and making that up to be some sort of excuse is… cynical, mildly put.

[quote]

The trendy theories - well, are they trendy anymore since no serious person believes them anymore? - of neo-Marxist “colonialism” is nothing but a new (bad) argument to advance an old agenda.

Agenda? Explain to me why so many Jews and Israelis uses those arguments?

Lixy, you are one trick pony.

Whatever, horse![/quote]

Maybe he means the old agenda of many Palestinians, wiping Israel off the map? :wink:

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
You most certainly got my point, but you try to answer it with semantics, how cute… Should i call them ethnic palestinians inside Israel then? :slight_smile: What kind of label did you want me to use? Your response is totally on the side of the point and well… smell like a strawman. [/quote]

They ARE Israelis! It has nothing to do with labels. It says so on their identity documents.

Period.

[quote]“To any impartial outside observer, Alan gets a beating everytime.”

Right… :slight_smile: I fixed that for you:

“To any LEFTWING far from UNBIASED observer, Alan gets a beating everytime”
[/quote]

This is not how it appears judging from the overwhelming support of scholars Norman has drawn from around the world. But, let’s leave it at that. I have no will to go into yet-another polarized discussion.

I have one question for you though; If the motives of Alan can be summed up by saying that he’s justifying Israel’s actions and defending the status quo favorable to the Zionist state, what would you say the motives of the likes of Finkelstein are? Thanks.

[quote]lixy wrote:

Surreal apologism. How about the poor Africans taken by force from their lands to serve as slaves?

…[/quote]

Islam has much to apologize for doing that and selling those people.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
You most certainly got my point, but you try to answer it with semantics, how cute… Should i call them ethnic palestinians inside Israel then? :slight_smile: What kind of label did you want me to use? Your response is totally on the side of the point and well… smell like a strawman.

They ARE Israelis! It has nothing to do with labels. It says so on their identity documents.

Period.
[/quote]

So, if I move to Israel, I have to forget my norwegian heritage? :wink: It doesen’t work that way dear kiddo, you have to be able to have two thoughts in your head at the same time.

You have jewish, palestine and many other ethnisities in Israel, they are all Israelis, but they also have other “labels”, whatever you may like or not, and again: this is a strawman derailing of the point I was making… just beacause you know it kicks the shit out of the accusations… :slight_smile: I hope you drop stooping down to these tactics in the future…

[quote]

“To any impartial outside observer, Alan gets a beating everytime.”

Right… :slight_smile: I fixed that for you:

“To any LEFTWING far from UNBIASED observer, Alan gets a beating everytime”

This is not how it appears judging from the overwhelming support of scholars Norman has drawn from around the world. But, let’s leave it at that. I have no will to go into yet-another polarized discussion.

I have one question for you though; If the motives of Alan can be summed up by saying that he’s justifying Israel’s actions and defending the status quo favorable to the Zionist state, what would you say the motives of the likes of Finkelstein are? Thanks. [/quote]

  1. “This is not how it appears judging from the overwhelming support of scholars Norman has drawn from around the world.”

Right… again, appeal to majority… :slight_smile: You can’t seem to let this go? :wink: Btw, Norman are not able to get anything out on most universities in USA, beacause he lack the academic level… and his publishers have had to pull several of his books to correct them after court orders.

so your subjective “it appears” doesen’t count for much.

  1. “If the motives of Alan can be summed up by saying that he’s justifying Israel’s actions and defending the status quo favorable to the Zionist state”

Why would you sum it up with a blatant and direct lie? :slight_smile: That is just useless… Try: If the motives of Alan can be summed up by saying that he’s justifying parts of Israel’s actions, condemning other parts and he is actively supporting a two state solution where both states has to make sacrifices…

[quote]lixy wrote:

Surreal apologism. How about the poor Africans taken by force from their lands to serve as slaves?[/quote]

And did Africans themselves own slaves? How about the ones sold to Europeans from black Africans? What about the generations of non-whites in the Middle East and Africa who owned slaves?

Look at what you wrote: it doesn’t refute my claim.

And, this is a straw man: when did I ever say that Europeans didn’t have slaves? I said the problem extended to much more of history than your convenient line-drawing of meanie Europeans.

Lixy = no good at history.

Yes, in the context of people like you who use it as a proxy for another agenda.

No problem - I have said over and over that they deserve some space. Their current “sin” is refusal to recognize the existence of Israel. That is a prerequisite - and the reason why is because so many of the Palestinians exhibit the exact same attitude as the Arab nations that attacked (and got whooped by) Israel. Until the Palestinians can authoritatively show they don’t march in lockstep with the same mentality that caused the aggression against Israel - nope.

Uh, seriously? You need me to explain the obvious agenda of wanting the destruction of Israel outright from the Middle East? And why do Jews and Israelis - of which I am neither - advance these arguments? Might it be because they would like to live there without a perpetual state of war and terror?

This makes no sense. Much like most of what you write.

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
Yes, USA was the only nation in the world using slaves…? or…? Slavery has been and is a far greater in muslim parts of the world than in the western world, what is your point? [/quote]

Well, you don’t hear me making half-assed excuses for those horrible episodes of history now do you?

Well, given that they lived under British mandate for more than two decade knowing of the Balfour declaration, they definitely don’t seem to have much leverage over their own lives.

I’ll grant you this much: Arabs should have worked on a peace settlement in the early days of the Israeli state. No arguing about that.

[quote]Maybe he means the old agenda of many Palestinians, wiping Israel off the map? :wink:
[/quote]

Just so we’re clear, the guy who wrote that piece has nothing to do with those. So, that’s probably not what TB meant.

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
So, if I move to Israel, I have to forget my norwegian heritage? :wink: It doesen’t work that way dear kiddo, you have to be able to have two thoughts in your head at the same time.

You have jewish, palestine and many other ethnisities in Israel, they are all Israelis, but they also have other “labels”, whatever you may like or not [/quote]

No problem in here. Just make sure you call them what they really are in the future: Arab Israelis!

If you think it’s a strawman, in all courtesy, I invite you to debunk it. I like the “kicks the shit out” acknowledgment bit though…

From what I can tell, it was spot-on the point you were making. You were trying to portray full-citizens of Israel as something else. I merely pointed out to that.

[quote]1) “This is not how it appears judging from the overwhelming support of scholars Norman has drawn from around the world.”

Right… again, appeal to majority… :slight_smile: You can’t seem to let this go? :wink: Btw, Norman are not able to get anything out on most universities in USA, beacause he lack the academic level… and his publishers have had to pull several of his books to correct them after court orders.

so your subjective “it appears” doesen’t count for much.[/quote]

Like I said, I have no interest in discussing this. We are clearly both ardent supporters of one or the other and there’s no way any of us is gonna budge an inch from the current position. I therefore back off from this portion of the debate.

[quote]2) “If the motives of Alan can be summed up by saying that he’s justifying Israel’s actions and defending the status quo favorable to the Zionist state”

Why would you sum it up with a blatant and direct lie? :slight_smile: That is just useless… Try: If the motives of Alan can be summed up by saying that he’s justifying parts of Israel’s actions, condemning other parts and he is actively supporting a two state solution where both states has to make sacrifices… [/quote]

Don’t get so defensive please. I expressed how Alan’s motives are perceived in many circles, and yes, I happen to espouse those same opinions.

However, I knew that you’d have a different interpretation, but stated that I’m interested in what YOU think are the motives of Finkelstein, Chomsky, Rabbi Domb and other Jews for consistently opposing Israeli actions. What about distinguished reporters or scholars such as Avi Shlaim, Raul Hilberg, Baruch Kimmerling, Alexander Cockburn, Jeremy Cook and the crew? How the about the other countless Israelis Haaret’z contributors?

Surely one can easily dismiss a Palestinian scholar, activist, journalist or lobbyist as being biased; yet, one would have a harder time doing the same for Jews or Israelis. And we’re talking about educated people here, ranging from historians to theologians and political scientists.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
So, if I move to Israel, I have to forget my norwegian heritage? :wink: It doesen’t work that way dear kiddo, you have to be able to have two thoughts in your head at the same time.

You have jewish, palestine and many other ethnisities in Israel, they are all Israelis, but they also have other “labels”, whatever you may like or not

No problem in here. Just make sure you call them what they really are in the future: Arab Israelis!

and again: this is a strawman derailing of the point I was making… just beacause you know it kicks the shit out of the accusations… :slight_smile:

If you think it’s a strawman, in all courtesy, I invite you to debunk it. I like the “kicks the shit out” acknowledgment bit though…

From what I can tell, it was spot-on the point you were making. You were trying to portray full-citizens of Israel as something else. I merely pointed out to that.
[/quote]

So… you think that the apartheid comparison is just and correct… I come with a few examples of how it is NOT correct, and you start a strawman arguing against how i try to portray full citizens of Israel as something else…

riiiight…

Let me try again, in your words: the arabs (the full citizens of Israel you know…?) also known as palestinians… or pal-arabs… or or or… well, you catch my drift, right…? THEY ARE IN THE SUPREME COURT, THEY ARE IN THE GOVERNMENT, THEY ARE IN THE PRESS, THEY HAVE THE RIGHTS THAT OTHER ISRAELIS HAVE…

I don’t know if my point got trough now? Did you see it? it was not about being “true” israeli or not, it was about palestinians in Israel having rights that makes the apartheid-comparison wrong…

with me so far? Lets move along…

“perceived”… So, when Alan himself expresses something explicitly different, you just disregard that and go with your belief instead? :slight_smile: Interesting… try to read “a case for peace” and come back with your assumptions, ok? Your attempt on outlining Dershowitz’ motives was plain wrong, a blatant lie, against everything he has written the last 10-15 years…

Noone “believes” or “perceived” it the way you expressed it, it is just wrong. Ok? Still with me? Not about interpretation, no logic, rational interpretation of any of Dershowitz’ last books make your statment correct, you have to go against the direct and explicit meaning to end up where you did, simple as that.

[quote]
However, I knew that you’d have a different interpretation, but stated that I’m interested in what YOU think are the motives of Finkelstein, Chomsky, Rabbi Domb and other Jews for consistently opposing Israeli actions. What about distinguished reporters or scholars such as Avi Shlaim, Raul Hilberg, Baruch Kimmerling, Alexander Cockburn, Jeremy Cook and the crew? How the about the other countless Israelis Haaret’z contributors?

Surely one can easily dismiss a Palestinian scholar, activist, journalist or lobbyist as being biased; yet, one would have a harder time doing the same for Jews or Israelis. And we’re talking about educated people here, ranging from historians to theologians and political scientists.[/quote]

Cockburn and Finkelstein, the infamous duo… :slight_smile: Well, Finkelstein and Cockburn both has done quite a good work on the “let us demonize Israel”-front the last years, I won’t speculate in the motives though, I don’t know them personally and I don’t know what agenda they abide by. I DO know that they are not in the high regard that you try to portrait here though. The Chutzpa-verdict is a good place to start…

Elsewise, you seem to think that all Israelis and all jews are one homogenous mass, and that a dissenting voice must be some kind of weird occurance… where do you get this from? Noone is as critical towards their own state as Israelis and jews are… :)This is a good thing… I hope swedes one day incorporate this… maybe when they are done debating louis vitton purses?

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
So… you think that the apartheid comparison is just and correct… I come with a few examples of how it is NOT correct, and you start a strawman arguing against how i try to portray full citizens of Israel as something else…

riiiight…

Let me try again, in your words: the arabs (the full citizens of Israel you know…?) also known as palestinians… or pal-arabs… or or or… well, you catch my drift, right…? THEY ARE IN THE SUPREME COURT, THEY ARE IN THE GOVERNMENT, THEY ARE IN THE PRESS, THEY HAVE THE RIGHTS THAT OTHER ISRAELIS HAVE…

I don’t know if my point got trough now? Did you see it? it was not about being “true” israeli or not, it was about palestinians in Israel having rights that makes the apartheid-comparison wrong…

with me so far? Lets move along…[/quote]

I see where the problem is. Had you read Carter’s book, you would have realized that the Apartheid he talks about is the one exercised in the occuppied territories.

What you were trying to show was that Israelis had rights within Israel. Duh!

You’d have a harder time arguing the same for the occupied territories. Out of the wiki we get:

“Allegations of “Israeli apartheid” have been made by many groups and individuals, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu and other South African anti-apartheid leaders, Jimmy Carter former President of the United States, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, members of the Israeli Knesset,[5], Israeli journalists [6][7][8], the Syrian government,[9] pro-Palestinian student groups in the UK, U.S., and Canada,[10] the Congress of South African Trade Unions,[11], the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem. [12] It has also been employed by white supremacist David Duke,[13] Holocaust denier Paul Grubach of the Institute for Historical Review,[14]”

That’s a little bit too many people to dismiss en masse as anti-Semitic.

For the last time, I don’t see anything new emerging from the debate. We both have (allegedly) read the texts and came to different conclusions. No point debating this further.

Fair enough. You don’t know what their motives could be.

Let me adventure a guess about the motive here. They are not religious. They are not racial. They are not political. They are not financial.

They have none other than telling the TRUTH.

No, I don’t think that at all. I’m just noticing that many many Jews and Israelis seem to agree with Chomsky and others in their depiction of Israel as a purveyor of gratuitous violence and dishonest in its “peace” proposals. One would expect that if those claims were totally unsubstantiated, there would be no support at all from inside Israelis. That such support exists, and is in fact growing, might show that there is at least some truth in these accusations. It ain’t proof; it’s just something to ponder. Surely, Israelis know a lot more about their government’s policies than us.

European style capitalism eliminated slavery. Everywhere its tried, capitalism eventually liberates everyone and creates almost-boundless wealth.

Europe and America = the giants that hold the world on their shoulders.

"That’s a little bit too many people to dismiss en masse as anti-Semitic. "

Right… Again, appeal to majority, that is STILL a logical fallacy Lixy… :slight_smile: And can you point me to where I have dismissed anything as anti-semitic? that strawman is ALSO getting old.

When it comes to “reading the same texts”… well, when Alan explicitly, in his “a case for peace”-book outlines a two-state solution with half of Jerusalem to the palestinian state among other things… with maps and plans… how can you interpret that to “status quo”? how can you, in a honest way… DO that?! Care to elaborate?

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
When it comes to “reading the same texts”… well, when Alan explicitly, in his “a case for peace”-book outlines a two-state solution with half of Jerusalem to the palestinian state among other things… with maps and plans… how can you interpret that to “status quo”? how can you, in a honest way… DO that?! Care to elaborate?[/quote]

Sure. In the book he relays the disingenous offer of a state composed of scattered bits and pieces. That is by no mean a viable solution and claiming otherwise is dishonest by nature. There’s a lot more to discuss in his book than that, but I don’t see how we could possibly do it in any constructive way in a few posts.

Going down that road is tantamount to rehashing the arguments that have already been presented by both sides of the debate for years. I have no interest nor will to go there. Let’s focus this thread on the new concept introduced by the article; that is, the whole “settler’s mentality”.

Thanks in advance,