In 1923, well before the Holocaust was more than a nasty, obsessive fantasy in the minds of rightwing euroneandercons of their day, the regrettable Jabotinsky wrote
Any native people view their country as their national home, of which they will be complete masters. They will never voluntarily allow a new master. So it is for the Arabs. Compromisers among us try to convince us that the Arabs are some kind of fools who can be tricked with hidden formulations of our basic goals. I flatly refuse to accept this view of the Palestinian Arabs. They have the precise psychology that we have. They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux upon his prairie. Each people will struggle against colonizers until the last spark of hope that they can avoid the dangers of conquest and colonization is extinguished. The Palestinians will struggle in this way until there is hardly a spark of hope. It matters not what kind of words we use to explain our colonization. Colonization has its own integral and inescapable meaning understood by every Jew and by every Arab. Colonization has only one goal. This is in the nature of things. To change that nature is impossible. It has been necessary to carry on colonization against the will of the Palestinian Arabs and the same condition exists now. Even an agreement with non-Palestinians represents the same kind of fantasy. In order for Arab nationalists of Baghdad and Mecca and Damascus to agree to pay so serious a price they would have to refuse to maintain the Arab character of Palestine. We cannot give any compensation for Palestine, neither to the Palestinians nor to other Arabs. Therefore, a voluntary agreement is inconceivable. All colonization, even the most restricted, must continue in defiance of the will of the native population. Therefore, it can continue and develop only under the shield of force which comprises an Iron Wall through which the local population can never break through. This is our Arab policy. To formulate it any other way would be hypocrisy.
They have the precise psychology that we have. They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux upon his prairie. Each people will struggle against colonizers until the last spark of hope that they can avoid the dangers of conquest and colonization is extinguished. The Palestinians will struggle in this way until there is hardly a spark of hope.
It matters not what kind of words we use to explain our colonization. Colonization has its own integral and inescapable meaning understood by every Jew and by every Arab. Colonization has only one goal. This is in the nature of things. To change that nature is impossible. It has been necessary to carry on colonization against the will of the Palestinian Arabs and the same condition exists now.
Even an agreement with non-Palestinians represents the same kind of fantasy. In order for Arab nationalists of Baghdad and Mecca and Damascus to agree to pay so serious a price they would have to refuse to maintain the Arab character of Palestine.
We cannot give any compensation for Palestine, neither to the Palestinians nor to other Arabs. Therefore, a voluntary agreement is inconceivable. All colonization, even the most restricted, must continue in defiance of the will of the native population. Therefore, it can continue and develop only under the shield of force which comprises an Iron Wall through which the local population can never break through. This is our Arab policy. To formulate it any other way would be hypocrisy.
It doesn't seem like much of a coincidence that Chaim Weizman (a prominent architect of the Balfour Declaration) was a friend of Gen. Smuts (architect of the S African Apartheid system), or that Israel maintained a strategic alliance with S Africa for many decades. As Weizman said, "with regard to the Arab question - the British told us that there are several hundred thousand Negroes there but this is a matter of no consequence." That sounds like the British of that era -- and that sounds like Weizman too.
Pop quiz: who said
It is impossible for a man to become assimilated with people whose blood is different from his own. In order to become assimilated, he must change his body, he must become one of them, in blood. There can be no assimilation. We shall never allow such things as mixed marriage because the preservation of national integrity is impossible except by means of racial purity and for that purpose we shall have this territory where our people will constitute the racially pure inhabitants.
Yup, it was Jabotinsky again -- prechannelling Dr Strangelove. (AFAIK Israel still prohibits mixed marriage or 'miscegenation'; the supreme court of the State of California recognised such laws as unconstitutional in 1948, but as late as 1967 there were still US states with antimiscegenation statutes). He was also an admirer of Mussolini (go figure).
And insanely enough -- much as the Sharon government used to seize on every antisemitic incident in the international press to urge more Jews to seek refuge in Israel, but even more mindbendingly ironically -- hardline Zionists at the time even saw the Holocaust as a recruitment opportunity for Israel. Ben Gurion notoriously said in 1938, "If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England, and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Israel, then I opt for the second alternative." ("We think the price is worth it," in other words?)
As late as 1943, while the Jews of Europe were being exterminated in the millions, the U.S. Congress proposed to set up a commission to "study" the problem -- with some notion that a rescue operation might result. Rabbi Stephen Wise -- at that time the principal American spokesperson for Zionism -- came to Washington to testify against the rescue bill because it would divert attention from the colonization of Palestine. (cf Sheonman, Ralph, "The Hidden History of Zionism").
Nothing new here -- in every political movement there are Schadenfreudians who pray for conditions to get worse and worse so that, in the last ditch, their pet strategy or theory will finally be seen as the proper and only solution. Sheonman documents that -- insanely as it seems from our post facto POV -- not only did the Zionist Federation of Germany send a resolution of support to the Nazi Party in 1933, "the World Zionist Organization Congress in 1933 defeated a resolution calling for action against Hitler by a vote of 240 to 43."
iirc at least one of the German Left parties did something equally foolish, refusing to make common political cause with anti-Hitler liberals -- perhaps hoping that the fascist crackdown would awaken the masses and spur on the Revolution? (it certainly did awaken the masses, but not in the way they might have hoped). so forget any notion that this kind of face-spiting political strategy has anything to do with Jewishness. a lot more to do with human nature and vanguardism.
But the sordid backroom deals and devil's bargains made by early Zionists, and their explicitly racist dream of a Boer state, predate as well as overlapping with the Holocaust. The notion of a racially exclusive Jewish state established by force, and the displacement or conquest of the Palestinians, was already complete in the minds of the Zionist hardliners, being planned and realised, before the Nazi extermination programme began; and some of them were opportunist and cynical (or zealous and fanatical) enough to see that programme as a PR opportunity rather than a desperate emergency.
The Holocaust had a tremendous impact on Israel; but if it had not been for the fanaticism of some influential Zionists, it might have had a lesser impact on European Jewry. Maybe not much could have been achieved by the American "rescue program" impulse -- maybe only a few thousands or tens of thousands could have been rescued. Probably the Nazi party would have stormed to power anyway, even without the (surely minor) support of the ZFG. But the story of Israel and the Holocaust is not as simple as Cause (Holocaust), Effect (Israel), End of Story.
Tom Hayden looks back on his journey from being a reliable supporter of Israel to a critic...
The argument that all nation states were founded in blood and theft, that most of the western powers have a sordid and sadistic colonial episode in their past, etc. -- and therefore no criticism should or can be levelled at Israeli policy in the OT -- are not, imho, valid arguments against intervening in a re-run of the same old movie. If we were to accept this argument we would have to say that there is no point, nor any obligation, to intervene in any crime being committed at any time, because so many successful crimes have been committed in the past. Why should I intervene to help this person being mugged on the street, when so many other muggings have taken place on so many other streets? Answer: because for this one, on this street, I am present as a witness. The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
Who in addition to his ugly domestic polices was a leading supporter of strong international institutions and international law to prevent conflict; a key figure in the movement for a non-punitive peace after WWI and for international understanding. Life isn't always black and white (no pun intended)
(AFAIK Israel still prohibits mixed marriage or 'miscegenation'; the supreme court of the State of California recognised such laws as unconstitutional in 1948, but as late as 1967 there were still US states with antimiscegenation statutes).
There is no civil marriage in Israel, that means no religiously mixed marriages since neither the Jewish nor the Muslim religious authorities will permit them. If you're a mixed couple either one partner has to convert or both have to hop on a plane to get a civil marriage abroad. Foreign civil marriage certificates are is recognized in Israel.
In 1923, well before the Holocaust was more than a nasty, obsessive fantasy in the minds of rightwing euroneandercons of their day
And you think that it just came out of nowhere? I've read mainstream right wing political writing from that period in Germany and Poland. I've read about those views in other European countries. No, they weren't talking about extermination. They were talking about Jews as a grave threat and either a major source of everything that was bad (the moderates) or the major source (the hardliners) and the need to do something about it.
You include a lot of quotes from Jabotinsky, but I wonder how much you've read of his writings. He was strikingly honest for a European of his time about what colonialism meant, and not particularly racist. Instead he felt that the only hope of survival for Jews was a state of their own - for him the Jews were in the same position in Europe as the targets of European colonialism were abroad. He also was contemptuous of liberal democracy and sympathetic to fascism. Not particularly nice.
irc at least one of the German Left parties did something equally foolish, refusing to make common political cause with anti-Hitler liberals -- perhaps hoping that the fascist crackdown would awaken the masses and spur on the Revolution?
Yes, rather poor analysis on the part of the Comintern. Then again the Comintern weren't much better than the fascists - nicer dreams but in practice just as intent on mass murder, which they were carrying out on a grand scale at that moment.
The argument that all nation states were founded in blood and theft, that most of the western powers have a sordid and sadistic colonial episode in their past, etc. -- and therefore no criticism should or can be levelled at Israeli policy in the OT -- are not, imho, valid arguments against intervening in a re-run of the same old movie.
No they're not valid arguments. The problem is that some people seem to think that not only does it not excuse current crimes, but that it somehow puts Israel's right to exist as a state in question. A lot like the American right seems to think about Muslim states, think of it as the left wing mirror image of neo-conservatism. The fact that Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, or the Iranian theocrats are rather unpleasant doesn't mean that the Palestinians, Lebanese, and Iranians have no right to exist in their own state. Same goes in reverse for Israel.
that's the problem I have with Israel - you don't just take land that belongs to someone else and say that it belongs to you. If the Israelis really wanted peace and their own state, they would have built their country elsewhere.
.
...and the people at that elsewhere would object to it violently as well.
What people like Manon don't understand is that "Palestine" is one of the two poles that the Jewish religon revolves around (the other, of course, being God)
The Mishnah, which is the core of both Talmuds, is mostly about how temple practices should go once the "Palestine" has been regained. That was written back in the Second century CE.
Yeah, the Kenya idea was put to a vote, but it failed almost unanimously. So what? The Soviet Union didn't want a Jewish state anywhere in Northern Eurasia. Poland was activly expelling what remained of it's post-holocaust Jewish population [a book on the subject called "fear" just came out, check the NY Times book review from a week ago]
Where would you have had the Jews go? The US had quotas, the Aussies had quotas, The Soviet bloc didn't want them...where?
But Israel was established where it was. We aren't in 1918 or even 1947. At this point your argument is no different from the Israeli hard right one that if the Palestinians want a state they can just leave the West Bank and go establish one elsewhere.
Is anything I said inaccurate? Messy thinks that by yelling "anti-semite" she/he can get you to stop criticizing Israel. I haven't called anyone names or treated them as racists. I just referenced a few current events
...that summer I made the mistake of my political career. The Israel Defense Forces invaded Lebanon, and Benny Navon wanted Jane and me to be supportive. It happened that I had visited the contested border in the past, witnessed the shelling of civilian Israeli homes, and interviewed Israeli and Lebanese zealots--crazies, I thought, who were preaching preventive war. I opposed cross-border rocket attacks and naively favored a demilitarized zone. Ever curious, and aware of my district's politics, I decided we should go to the Middle East--but only as long as the Israeli "incursion," as it was delicately called, was limited to the 10-kilometer space near the Lebanese border, as a cushion against rocket fire. Benny Navon assured me that the "incursion" was limited, and would be followed by negotiations and a solution. I also made clear our opposition to the use of any fragmentation bombs in the area, and my ultimate political identification with what Israeli Peace Now would say. There followed a descent into moral ambiguity and realpolitick that still haunts me today. When we arrived at the Israeli-Lebanon border, the game plan promised by Benny Navon had changed utterly. Instead of a localized border conflict, Israel was invading and occupying all of Lebanon--with us in tow. Its purpose was to destroy militarily the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) haven in Lebanon. This had been Gen. Ariel Sharon's secret plan all along, and I never will know with certainty whether Benny Navon had been deceived along with everyone else. ...One might argue, and many Americans today might agree, that Hezbollah and Hamas started this round of war with their provocative kidnappings of Israeli soldiers. Lost in the headlines, however, is the fact that the Israelis have 9,000 Palestinian prisoners, and have negotiated prisoner swaps before. Others will blame the Islamists for incessant rocket attacks on Israel. But the roots of this virulent spiral of vengeance lie in the permanent occupation of Palestinian territories by the overconfident Israelis. As it did in 1982, Israel now admits that the war is not about prisoner exchanges or cease-fires; it is about eradicating Hezbollah and Hamas altogether, if necessary by an escalation against Syria or even Iran. It should be clear by now that the present Israeli government will never accept an independent Palestinian state, but rather harbors a colonial ambition to decide which Palestinian leaders are acceptable. In 1982, Israel said the same thing about eliminating PLO sanctuaries in Lebanon. It was after that 1982 Israeli invasion that Hezbollah was born. I remember Israeli national security experts even taking credit for fostering Hamas and Islamic fundamentalism as safe, reclusive alternatives to Palestinian secular nationalism. I remember watching Israeli soldiers blow up Palestinian houses and carry out collective punishment because, they told me matter-of-factly, punishment is the only language that Arabs understand. Israelis are inflicting collective punishment on Lebanese civilians for the same reason today.
Ever curious, and aware of my district's politics, I decided we should go to the Middle East--but only as long as the Israeli "incursion," as it was delicately called, was limited to the 10-kilometer space near the Lebanese border, as a cushion against rocket fire. Benny Navon assured me that the "incursion" was limited, and would be followed by negotiations and a solution. I also made clear our opposition to the use of any fragmentation bombs in the area, and my ultimate political identification with what Israeli Peace Now would say.
There followed a descent into moral ambiguity and realpolitick that still haunts me today. When we arrived at the Israeli-Lebanon border, the game plan promised by Benny Navon had changed utterly. Instead of a localized border conflict, Israel was invading and occupying all of Lebanon--with us in tow. Its purpose was to destroy militarily the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) haven in Lebanon. This had been Gen. Ariel Sharon's secret plan all along, and I never will know with certainty whether Benny Navon had been deceived along with everyone else.
...One might argue, and many Americans today might agree, that Hezbollah and Hamas started this round of war with their provocative kidnappings of Israeli soldiers. Lost in the headlines, however, is the fact that the Israelis have 9,000 Palestinian prisoners, and have negotiated prisoner swaps before. Others will blame the Islamists for incessant rocket attacks on Israel. But the roots of this virulent spiral of vengeance lie in the permanent occupation of Palestinian territories by the overconfident Israelis. As it did in 1982, Israel now admits that the war is not about prisoner exchanges or cease-fires; it is about eradicating Hezbollah and Hamas altogether, if necessary by an escalation against Syria or even Iran. It should be clear by now that the present Israeli government will never accept an independent Palestinian state, but rather harbors a colonial ambition to decide which Palestinian leaders are acceptable.
In 1982, Israel said the same thing about eliminating PLO sanctuaries in Lebanon. It was after that 1982 Israeli invasion that Hezbollah was born. I remember Israeli national security experts even taking credit for fostering Hamas and Islamic fundamentalism as safe, reclusive alternatives to Palestinian secular nationalism. I remember watching Israeli soldiers blow up Palestinian houses and carry out collective punishment because, they told me matter-of-factly, punishment is the only language that Arabs understand. Israelis are inflicting collective punishment on Lebanese civilians for the same reason today.
