It's time to rethink Zionism

[ProgressiveMuslim]

The desire for ethnic purity that drove out Palestinians and bars the way to democracy in Israel is the rotten fruit of an old debate



Daphna Baram
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 17 February 2009 10.00 GMT

The results of last week's parliamentary elections in Israel brought to the surface some of the most rotten fruits of a debate that has been going on throughout the state's existence: the idea that a mono-ethnic Jewish state is feasible, legitimate and desirable. In other words, it enhanced the predicament of the moral and practical consequences of the Zionist state ideology.

In 1948, during its war of coming-to-be, Israel had driven out of its territory 750,000 Palestinians; another 250,000 were pushed out during the 1967 war. Ever since then, the Israeli left-right division has been marked by the desire for territorial expansion, promoted by the right, and the aspiration for ethnic purity, propagated, curiously, by the Zionist "left". It has always been the "left" that pushed for "division" of the land and "separation" between Jews and Arabs in order to secure a big Jewish majority inside Israel. The right, historically, seemed unconcerned by and large with the consequences of having a large number of Palestinians living under Israel's occupation, as long as they do not get to enjoy citizens' (or other, civil) rights. The Labour party always had a leg in both camps. It had agreed to partition in 1947, seeing it as a chance to get as much Arab-free land as possible, and recognising the opportunity to ethnically clear it off most remaining Arabs during the following war. It was the same Labour party, however, that was responsible for Israel's great victory in the 1967 war, which led to vast territorial expansion and at the same time to the inclusion of millions of Palestinians in the territories under Israel's rule.

An annexation of these territories, known as Gaza Strip and the West Bank, has always been unthinkable for the Labour party and its satellites on the left, as it would involve granting citizenship to the Palestinians who live in them, hence compromising the majority of Jewish citizens in Israel. The right had toyed with the idea of annexation, but was deterred by the same dilemma. The temporary solution had been to keep building settlements in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, while hoping that somehow, miraculously, the Palestinians would disappear, or that a huge influx of Jewish citizens would somehow flood the country and tip the balance in a conclusive way.

In the fringes of the left there were always voices calling for either a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel. To its left, there was an even smaller group calling for what nowadays can be described as the South African solution: one state, with equal rights to both Jews and Palestinians living in it.


read on...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/16/israelandthepalestinians-israeli-elections-2009

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. With the shift to the right in the last elections,

do you predict there will be more of a chance of expansion of Israeli settlements into the West Bank and Gaza? Or will Israel try to annex more land from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt? Or will there be an attempt at stripping Israeli Arabs of their civil rights? Or will there be some form of "ethnic cleansing" in the occupied territories?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. E) All of the above.

Although C and D have already happened.

[azurnoir]

4. Expansion of settlements in the West Bank

is going on right now, in fact new construction was approved last week I believe. The Israelis removed settlements in Gaza some of them went to the the West Bank. Annexing land from other countries not additional land but holding on to what has already been annexed yes. As far as Israeli Arabs go that depends on how much power Avigdor Liebermans party gets

[sabbat hunter]

14. What land has

Israel annexed from Lebanon, Jordan or Egypt?

[Vegasaurus]

3. What a crock of revisionist history !nt

[iconicgnom]

5. Another well reasoned argument.

It's so good to see the open minds of people concerned about achieving peace and opposed to continuous war.

[aranthus]

6. Yes it was.

Short, to the point, and accurate. The problem is that there are so many lies and ridiculous leaps of logic in the original article that it isn't worth the time that would be consumed to refute it point by point. People who would swallow that Kool-Aid aren't going to be moved by a lengthy refutation in any case. Articles like this (and Vegasaurus' response) indicate why there isn't much actual debate going on about the Arab Israeli dispute. The pro-Arab side really wants to talk about why Israel has no right to exist (why Zionism is racist or needs to be re-thought), and pro-Israelis don't believe that's even a legitimate subject of discussion (sort of like my asking if you wanted to debate whether you had a right to live).

People like the author of this article don't want to make peace with Israel, since under their preferred peace plan, there wouldn't be an Israel. Tough. They're the ones who aren't interested in achieving peace, and are instead demanding a war to the death.

[Vegasaurus]

8. And those that don't want to make peace

(including most of the "pro-Palestinian" posters here, should not really be surprised that the people they claim to support are going to continue living in abject misery.

The Israelis have the upper hand, and can continue in the status quo.

The Palestninans really can't.

Which begs the question:

Isn't it time for the Palestinians to try a new tactic?

Terrorism, violent resistance, armed resistance, trying to "liberate all of greater Palestine", trying to annihilate the "Zionist entity", or to push Jews into the sea.

None of it has worked, and the end result?

Much more misery in the cesspool that is Gaza.

Some people refuse to face the truth.

[iconicgnom]

10. "The Israelis have the upper hand, and can continue in the status quo."

says it all

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. The Palestinians tried peaceful negotiations, and that didn't get them anywhere either.

Arafat tried to negotiate with Barak, but Barak refused to make any offer that would have enabled a viable Palestinian state, and contrived to have most of the blame placed on Arafat, getting Israel international support for continued expansion and occupation.

I agree with you that the Palestinians don't have anything to gain through continued violence. But it's disingenuous to claim that they have much to gain through peace, either - Israel will continue to make their lives intolerable and to steal ever-increasing amounts of their land, either way.

[iconicgnom]

13. yup, that's the cold truth.

[Vegasaurus]

16. Do you think that had they tried to actually use the greenhouses

left in Gaza, instead of destroying them,

or not shot rockets nonstop from the first day of the disengagement,

that there would have been an improvement in the situation?

Do you think that the Gazans had a real shot at governing themselves, which they basically threw away?

Just look at that part of the situation first.

[iconicgnom]

9. False.

[Chulanowa]

7. Well, you'd be the expert on that. n/t

[Shaktimaan]

11. So it was a desire for ethnic purity that drove out the Palestinians, huh?

That's interesting... I wonder where the author heard that from.

See, the historical record shows that it was the WAR that drove out the 750,000 Palestinians, (aside from around 75-100,000 who were actually forced out by Jewish forces.) Perhaps he means that a desire for ethnic purity prevented the Palestinians from returning? Of course, that would not be any more accurate, but at least it could be sold as a potential possibility assuming that the audience was unaware of any of the actual motivations behind preventing the Palestinian Arabs' return.

It is kind of funny to discuss the history within this kind of framework at all though, considering that Israel is the only state in the area that actually retained a minority population of the losing ethnicity following the I/P civil war. Notice that there are not any Jews in the surrounding states at all... these states are the actual players in the region who are interested in preserving an ethnic totality while Israel is the sole state that has not pursued that option. (Though it was certainly an achievable goal for them.)

[IndianaGreen]

15. There is the Zionism of my youth, and my parents and their parents.

but that Zionism bears little if any resemblance for what passes as Zionism today.