Be Here Now

30/5/2012

I meant to write something that would make it clear and present how far we are from a two-state solution. I meant to write something that put the spot light on a democratic school in Tel Aviv. I thought about a short story where a superhero rises from the Hatikva neighbourhood to protect refugees from racist attackers. A similar superhero might fight brutal jailing practices and the obvious vileness of the occupation. I meant to write something that would act as a transporter for you to bring you here. I am not sure that’s possible. Maybe you just have to be here.

Maybe, if you have a connection to Israel and if you want to see a just and peaceful state of being here, you need to get over here right now. Not forever if that’s not what you want, but for now. Even the Jewish Agency for Israel is calling for Jews to Mifgash (encounter) Israel as opposed to demanding that they move here. They might be on to something.

Today, as Tel Aviv prepares for a second race riot in a week, an investigative journalist is being indicted for investigating something. Yesterday a member of the so-called centrist Kadima party called for the imprisonment of all human rights workers in Israel! If politician-incited race-based violence and the silencing of the press does not ring your emergency bell I am not sure that anything will. What about the occupation? Remember that?

A friend who works as an educator with children and teachers all over Israel recently explained that in recent months she has noticed that more students than ever talk about the settlements and outposts in the West Bank as part of Israel. An MK recently confirmed for me that under the law settlers are considered to be living in Israel, even if the territory they live on is not.

There is no recognition of the Green Line at the majority of dinner tables across Israel and to them there is no difference between the two sides. There is no democratic or undemocratic Israel for the majority of Israelis. There is only Israel and my educator-friend explained to me that open racism is becoming more common in the public school system and throughout society.

This conception of Israel in the public consciousness is erasing the green line, just as it is erasing civil rights for citizens and human rights for those living under occupation and siege. It is clear that the Israeli leadership (with applause from the organized Jewish community in North America) is all too eager to move in this direction with no regard for justice, which is at the core of Jewish culture, history, tradition, and faith.

Over the past few months it has become ever more apparent that the Netanyahu government is walking toward one state under Israel’s control. Laws and infrastructure are being shifted to make this possible. The two-state solution may be dead or dying. Some call it a myth, while others push for three states. Some are happy about it, including some members of Knesset, and some, like prominent Palestinian philosopher Sari Nusseibeh, are reluctantly embracing this new reality. Other Palestinian leaders, like some Jews/Zionists/Israelis, are noticing that the relationship between Israel and justice is trouble. As the idea that Israel will become an apartheid state at some point in the future is repeated over and over again, one can’t help but wonder when that future might be and if these next few months may be the last few months in which to strike a deal for two states.

Perhaps the date we are waiting for to act is December 21, 2012? The facts on the ground are changing fast, in Jerusalem and all over the West Bank. This is not a static situation and the perspective that the same options that were available in 1992 are still available today is the product of a community not willing to face the truth. A one state reality means that the struggle to end the occupation will eventually turn into a more classic civil rights struggle.

At the end of the day, there are only two ways of achieving equality here: Either give everyone citizenship and let the society sort itself out through democratic processes, or create space for Palestinians to create their own citizenship.

All peoples have the right to self-determination. That’s why I think that two states make sense for Israel and Palestine. These are two peoples who want to create societies that reflect their collective potential. Two states, for me, is a step toward libertarian socialism (a federation of societies, states, or communities). This couldn’t be more different from liberal individualism. This is an inter-communalist ideology that views the creation of a society as a project that individuals and groups can engage in together. All people are equal and should be treated as such. We have to decide which framework for equality fits best for the people here and then fight for it. Equality does not exist here. I repeat: we have to struggle for it.

Despite the desire for self-determination that pretty much all people demand, and while there may be a will for all kinds of solutions, the growing reality of occupation and repression is winning here.

The precarious situation that the country’s refugees and migrant workers find themselves in today is also not static. High level members of the government are inciting violence against these communities, especially in working class neighborhoods where people are hurting. These politicians are demanding they be jailed or thrown out. They are calling refugees a cancer.

When I discuss the situation here too many people say that we need to fortify the fortress of Israel because they hate us. Anti Semitism exists, certainly. To believe that some out there do not hate us is foolish, but to project that fear onto the world at large is even more so. It is short-sighted and leads to constant fear and supremacist attitudes. The movement that I come from has always been vigilant about guarding our well-being in the ghettos and in the Yishuv, and now guarding justice is the way to guard ourselves.

It is time to stand up in Tel Aviv and Eilat and say: No human being is illegal. No, migrants from the Global South are not seeking to rape, murder, and steal from you. No, it is not their fault that global capitalism and war have decimated many of their homelands. No, Eritreans and Sudanese are not here to hurt people; they are here to escape genocide and oppression. No, it is not okay to react with hate speech or violence. No, I would never condemn an entire people for an individual crime. No, it is not okay to rampage a community out of misplaced rage. No, Israel does not have a just policy - and it needs one that protects asylum seekers and inspires confidence in the strength of our nation as a just and positive force in the world. No, it’s not okay for us to stay silent and hope this all blows over.

And then it is time to stand up and say the same thing about the occupation of Palestine. Violence and economic oppression are not okay anytime, anywhere.

Whether the attitude is apathetic or hateful, those attitudes, directed at Palestinians or Sudanese, are racist and destroying this place and the people here. People often say “There is plenty great about Israel, why do you have to focus on the ills?” Israel does make medical and technological breakthroughs, people here have made leaps and bounds in environmental protection and there are incredible examples of communal living and democratic education. I am proud of those facts, but listing the good is no answer for the bad.

Yelling about how good it is for gay people in Tel Aviv doesn’t somehow wash away how terrible it is for Palestinians in Hebron. There is a deep need to wake up, acknowledge the amazing realities, and take responsibility for the appalling realities. The ‘social movement’ for a more fair economy in Israel needs to make the connection between the occupation, the poor economy, and the ease with which violence is incited. The movement here needs to take a holistic picture of what is going on here.

I have seen a former prison near Nablus turned into a community center for Palestinian youth activists. Things can change for the better. I have met settlers who want to live in Palestine after a two state solution is agreed upon. Things can change in all kinds of ways. Time is running out. Making life unbearable for Palestinians and unsafe for Africans seems to be aim of the unjust here in Israel. They want them to leave. The rules are changing here.

Human beings are acting in violent ways that only non-violent direct action can counter. Whether it is a race riot in Tel Aviv, the demolition of a home in the West Bank, or the arrest of a journalist for doing their job; whether you are taking responsibility for the Jewish people, the Palestinian people, Israel or humanity you are needed here and now.

14 Comments

Tristan link

1/6/2012 07:53:49 am

Excellent post Dan, reading it I really get the sense that the fact you are putting your own view forward doesn't get in the way of your judgement or perception of the situation. Which is to say I'm making this recommended reading for my anti-zionist and social-zionist friends.

One question though - the absent figure in your post to me seems to be the Palestinian refugee, in all the forms (internally displaced, internally-externally displaced to West Bank, displaced to Gaza, in enemy countries, in countries with a peace treaty with Israel, . When you say one of the options is "give everyone citizenship" - are they included? When you talk about a two-state solution, by creating "space for Palestinians to create their own citizenship", how much space will they get? Is there room in the West Bank and Gaza for 11 million Palestinians? And what about Palestinian citizens of Israel, how is it possible for them to have equal rights in a Jewish state?

My worry about the two-state solution is that, while it may seem unachievable, even if it is achieved it will show to both communities extremists that they were right all along: the two peoples cannot live together. Isn't it a legitimizing force for racism on both sides? How much easier would it be for Knesset members to oppose rights for Palestinians in Israel, or other minorities in Israel, after "granting Palestinians their own state"?

To me, it is the idea of one state per people which is rotten at the core, a vindication of racism and exclusionary logic.

But I might be wrong - maybe the two state solution if achieved would lead to the reduction of tensions, and the eventual integration of the two communities.

Personally, I think the most likely scenario, however, is that after the PA took full control over the west bank, Fatah would split and there would be the resumption of attacks on Israel, which would lead to the occupation of the "Palestinian state" and the prospects for peace being even worse.

Daniel

2/6/2012 01:12:01 pm

Hey thanks for reading it and liking it!

As far as refugees go, obviously it’s a big issue and I am not writing a final status agreement here, but it is vital to think about. Where did you get the 11 million number? In the end, it’s a huge number of people and a huge tragedy no matter how you cut it, but I am curious because I just glanced at the UNRWA numbers and they seem to count around 5 million.

To some degree I am answering below based on my vision (dream) for this place and not on my analysis (whats going on now) of this place. I have big dreams for this place and a fairly dark analysis.

There are two arenas that are important to think about here: word and deed.
Word is obviously easier: I think that it is important that Israel take much of the responsibility for the Palestinian refugees. This can happen in word and intention no matter what the solution is.

In deed: There are a lot of possible ways to deal with this issue, and like many seemingly untenable situations this will require multiple solutions to achieve justice and peace. For example in a 2 state solution (lets say something similar to the type we have seen proposed – BTW I think that any 2 state solution has to be fair, not creating little walled in demilitarized city states and calling that justice) Palestine can create a Law of Return, Israel can take in a certain number based on what a society of its size and area would take in without creating crazy infrastructural and/or socio-economic issues (there are commonly used guidelines and precedents for these kinds of numbers). This could include all people who are still alive who were actually there for sure, plus many more, I guess. Probably some people would want to go to Israel, many to Palestine, and others to stay where they are… I guess. It is not as simple and as if it is 1 State, where it would be easy to amend the Law of Return to include Palestinians (which they do in the fictional book, World War Z).
I think the approach you detail to the 2 state solution, where it is framed as exclusionary and a vindication of racist attitudes and puts at risk Palestinian citizens of Israel is certainly something that people would/will/could feel/say/do. But I think the downsides to the 2 state idea are just as likely as the down sides to the 1 state idea (that the same situation exists, but it is just 1 state – which I discuss as a distinct possibility in the piece. I think 2 states in the short term is the best route to a federation of autonomous communities in the long term. The potential for racism, violence, etc. is there no matter which route we take, but a route needs to be chosen that affords ‘peoples’ the most possible autonomy, while cultivating the most possible solidarity.

I think that Jewish state can be a wonderful place for Palestinians and others to live and a Palestinian state can be a wonderful place for Jews and others to live. States are meant to be spaces to develop as a people, whether it is the people who happen to be within the boundary or a state with an identity that it is trying to develop. I don’t think states are a very good way to organize humanity in the first place, but since that is what we got going on right now the least we can do is create states for all the people who want ‘em. A state’s character ought to inform the way it does things, not exclude others from living equally powerful and fulfilling lives. Real rotten attitudes often sour this dream of inclusivity, but Jewish or Palestinian character isn’t the problem it’s supremacist attitudes that are the problem. States legalize the use of force for the state, which sucks for anyone excluded from being part of the state. The character/identity/culture/tradition (ie. The collective identity that makes up the society) that informs a state need not dictate who is included (ie. Individual and collective inclusion in the society). It is racism that creates that dynamic, I think.

There is a lot that I don't know, but I really don’t think that solving the Palestinian refugee issue in a just way means ending the Jewish state, giving up on a Palestinian state, or something like that. It is not impossible to move forward on. I think it needs to be addressed. Responsibility needs to be taken. And solutions need to be brought to the table. There is a wonderful line in a movie where a character explains that justice is not about evening the scales or revenge, but rather about creating a framework for people to live in harmony. I agree.

Tristan

3/6/2012 12:25:32 pm

11 million was meant to refer to the total number of Palestinians, not just the refugee population. I got the number from wikipedia. What the refugee population actually is, however, is its own controversy. For example, there are sometimes differences of 100% between the reported population of a refugee camp and its actual population. So some people say 5 million, some say 9 million, I really don't think anyone knows.

For me, I'm skeptical about speaking as if "Jewish" and "Palestinian" as if they are two separate peoples. Colonized peoples develop their nationalism against the colonizer, and because of this their substantive cultural content is incidental and surpassable. That is why quite early in the Palestinian revolution the PLO decided to include Jewish colonists from Europe as "Palestinians" if they would renounce zionism and colonialism. It's perfectly possible for Jews in Palestine to be included in a Palestinian state if the colonization and discrimination stops. However, it's not possible for non-Jewish Palestinians (and there are Jewish Palestinians) to be included in a Zionist state because the centre of its nationalism is the supremacy of one cultural group over others.

You say a Jewish state could be a wonderful place for Palestinians (presumably you mean non-Jewish palestinians), but what would be left of the "Jewish" state if discrimination against non-Jews ceased to exist? What is the "Jewish" state other than the discrimination in state institutions which privileges the Jewish faith and culture over others? What's left of Israel when all the discrimination is removed?

And if you disagree with removing cultural or religious discrimination against non-Jews in Israel, then what forms of racism would be acceptable for a self-determined Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza? Because we know what kind of racist state it will be - PLO delegates have come forward and said it will be a state "free of the Jews". I have a really hard time supporting a solution to the Palestinian problem, which is primarily a refugee problem, which is opposed by the refugees (the plan to get around this is simply that they will never be asked) and which will lead to an explicitly anti-Semitic state.

3/6/2012 12:32:46 pm

"It is racism that creates that dynamic, I think."

I think it's extremely important to make a distinction on the topic of racism - racism can exist both in the sentiments of individuals and communities, and in the instituted practices of governments and other institutions. These two phenomena should not be confused with each other. Racism in the first sense can't easily be eradicated, and we might have to admit that some of it needs to be accepted as a result of extreme situations. But racism in the second sense, as instituted in social formations, is more objective and actively reproduces and vindicates racism in the first sense. So while you may be right that racist sentiment creates the drive for racism to be instituted, its institution should I think be seen as becoming a separate cause for the social sentiment - the process has the sense of an increasing cycle. So while I agree that whatever we do, there will be the problem of racism, I don't agree that supporting any forms of instituted racism are a serious solution, even in the long term, to the presence of racist sentiments.

What I find commendable and admirable in the highest degree is when I meet Palestinians who are absolutely committed against any settlement with the Zionists, but who make a strict distinction between Jew and Zionist. I think this shows that the PLO is right that racism is not at the core of the Palestinian struggle, although it certainly appears and is sometimes even invoked (certainly in the context of the 2nd intifada) as a cheap motivation for struggle.

3/6/2012 02:56:20 pm

Yeah the numbers game is a tough one. As I said, it’s a huge number any way you cut it.

Definitely Jewish and Palestinian identities are not mutually exclusive, that’s true, but it is also true that many people cultivate a primary identity. While there are Jewish Palestinians and Palestinian Jews there are also plenty of Palestinians and Jews who feel that they are just that.

Your assumption that Zionism necessarily places supremacy at its nationalistic core is mistaken. It would be foolhardy to pretend that there aren't racist/supremacist groups and individuals in Zionism or in every other national liberation movement, but Zionism is, at its core, a national liberation movement for the Jewish people in their homeland. Any supremacy, racism, understanding that this land is exclusively a Jewish homeland is added after the initial core aim. The potential that Zionism has to be racist is the same potential that Palestinian liberation ideology has to be racist. Similar spectrums of vision exist in both liberation movements. Pretending that one people's national liberation is somehow more sensible or preferred than another people's is ironic in this conversation, to say the least.

It is a reality that many Israeli institutions are discriminatory, but it is not inherent to Israel or Zionism or liberation. The state has racist institutions (structural racism, which you correctly pointed out) and that is getting worse everyday, but structural or systemic racism should be mistaken with inherent or necessary racism.
There are institutions that aren’t discriminatory in nature in this country (based on Zionism, the fact that this is a capitalist country is a whole other story), and none of them need be if the aim is to create a space for the flourishing of Jewish culture through its expression in a Jewish society rather than a Jewish fortress only for Jews. Nothing need be exlcusive or supremacist about that. There is a difference between a society having a culture or two cultures or three… and discriminating based on that culture. Jewish culture as it should be applied to the state must understand itself as a culture, tradition, history, language, set of norms, etc. if it is to exist as both a distinct society and in solidarity with others within and next to said society...

To be clear, I am not pretending that the dominant voice in Zionism today is not discrimantory, even supremacist (the current democratically elected government speaks for itself). I am, though, explaining that Zionism is simply a national liberation movement based on returning to homeland, which again is a space to be shared since also Palestinians call this homeland. I (and my ilk) see that as inextricable from participatory socialism and solidarity with all other peoples.

As I said, I think 2 states can lead to the creation of flourishing cultures, refugees making a home and finding some justice, and eventually the federation of two peoples who are confident in their ability and will to self-determine in a shared space. Perhaps you are right and that can best be achieved by forgetting the complications and distractions of 2 states and instead struggle for one bi-national state with two distinct and self-determinable peoples (just made that phrase up). All of this may be moot by now though and we may just need to get with the times…

3/6/2012 06:25:37 pm

"none of them need be [discriminatory] if the aim is to create a space for the flourishing of Jewish culture through its expression in a Jewish society rather than a Jewish fortress only for Jews. Nothing need be exlcusive or supremacist about that"

Well, if the "space" is created by the expulsion of indigenous persons, and the space is maintained by the continued exclusion of them on racial grounds, then, I'd say ya, there is something exclusive about that. And if it's justified based on a religious claim, it's hard to see how it could avoid being supremacist.

"There is a difference between a society having a culture or two cultures or three… and discriminating based on that culture."

I don't know of many places that have only one culture, and Israel certainly isn't one of them. Territory controlled by Israel, on both sides of the green line, is home to many different Jewish cultures and many different Christian and Muslim cultures as well. And it's hard to see how Zionism can be separated from the privileging of some of those cultures (in practice this includes the historic privileging of Ashkenazi culture over Sphardic and MIzrahi culture). It's fine to say that you are critical of the current state practices - but what would be left of the Zionist project if such discrimination were to entirely end, if Muslims and Christians were granted equal cultural rights in Israel - including presumably the same right to live with their spouses. Isn't the right-wing correct that liberal policies would lead to the "demographic problem"?

Historically the PLO has opposed the idea of a bi-national state, and their one-state proposal advocates non-sectarianism. They are so caught up in the current peace process that they rarely talk about it nowadays, but it did come up, with the traditional non-sectarian language, in the 2009 Fatah conference as an alternative if the peace negotiations become completely unfeasible. Personally I think the idea of bi-nationalism between a colonized and colonizing people is unrealistic. Palestinians' ability to distinguish between Jews and Zionists depends on Jews not making claims to national-self-determination. It's not difficult for Palestinians to recognize the rights of Jews to remain in Palestine if they remain as individuals, but if they remain as a national group then it looks a lot like the national group which has been oppressing them for 64 years. And how can you ask the a colonized people to accept the force of their oppression's right to exist as a national force? This can only be asked of a defeated people - and it has certainly been Israeli policy for 64 years to try to turn the Palestinians into that.

4/6/2012 02:10:55 am

You wrote: "Well, if the "space" is created by the expulsion of indigenous persons, and the space is maintained by the continued exclusion of them on racial grounds, then, I'd say ya, there is something exclusive about that. And if it's justified based on a religious claim, it's hard to see how it could avoid being supremacist."

No one in this conversation is claiming anything based on religious claims. Nor is the classical Zionist movement. The advent of religious Zionism as a major force is relatively recent. As well, no one is is advocating racial or any other type of exclusion. You are saying that is what exists and to some degree has existed in this state since the beginning. Yup. Is that what ought to maintain the state? Nope. Is it a good thing or even a necessary thing, nope. (btw the state was not created by the expulsion of another people, an enormous number of people were expelled -and some ran away from war- during the war that this state was created in/just before). You already know what I think of that. I've already described in general terms how it "could avoid being supremacist" in above comments and various pieces of writing.

… And then you ask again what would make up the culture(s) of the state if not discrimination and such. I don't advocate for liberalism. Liberalism does demand individuals be the core of the society I advocate for inter-communalism as I wrote above. Inter-communalism demands that communities take on equal recognition as individuals in societies (ie. individual rights still exist, but in conjunction with communal rights and recognition). I think that there is plenty in Jewish law, calendar, philosophy, history, fiction, architecture??, tradition that could make for a wonderful culture of a state. Part of the problem is that you are viewing Jews as a religious group and so imagining that a Jewish state needs to be exclusive, theocratic, and supremacist toward anyone not in "the tribe". That can't/shouldn't be a Jewish state. All the cultural elements that I listed above could inform most of or part of a society's culture. That's all. That's all it takes.
I, unlike the PLO, advocate for binationalism because I am an intercommunalist-socialist. If I were a liberal I would advocate for one state as an awesome end goal. If I were a right winger I would advocate for a really scary kind of one state.

Unfortunately, all of this conversation is for nothing if you don't recognize the Jewish people as a people and/or a nation with the right to self determine as all other nations have. It is also for nothing if you do recognize the Jewish people to be a people and/or nation with that right, but think that the actions of this country disqualify the Jewish people from the collective right to self-determination. This is probably why you don't see how Zionism could be anything but a system of privilege, oppression, and violence. I grant you that the forces that are in control here and now (and generally in much of the states history and conduct) certainly would lead one to make that assumption when looking at what’s going on here, but if you don't think that the Jewish people are a people with the right to determine our own collective future, and if you don't see how your understanding of Jewish peoplehood is truly and deeply flawed, then there is nothing for us to discuss. It is one thing to struggle against oppression, violence, and injustice, but ill-informed denials of Jewish peoplehood merely make me sad.

4/6/2012 06:21:48 am

I'm not sure it's correct to say that the advent religious Zionism as a major force is relatively recent. Didn't Begin win the election in the 70s? And wasn't Christian Zionism significantly more powerful than Jewish zionism before the creation of the state? I think that there was a period when non-religious Zionism was dominant, probably between the 30s and 70s, but I think religious zionism has had its share of importance both historically and again since the '67 war.

I'm not accusing you of advocating supremacy. I know that you have great motivations, and if what you propose I thought was possible, then I'd probably support it too. We don't disagree on values, I think, we disagree on facts, interpretations, and on what is possible. Which is why I think this conversation is interesting.

So, when you say "no one is is advocating racial or any other type of exclusion", I presume you mean yourself. Because the Israeli minister of the interior, Eli Yishai, said on Sunday that "this country belongs to us, to the white man". (Incidentally, there is no way he himself would pass as white in North America, although he probably could pass for Arab anywhere.) So while you aren't advocating "white" supremacy, it kind of looks like a minister of the Israeli government (weirdly in this case a non-white minister) is. But when you stand for Jewish self-determination, or any self-determination for that matter, aren't you bound to stand for whatever the content of that self-determination happens to be? I mean, I can't say I'm for women's right to chose, and then oppose the choice they make. Being for self-determination means being for the right of someone to make a choice you don't agree with.

So it's hard for me to understand how you can separate from the actualities of racism any form of national-self determination when its concrete manifestation is exactly that. Whether you want to say the exclusion is racial, or ethnic, or national, it remains the case that the refugees and their children are excluded from houses to which they still have keys, and from properties to which they still have deeds. And it remains the case that if those people were of Jewish ancestry, that they wouldn't be excluded.

On the idea of the Jewish people as a people with inherent right to self determination on a land, no, I don't think the Jewish people are a nation with that right. I think that right is the exception rather than the rule when it comes to cultural nations. I'm inclined to say that I don't think any cultural nations have the right to take land belonging to others to enact a territorial form of self-determination. I think sometimes a cultural nation might have the right to self-determination on land it already occupies, but I don't think it has the right to exercise that by discriminating against or by use of force expelling any other indigenous people on that territory. And I think that, probably, no, cultural nation has the right to territorial self determination if that is impossible without discrimination or use of force against inhabitants on that territory, if it is the case that those inhabitants are merely protecting the land that they already possess (i.e. rather than protecting a privilege they have over an underclass). But seriously, any talk of right to national-self determination on a territory needs to be done carefully, taking into account the particularities of the situation, not with slogans like "all nations have the right to a territory". Do the Druze have a right to self-determination on a territory? Do the Kurds? Do the tamil tigers? Does the FLQ? Do the Unionists in Ulster? There are ten thousand groups vying for national self-determination, and I just think the issue is complex and can't be solved with an axiom.

4/6/2012 09:26:03 am

So first of all your history of the Zionist movement is mistaken. Just a couple of small pieces because I really don’t want to write out the entire history of Jewish identity and Zionism: I am not sure that one can classify Christian Zionists as so central to the Zionist movement in the last century or so. Begin was not a religious Zionist (Right-wing and religious are not the same thing). And pretty much from the late 19th century Zionism was predominately secular. After 1967 religious Zionism began to grow for a number of different reasons. To me that is recently.

I am not some guy on a university campus somewhere writing about what I think ought to be. I am a part of a movement (a 100 year old Socialist-Zionist movement to be exact) with a vision for how Jewish self-determination ought to look and we are working toward it. I am working toward it actively. Eli Yishai doesn't represent me, my movement, or in my opinion the cause of Jewish self-determination. The guy is a racist. It doesn’t work to say that you don’t think something is possible and therefore it is fundamentally flawed. I am working toward it right now. All positive change comes from envisioning something better and strategizing and working toward that vision.

You don’t get to define who my people are. If you don’t get Jews, okay. We are a nation which was born in this place and who call it our homeland along with others. Taking land from others is certainly not a necessary part of liberation and not the whole story here either. I do think that the peoples you listed (perhaps organizations fall into another category?) have a right to self-determine as do my people (btw, I don’t think that states are the only means of self-determination, but they seems to be the dominant form these days, we can think of a different way of organizing the world). If you think that it is too complicated or complex, I suppose I can’t do anything about that except try to clarify what it might look like, which I have in a number of previous pieces of writing (some even on this blog). I can only conclude that if you don’t think that cultural groups/peoples, etc. ought to have control over their collective futures then that is a fundamental difference in the way you and I see the world. I do think there need to be ways humans conduct ourselves as a species. Even in a world of self-determined peoples, hate and supremacism ought not exist. Exclusion and racism are not a by-product of a culture having liberated space in which to grow.

If you continue to view the Liberal Democratic state as the only viable solution, well that’s up to you. I disagree and I will continue to work toward a libertarian-socialist, inter-communalist vision. I am working toward that for real, not studying it, not simply writing about it. Its no axiom, it is my life and my work and has been for the last 20 years.

4/6/2012 12:12:40 pm

Fair enough on me confusing right-wing with religious zionism. But if you want to call Herut/Likud secular, you have to also acknowledge that their claim to the whole of British Mandate Palestine and Jordan depends on an interpretation of the Balfour declaration - a Christian Zionist document if there ever was one. I think it's fair to say Christian zionism played an essential role in the realpolitik of Israel's creation, and is also a big player in support for the American Likud lobby - Aipac. Zionism is basically in agreement with traditional European anti-semitism, which is heavily indebted to Christianity, on the idea of there being a "jewish problem" and a "solution" to it involving European Jews substantially leaving Europe. The modern phenomenon of the far European right, formerly expressly anti-semitic, now manifestly pro-Israel, is another demonstration of this logic playing out. And from reading Israeli papers I get the sense that even right wing Israelis are getting more and more uncomfortable about the extreme support they get from Christian nations. Isn't this especially important for you? It seems natural to me that anyone on the Zionist left would be coming out against the impact that the European and American Christian right is having on domestic Israeli politics? But maybe as a foreigner I exaggerate the importance of foreign influence, I don't actually know anything about the way politics is funded in Israel - maybe there are strict laws that prevent Likud from benefiting from Christian zionist donations. But somehow I doubt that all the Christian "pro-Israel" money pouring in could avoid having an effect on domestic politics there.

Do you think it's fair to call '67 recent? More time has passed since that war than between 48-67. To me, the period 67-82 seems like ancient history, and modern Israeli history starts with the 88-92 period. That impression comes from discussions with Israelis and Palestinians, and it comes from when I bring up historical events if they respond "ya, but that was a long time ago" and start talking about something more recent, I figure it's ancient history. Of course, that is a completely unacademic method, but after a while I learn to stop bringing up the war of the camps or Sadat's pre-73 peace offer or the PLO in Lebanon, because these things are maybe only of interest to academics today.

I sense some hostility on this issue of self-determination. I don't think I "defined" your people. I made a general statement that just because a group understands itself as a cultural nation, doesn't mean it has right to territorial self determination. I think that statement applies to all "nations". And you seem to agree - because you say that the national self-determination which is the inherent right of all peoples doesn't have to be territorial. So, unless you believe that only members of a cultural nation have the right to decide whether their self-determination should be manifested territorially or not, we're completely in agreement. Of course I support the right of every cultural nation to have institutions which can govern that groups self-determination, and I oppose every state that denies that right to any nation. That's pretty much a trivial right to acknowledge, because it's not the kind of right that impinges on anyone (you could imagine the right being extended to any group not just nations, for instance the right to self-determination for all cyclists - they can form (and do in fact form) a cyclist union and vote on things and decide to have common projects and do things together). But there is a pretty big difference between saying a group has a right to an extra-territorial congress, and saying a group has a right to claim land by armed force and exclude people from it. I think there are situations where such actions and institutions can be justified, but I'm just saying that it's complicated and the Kantian idea of a perceptual peace consisting of one country for every nation seems to be more of a source of conflict than peace in the world today. I think it's completely fair to say that extending a right to claim territorial sovereignty to a cultural nation is "complex", because such a right by its nature impinges on the rights of any other group which has a claim on the territory.

I think it's certainly not up to me to say who is Jewish, or what being Jewish means, but when we are talking about rights that infringe on others, like rights to territory, then everyone is allowed to contest those rights whatever group asserts them - not just members of the group in question. National self determination on a territory means among other things to support a nation's right to include and exclude who they want from that territory - that's pretty much what being a sovereign nation consists of. And if you ask most Palestinians, Israel exists because the refugees have not returned yet. So I don't understand how you can separate the question of territorial exclu

4/6/2012 04:56:54 pm

Yes, it is fair to call 1967 recent. In the context of today and thinking about all the things that have happened between then and now 1967 was a very long time ago. In the context of Zionist (and Jewish) history it is yesterday. I tend to think in those terms about all of this.
It’s true that Christian Zionism has had some impact on the place, the people, the politics, and the money. The assertion that Christian Zionism is somehow the central or major factor in Zionist thought assumes a lot. Socialist-Zionism is founded on the idea that we, Jews, ought to engage in the building of culture, language, ceremony, etc., not the building of a fortress. The return to Zion has, since exile, been fundamental to Jewish culture. Also, yes Anti-Semitism is real and yes territory can physically protect a people. That should be acknowledged. We didn’t borrow the idea from anti-Semites, we aimed to build a solution to a problem that is real.
I think you do overstate the influence of Christian Zionism while understating the influence of Jewish thought, geopolitics, Palestinian thought, and events such as the Shoah, but mostly Jewish thought. And again, I oppose Rightist Zionism and we do speak out against Rightist, Racist, Theocratic, and Capitalist interests… I’m not sure what makes you say the Balfour declaration is anymore Christian than it is imperialist in nature.
As well, I am not sure what led you to believe that we agree. I suppose we agree that democracy is a good way to go. Yes, self-determination can look different for different groups, but ours (and so many others’) is based in part on having a space in which to build institutions. Sovereign institutions are what a sovereign nation consists of first and foremost. I did state in a previous comment that you are very much entitled to view liberalism as the only fair basis for nation-states to exist, but I also made it clear I disagree in spite of how complicated and tough it may be for bicyclists in an extra-territorial congress or Jews in a space. I’ve never heard of a state devoid of a hegemonic culture and therefore dealing with issues of exclusivity and inclusivity. Perhaps we can agree that nation-states aren’t a particularly good model for human civilization to get along, and if that’s the case another conversation, one day, can focus on better models for self-determination, in the physical realm.

I work to ensure that all the peoples who call this home can have space to build here. I couldn’t agree more that it is complicated, and I couldn’t agree less that complexity is any reason not to assert a positive right to self-govern, which you call trivial and I call essential.

I’m glad that my article elicited so much discussion and thought. Thanks.

4/6/2012 08:04:00 pm

"and I couldn’t agree less that complexity is any reason not to assert a positive right to self-govern, which you call trivial and I call essential. "

I really don't think that is a fair representation to what I said above. I said that the right to self-determination, if it doesn't impede on the rights of anyone else, is trivial to affirm. That doesn't mean it's unimportant, that means that it isn't controversial, that there is no cast to affirming it, because you are talking about a right that doesn't infringe on any other rights. Self-determination on a national territory, on the other hand, very might infringe on the rights of other stakeholders, and therefore cannot be trivially affirmed, cannot be affirmed a priori in every case, but must be carefully weighed against other relevant rights.

Anyway, can you recommend some reading about Hashomer Hatzair? I'd like to read more about the idea of Jewish national self-determination in Palestine, to try to better understand how it is different from colonization.

5/6/2012 05:56:22 am

Definitely it must be weighed against all the other factors, realities, and relevant rights. This is one place where there is much to weigh. The cost associated with affirming self-determination is often not found in the controversy, but in the immense work of society building...

... Anyhow, it is a very important area to look up!
Try: First, most things by Martin Buber - and one specific piece, if you can find "The Bi-National approach to Zionism". Nachman Syrkin, the first to throw the Socialism, as Marxism, and Zionism in together around the turn of the 20th. A.D. Gordon has interesting stuff (nature, spiritualism, connection to land, etc.) Judah Magnes has some stuff such as "Towards Union in Palestine".
A good survey of Anarchist thought in the movement is "A Living Revolution" by James Horrox (from 2009 or so). You can also check out some more recent stuff from the North American movement: http://www.hhnabogrim.com/what-we-believe.html

5/6/2012 05:57:00 am

Also, I wrote this two or so years ago: http://www.allthesedays.org/1/post/2012/04/socialist-zionism-june-2010.html

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Be Here Now

Leave a Reply.

Archives