There is most certainly a difference, and it has all the significance in the world. The point of Han colonization of Tibet, or French colonization of Algeria, is to make those countries into provinces of the home country. That’s a quite different process.
Moreover, your characterization of Jewish immigration into what became Israel as having the “blessing of the UK” and as equivalent to the backing up of French or Chinese immigrants with French or Chinese bayonets is quite innaccurate. Relations between the Zionists and Brits were not, to say the least, always so chummy!
Reference: the “White Paper”, Arab immigration riots of the '30s, British immigration restrictions, British blockade, the “Exodus” incident, Jewish anti-British terrorism, etc. etc.
Not sure what you are attempting to say here, but in my post I’m clearly refering to “the area” as the Ottoman Empire as a whole, in examining where the (present) population of Israel came from.
This is the exact fault I have discussed in previous posts - the ex ante division of the ME into its component parts, and examining 'em in total isolation from each other (namely, examining Palestine without regard for the history of the rest of the ME).
As for me claiming there was no Zionist movement - that’s an odd invention on your part. Obviously, Zionism was that stirring of Jewish ethno-nationalism that occurred at roughly the same time as the stirring of Arab ethno-nationalism.
These things tend to have a domino effect. I’m not clear on how much Zionist ethno-nationalism spurred the Arab variety, but I’m pretty certain it had some effect; which in turn lead, eventually, to reprisals against local ME Jews - making them committed Zionists whether they wanted to or not.
The first domino wasn’t Zionism, however, but pre-existing European ethno-nationalism - one effect of which was to create a heightened European anti-semitism, spurring Zionism as a reaction. And so it goes.
The issue is the “legitimacy” of Israel currently, surely. The OP asked as follows:
[Emphasis mine]
If the argument is made (basically) that Israel is illigitimate because the majority population are all descendents of a bunch of European interlopers (my paraphrase), is it not relevant to point out that more than half the population (Shephardim & Arab) are in fact not “interlopers” at all, but are just as “middle eastern” as any Palestinian?
Which events? What slice of time would you wish to discuss?
You know, I’ve been on this board for over 8 years, I read American news media, both print and internet, I watch CNN… and I’ve see plenty of criticism of Israel. Tons of it. Sure (and I know you’re about to bring up Fox News), Americans tend to support Israel, but it’s certainly not a 100% thing. More to the point, I’ve seen far more criticism of Israel coming from Americans than support of Israel coming from non-Americans.
I understand the temptation to see speaking a relatively unpopular opinion - albeit one that is still fairly common - as a “voice crying out in the wilderness”, but I don’t really think that’s really the case. It’s certainly not a zero sum game.
We’ve also applied pressure to Israel in the past to get them to change their policies…sometimes in ways that aren’t in their best interest but are in our own. Think about the first Iraq war for example, though there are a LOT of examples of this. People seem to forget this though and think that somehow Israel does whatever it wants, when it wants and how it wants, and that the US just goes along.
Except that it’s not an unpopular opinion. As pointed out by Glenn Greenwald, 71% of Americans prefer that we not take sides in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. And yet our politicians seem to march in lockstep with Israel. From Greenwald’s blog:
As I said I was discussing the legitimacy of the creation of Israel. I argue that it was essentially a colonial enterprise, thought of and organized mainly by Europeans and enabled by colonial powers, against the wishes of the existing population, and that neither a massive Jewish immigration in Palestine nor (and even more so) the creation of Israel should have happened.
I’m not arguing against the legitimacy of Israel nowadays, even though I’ve a major issue with the continual arrival of new immigrants (especially when they settle shop in the occupied territories) when the fate of the original Palestinian population (including those who fled Israel proper in 1948 and their descendants) hasn’t been settled. I cringe to see that a random, say, American citizen, is going to be welcomed with open arms while the grandchildren of the people who used to live in the plot of land he’s now installed on are still rotting in a refugee camp.
For Israel to be a “colonial enterprise”, there has to be some some European nation which benefited from said “enterprise”. Which nation sought to benefit, and how?
As I’ve said repeatedly, the creation of every single nation in the ME is the result of European interference, enabled by the colonial powers; the wishes of the locals were often not consulted. Yet no-one argues that (say) Jordan should not have been created, even though it is a friggin foreign monarchy who expelled their Palestinan population at gunpoint.
One might well ask why the ME Jews, equally refugees in about equal numbers at around the same time as the Palestinians, are not “rotting in refugee camps” in Israel. Or why no-one “cringes” that foreign workers are accepted with open arms in Arab countries while Sharfardi Jews remain uncompensated for having lost their ancestral lands.
The answer of course is that, while Israel accepted refugees from the Arab world and made them citizens, the Arab world did nothing of the sort for the Palestinians. Yet it is the legitimacy of Israel that gets “questioned”.
During the last election cycle, I asked on these boards if the US is the only country that asks candidates their view on Israel. The consensus was yes. From what I’ve seen, speaking against our official policy on Israel is political suicide. One that does so is not around long, because money/influence is being pumped into an election campaign from AIPAC and other Jewish/Israeli interests. It’s very hard to get elected without the proper funds, you know.
That happens to be our system. I don’t like it, but money buys influence and power, whether it’s the cause of Israel, pharmaceuticals, alcohol, or a thousand other special interests.
One thing that has been accomplished in this country (the US, I can’t speak of others) is the automatic and knee-jerk response that anyone that asks any type of question at all about Israel has anti-semetic motives. That’s just bullshit. It’s handy to paint with that broad brush, and it automatically changes the debate (the person painted spends an inordinate amount of time backtracking and/or explaining that he/she is NOT anti-semetic, which is impossible to prove one way or the other on a message board) and the point gets lost. This thread is no different. Many folks post with a disclaimer stating the reasons they aren’t anti-semetic. That just wastes time. Let’s focus on the question, not the motives. There are many people out here that don’t have any bias, but are legitimately interested in what’s going on in the ME. I thought the OP was asking one question (why should I support Israel?) and then touches on another topic (the legitimacy of Israel) that has derailed the thread a bit.
From my own perspective, I think that to throw out the “they are just like us” reason is crap. Who cares if they are a democracy? I don’t. Nobody else does either. Let’s face it, if there wasn’t any oil in that region, the US wouldn’t care if camels roamed free there. Our interests in the middle east are economical. As 9/11 showed us, having an ally in Israel doesn’t stop terrorism from coming to our shores. In fact, one could argue that 9/11 happened as a direct result from our relationship to Israel. For someone to wonder why exactly they should support Israel is a legitimate question, IMO.
I don’t see much value in arguing the legitimacy of Israel. It’s here. But I for one don’t like my tax dollars going to prop it up in any way (except for aid to help with something like a natural disaster). I don’t have any guilt about the holocaust, and I personally don’t care one way or another if there is a jewish state. That doesn’t make me an anti-semite. I simply don’t care. It’s here. OK. So is Cuba. Whoopee.
What bothers me as an American taxpayer is that there seems to be a requirement to run for office at the national level to be pro-Israel. That certainly works for Israel, but it’s not necessarily in the US’ best interest. But heaven forbid an elected official votes against anything that in any way can be construed as an affront to Israel/Jewish interests. Good luck to that official in the next election!
From a strategic perspective, I also don’t see the real value. We (the US) cannot launch attacks from Israeli soil on a Middle Eastern neighbor… I guess we could, but there would be hell to pay. From a launching point, it’s useless. And as long as we have bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq (and you are foolish to think permanent bases will not exist), Israel’s importance as military asset is minor at best.
It seems to me that Israel came into existance because the world population as a whole (and europe in particular) didn’t want the Jews before or after WWII, and this homeland-in-the-desert gave them a place to live (and as a bonus, had historical and religious significance to boot). Hitler wasn’t the only one unfriendly to the Jews (Stalin killed his share too, but I’ve never heard a number), and anti-semitism was could be found throughout pre-war Europe. The US permitted the immigration of countless Jews, but I’m not sure many other countries were very welcoming, even after the enormity of the holocaust came to light.
I’ve always wondered something… if it was discovered (before it was created) that the patch of desert that is now Israel had 90% of the world’s natural gas and oil reserves, would it still occupy the same land on the map? My cynical guess is “no”.
No time to answer all of your post. But quickly regarding this particular point :
Why should they? Why should an Arab nation hold responsibility for the fate of the Palestinians just because they’re Arabs too? More importantly, doing so would be accepting as a “fait accompli” the current situation of the Palestinians, and this would run totally contrary to their stance on the issue.
A more interesting question would be why western countries that both extend some degree of support to Israel’s position and officially deplore the current situation of the Palestinians aren’t letting them in. I’m sure volunteers for immigration wouldn’t be lacking. Yet, I don’t see large numbers of visas being issued to the Palestinians in the USA and in western European countries (and being wealthy, populated, and rather stable, they’d have much less trouble accommodating them than say, Lebanon, who is somehow expected to do so despite lacking all of these characteristics).
Washington likely had France and England in mind as potential objects of affection (or animosity), but his logic remains compelling in today’s circumstances.
That sounds good, except that as you can see from the above polling data, lobbying is trumping public opinion on this issue.
Why? Because politicians know that most Americans don’t base their vote on Israel policy alone. Most voters are more concerned with economic issues or broader foreign policy considerations. So politicians can safely pander to those voters (and contributors) for whom a pro-Israel position is the single most important determining factor, knowing that for other voters the politician’s position on Israel is likely to go under the radar.
A tu quoque argument, a couple hundred years too late, and irrelevant to the question of whether we should support a nation still displacing locals now, in the present day.
Arab countries bear exactly the same responsibility for the populations of Jews displaced by their expulsion as Israel bears for the displacement of Palestinians. Ideally, each side would compensate the refugees caused by them, but as we all know, there is zero political motivation for the Arab nations to compensate the Jews they have turfed out - so why not have them provide that compensation to the Palestinians instead? That would solve the whole mess in short order.
Except of course that there are many powerful interests that do not wish to see the mess solved.
Arab nations & populations claim to give a shit about the fate of the Palestinians. However, keeping 'em living in abject misery while enjoying the fruits of their ill-gotten gains from expelling their Jewish population is hardly evidence of such care.
I believe Canada suggested something of the sort some years ago, and it was not well received - again, there is little interest in actually solving these problems in the Arab world - the notion is to perpetuate the problems indefinitely, which is why, unlike in any other case, these camps have existed for so many years.
You don’t see Greeks and Turks camped out, waiting for Greece or Turkey to disaapear; you don’t see Indians and Pakistanis camped out, waiting for those countries to collapse.
You know what? : call it what you want. By arguing about names, you’re only avoiding to discuss the main issue pointed at by me and other posters : Israel has been settled and created by outsiders, this has been enabled by the European colonial power who was in charge of the area, against the wishes of the local population. This is the issue. Whether or not the UK benefited, or thought it would benefit, from it (and discussing this would be the topic for another thread), is irrelevant to the question of the legitimacy of the Jewish immigration in Palestine.
So? This has been over the last decades the source of unending conflicts not yet resolved, like, say, between Iraq and Kuwait or Syria and Lebanon (another state carved out so as to please a segment of the population). Stating “it wasn’t done better elsewhere” doesn’t give more legitimacy to Israel and more importantly is, again, avoiding to discuss the obvious difference, the main issue, the elephant in the room, that is the Jewish immigration.
I don’t know if creating Jordan was a good or a bad thing. I’ve no clue about this.
As for Jordan’s policy re. the Palestinians, I was the first poster, IIRC, to mention it in this thread. The fact that Israel gets much more attention than many other countries has already been mentioned.
This thread is about Israel, not Jordan or the Western Samoas. Pointing at another place and saying “Look! it’s worst over there” is again distraction from the question : “was the creation of Israel legitimate?” to which I answered no, an opinion you seem to disagree with but without really addressing it.
Yes, indeed, why? If it’s good enough for the Arabs, why not for the Jews?
You seem to be arguing that Israel took care of his own, and that the Arab countries should do the same, and all would be well. Except that first, there’s no Arab country, to my knowledge, that states that it is home for all the Arabs (and why should they?) and conversely, though Jewish migrants might have thought that Israel was “home”, the Palestinians, on the other hand, seem to think that “home” isn’t in, say, Saudi Arabia.
Again, welcoming Jews is consistent with Israel’s policy and even Israel’s “raison d’etre”. Welcoming Palestinians isn’t consistent with the Arab states stance, and actually would run totally contrary to it, as it would validate their situation as a “fait accompli”.
Anyway, you, again, avoided to address the actual problem I had an issue with. I was saying that it’s unacceptable that Israel would welcome nowadays a New-Yorker, possibly even installing him in the occupied territories, while the issue of the Palestinians wasn’t settled; and magically, this 2000s’ vintage New-Yorker was changed into a 50s’ vintage Iraqi for the sake of your argumentation.
Your response is again “Look the other way : those are bad guys too”. If you intend to discuss the merits of, for instance, Libya, then open a thread about this country, wait for Gaddafi’s supporters to join in and argue with them.
Yes. This thread is about Israel. You just noticed that? As for the rest, I already responded in a previous post and in this one.
Because names are important and using them correctly is also important. Throwing out a name like “colonialist” does, and is intended to, raise certain issues - so pointing out that Israel is in fact not a “colonialist enterprise” by an sensible and coherent definition of the term is significant.
Again, we have discussed the “settled by outsiders” point. It is a half-truth. It is less than half a truth that this was “enabled by the European colonial power who was in charge of the area” - note that the nacient Israelis fought against Britian on exactly this point: the British blocaded Israel to prevent Jewish immigration.
If as you say “This is the issue”, the “issue” is based on a misapprehension of the historical facts.
The issue is why, of all nations, Israel is singled out as the only one in which the “legitimacy” of the state is up for discussion, uniquely and singularly.
When I raised the issue previously, many posters responded (basically) by pointing out that the Israeli situation was allegedly ‘unique’ in various ways. After some discussion, this has been revealed as untrue - it really is not so different from the creation of states in the ME generally - except in one singular respect: the Jews.
Naturally, the main difference between Israeli ethno-nationalism and that of other nations is that, in the the Israeli case, the ethno-nationalism in question is Jewish ethno-nationalism. That’s why it arouses so many questions of “legitimacy” etc. - this is just another chapter in a long and unfortunate history - the “elephant in the room” being, of course, the narratives of anti-Semitism.
And yet not addressed.
Western Samoa? Hilarious. Jordan is the next country over, the two have fought wars and swapped territorries (including the frigging Capital City of Jerusalem!) and discussion of Jordan when discussing the exactly contempraneous history of Israel makes a certain amount of sense, no? How can you discuss the creation of a country in total isolation from its geography and history?
Rather than a “distraction” it is of the very essence.
Look at it this way: when asking a question about “legitimacy”, naturally this involves a comparison. If you say that the creation of country X was “illigitimate” that implies that there is some standard of legitimacy that nations can achieve, and presumably some nations are “legitimate” and some are not.
My point is that the creation of Israel is no more nor less “legitimate” than that of its neighbours - in fact, I’ll go further and say it was considerably more “legitimate” than that of (say) Jordan, as it was from its inception a democracy. Jordan was an imposed and foreign monarchy.
So I’ll ask you this: you have stated that the creation of Israel was “illigitimate”. Fair enough. Now, name one country in the ME whose creation was more “legitimate” than Israel. Indeed, how many countries worldwide were, like Israel, democracies from the very start and blessed since birth by the United Nations?
Or, to put it less charitably - they care nothing for Palestinians other than to use their misery as a weapon. As one joker put it prior to the Camp David accords, “in the fight against Zionism, the Palestinians are willing to fight to the last Egyptian - and the Egyptians, to the last Palestinian”.
Why on earth the Arab nations get a moral “pass” for this attitude from some people, I do not understand. It strikes me that helping refugees is a good thing and using and abusing them is a bad thing. Yet, for you, this situation de-legitimizes the Israelis and not the Arab nations!
As for whether (say) Iraqi Jews happily embraced Israel as “home” and never gave a thought to the lands they were forced out of (whereas Palestinians would happily rot for generations in squalid camps rather than dreaming of living elsewhere) - that just strikes me as an assumption on your part.
My point is that your outrage is very selective and one-directional. You care for one displacement and not the other, it would appear. In this, you are in good company.
Same comment.
What some people notice is not so much the fact that there are ethnic conflicts, refugee problems and the like in Israel - everyone knows about that; it is the fact that the “outrage” over these things appears very selective, and only in the case of Israel do these issues lead to questioning the legitimacy of the foundation of the state.
Jordan is the next country over, the two have fought wars and swapped territorries (including the frigging Capital City of Jerusalem!) and discussion of Jordan when discussing the exactly contempraneous history of Israel makes a certain amount of sense, no? How can you discuss the creation of a country in total isolation from its geography and history?