War in the Middle East, again

[Travis B.]

I wish the solution to global antisemitism was as simple as "give the Jews a nation-state", but it really isn't. Without the support of the USA, would Israel even still exist? And if that's the case, then for Jews to be safe in Israel they have to be safe in the USA as well. An antisemitic regime in this country could reverse the roles of Israeli Jews and Palestinians virtually overnight.

That also raises the question of why do Jews uniquely have a right to a nation-state? Certainly if they have a right to a nation-state, so do Palestinians, and so do countless other minority groups across the world, ranging from Basques to Tibetans. Yet we see fewer people (although there are some) who insist on the establishment of Basque or Tibetan nation-states.

[Raphael]

I wish the solution to global antisemitism was as simple as "give the Jews a nation-state", but it really isn't. Without the support of the USA, would Israel even still exist? And if that's the case, then for Jews to be safe in Israel they have to be safe in the USA as well. An antisemitic regime in this country could reverse the roles of Israeli Jews and Palestinians virtually overnight.

Minor quibble about the timescale: My very rough, non-expert guess is that if the USA would do a u-turn and start treating Israel as a "rogue state" tomorrow, it would take at least a few years, and perhaps as much as a decade or more, for Israel to collapse. That wouldn't change the eventual outcome, but it would be more than enough time for a lot of gruesome stuff. I agree with your main point there, though.

That also raises the question of why do Jews uniquely have a right to a nation-state? Certainly if they have a right to a nation-state, so do Palestinians, and so do countless other minority groups across the world, ranging from Basques to Tibetans. Yet we see fewer people (although there are some) who insist on the establishment of Basque or Tibetan nation-states.

Not to mention various non-ethnic groups with a history of persecution.

[Torco]

I wish the solution to global antisemitism was as simple as "give the Jews a nation-state", but it really isn't. Without the support of the USA, would Israel even still exist? And if that's the case, then for Jews to be safe in Israel they have to be safe in the USA as well. An antisemitic regime in this country could reverse the roles of Israeli Jews and Palestinians virtually overnight.

ikr? plus I have no data on this, but I'd be surprised if the bad reputation of israel (absolutely deserved, of course) hadn't actually *increased* antisemitism.

That also raises the question of why do Jews uniquely have a right to a nation-state? Certainly if they have a right to a nation-state, so do Palestinians, and so do countless other minority groups across the world, ranging from Basques to Tibetans. Yet we see fewer people (although there are some) who insist on the establishment of Basque or Tibetan nation-states.

there's plenty separatists for tibet, the basque country (remember ETA?), catalonia, santa cruz in bolivia, etcetera... relevant difference, though, catalan nationalists don't generally want to expell xarnegos from their houses at gunpoint, nor put them in concentration camps.

Minor quibble about the timescale: My very rough, non-expert guess is that if the USA would do a u-turn and start treating Israel as a "rogue state" tomorrow, it would take at least a few years, and perhaps as much as a decade or more, for Israel to collapse. That wouldn't change the eventual outcome, but it would be more than enough time for a lot of gruesome stuff. I agree with your main point there, though.

I mean, Israel has (it seems) nukes so... possibly it would take as long as it's taken North Korea to fall.

[Travis B.]

That also raises the question of why do Jews uniquely have a right to a nation-state? Certainly if they have a right to a nation-state, so do Palestinians, and so do countless other minority groups across the world, ranging from Basques to Tibetans. Yet we see fewer people (although there are some) who insist on the establishment of Basque or Tibetan nation-states.

there's plenty separatists for tibet, the basque country (remember ETA?), catalonia, santa cruz in bolivia, etcetera... relevant difference, though, catalan nationalists don't generally want to expell xarnegos from their houses at gunpoint, nor put them in concentration camps.

Thing is, the ETA and Tibetan separatists don't have prominent lobbying organizations across the world (there is a Tibetan lobby, but it's on a much smaller scale), and haven't convinced much of the world that not supporting Basque or Tibetan separatism is something intrinsically anti-Basque or anti-Tibetan.

[Torco]

Nor convinced them, more to the point, that they oughtta let them just put the xarnegos or the hans in camps. yoiu know, for old time's sake.

[Ares Land]

Like, the nazis also believed that the german people was oppressed and that in order to liberate it from the oppression of the evil jew it *had* to do the whole lebensraum thing, invade poland, expell the jew blabla.... but no one would -hopefully- take seriously a diplomat for the fourth reich saying "no we're not nazis, nazis are bad and do their nazism unnecesarily: we *need* to be doing what we're doing, so we're good and thus not nazis".

That comparison is leaving out huge parts of history, like, for instance the Jews were actually being oppressed and mass-murdered.

Specifically the establishment of Israel was an outgrowth of British colonialism, which just about everyone agrees *was* a Bad Thing and which the world has been in the process of undoing (to the extent possible) over the last century or so. There's a reason why the Irish in particular are extremely and vocally sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.

The question to ask is why the British were eager to set up a Jewish state. And I'm afraid the answer turns out to be 'because they didn't want any Jews at home.'

I wish the solution to global antisemitism was as simple as "give the Jews a nation-state", but it really isn't. Without the support of the USA, would Israel even still exist? And if that's the case, then for Jews to be safe in Israel they have to be safe in the USA as well. An antisemitic regime in this country could reverse the roles of Israeli Jews and Palestinians virtually overnight.

I don't think Israel is a solution to global antisemitism, because there is no solution to global antisemitism.

What I'd like to do is place things in their historical context. Let's say, it's 1948. We are right out of WWII and we all know what Germany did. France and in fact most occupied countries had generally been eager to anticipate Nazi directives when it came to the Jews. The USA had strict Jewish immigration quotas in place. The British thought the Jews belonged in Palestine, certainly not, say, in London. The Soviet Union had a complex view of the subject but generally wished the Jews went to Palestine, as far back in the Siberian forest as possible, or just 'away'.
I'm less aware of what went on in the Maghreb, Iraq, Egypt or Iran but the Jewish population in all of these countries dropped to zero due to immigration so it's pretty clear things were not good either.

Now, can anyone please explain what was an appropriate course of action would have been? And also what the Jews who immigrated to Palestine around 1948 were supposed to do instead? Drown in the Mediterranean?

There just were no good options.

[Travis B.]

All these things were horrible, but the key thing is that did they justify ethnically cleansing the land that they had just immigrated to so as to turn it into an ethnostate? And yes, one can argue that "they were there first", but that no more justifies that than that Native Americans being here first would justify them driving European Americans out of their homes.

[Torco]

That comparison is leaving out huge parts of history, like, for instance the Jews were actually being oppressed and mass-murdered.

so? if the germans had been oppressed and mass murdered, would they have been right in WW2? the hutu had indeed been genuinely oppressed, does that make 94 not a genocide?

Now, can anyone please explain what was an appropriate course of action would have been? And also what the Jews who immigrated to Palestine around 1948 were supposed to do instead? Drown in the Mediterranean?

okay, so you've already settled somewhere, displacing the indigenous population etcetera: what's the correct course of action? start with not putting the indigenous people you just displaced into camps and bantustans. I mean, everyone's supposed to do that. people who commit and support atrocities always say, in this american action hero rugged voice, "we did what we had to". but they rarely actually had to.

[Ares Land]

All these things were horrible, but the key thing is that did they justify ethnically cleansing the land that they had just immigrated to so as to turn it into an ethnostate? And yes, one can argue that "they were there first", but that no more justifies that than that Native Americans being here first would justify them driving European Americans out of their homes.

Looking at the early history of Israel, I don't think there's a point in justifying anything.
The conflict in the early decades wasn't even between the Palestinians and Israeli, it was between Israel and all the surrounding Arab states who were trying to kick them out.
The Israeli, it should be remembered, were not empathetically not the idle, rich, white colonialists people seem to depict them as... they were desperate people. Many of them were holocaust survivors, and fleeing pogroms and with the British double than triple crossing both Arabs and Jews?
Also, the Arab-Israeli did start because in essence... the Arabs resented and feared the heavy Jewish immigration, which is pretty much what happened every where in every place the Jews tried to settle.
Now what would have been the ethical thing to do for Jews in 1948?

I mean, the justified and ethical thing would have been for someone, somewhere on Earth to welcome the Jews with open arms. There was no such people in 1948. There are no such people now -- even in 2024, in developed countries, the immediate reaction to refugees seeking a home is generally to kick them back hard into the sea.

okay, so you've already settled somewhere, displacing the indigenous population etcetera: what's the correct course of action? start with not putting the indigenous people you just displaced into camps and bantustans. I mean, everyone's supposed to do that. people who commit and support atrocities always say, in this american action hero rugged voice, "we did what we had to". but they rarely actually had to.

Now, moving on to the present day... There is no justification for the Israeli government insane campaign of revenge, or the ravages in the Gaza strip, or for the treatment of Palestine in at least the past two decades. Definitely not. Netanyahu and quite a few Israeli leaders belong in the Hague in front of the ICC. No doubt about that.

I do think that the leaders Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Qatar and a few others do belong in the same place. And I don't think there can ever be peace in the area (if there ever is to be) without first acknowledging that the Israelis belong there just as much as the Palestinians.

[Travis B.]

All these things were horrible, but the key thing is that did they justify ethnically cleansing the land that they had just immigrated to so as to turn it into an ethnostate? And yes, one can argue that "they were there first", but that no more justifies that than that Native Americans being here first would justify them driving European Americans out of their homes.

Looking at the early history of Israel, I don't think there's a point in justifying anything.
The conflict in the early decades wasn't even between the Palestinians and Israeli, it was between Israel and all the surrounding Arab states who were trying to kick them out.

That was in the second phase of the 1947-1948 war, after Israel had declared independence. There was already a civil war in Mandatory Palestine prior to that.

The Israeli, it should be remembered, were not empathetically not the idle, rich, white colonialists people seem to depict them as... they were desperate people. Many of them were holocaust survivors, and fleeing pogroms and with the British double than triple crossing both Arabs and Jews?
Also, the Arab-Israeli did start because in essence... the Arabs resented and feared the heavy Jewish immigration, which is pretty much what happened every where in every place the Jews tried to settle.
Now what would have been the ethical thing to do for Jews in 1948?

The thing is that in the 1947-1948 war the forces of the Yishuv and then the new State of Israel actively ethnically cleansed the parts of what had been Mandatory Palestine that they controlled, so they cannot be seen as being innocent victims here.

I mean, the justified and ethical thing would have been for someone, somewhere on Earth to welcome the Jews with open arms. There was no such people in 1948. There are no such people now -- even in 2024, in developed countries, the immediate reaction to refugees seeking a home is generally to kick them back hard into the sea.

There are plenty of Jews here in the United States, and while of course there is anti-Semitism here as there is everywhere, it is generally on a much smaller scale here than in very many places. And while the US itself is a product of settler colonialism, Jews immigrating to the US in practice would not have been taking land from anyone or driving anyone from their homes. And for that matter, there is a non-negligible amount of immigration from Israel to the United States today. I would have said that back then it would have been more moral to try to convince the US to end its Jewish quotas than to immigrate to Mandatory Palestine and drive out the Palestinians who already lived here.

[bradrn]

I would have said that back then it would have been more moral to try to convince the US to end its Jewish quotas than to immigrate to Mandatory Palestine and drive out the Palestinians who already lived here.

You’re not wrong there. But what if the Americans turn around and say ‘no, we won’t take a single Jew more’?

In fact it’s not really a matter of ‘if’, because all the evidence suggests that the US was deeply uninterested in taking in Jewish refugees. They organised the Évian conference specifically to try and get other countries to take them in. And it is revealing that, out of the 32 participants, only Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic made any kind of commitment to accept any Jews. So it seems the US was not atypical, but rather that no-one at all wanted to take in any Jewish refugees.

So, in your opinion, what would be the ‘more moral’ solution to that problem? What should we have done with ourselves?

[Travis B.]

I would have said that back then it would have been more moral to try to convince the US to end its Jewish quotas than to immigrate to Mandatory Palestine and drive out the Palestinians who already lived here.

You’re not wrong there. But what if the Americans turn around and say ‘no, we won’t take a single Jew more’?

In fact it’s not really a matter of ‘if’, because all the evidence suggests that the US was deeply uninterested in taking in Jewish refugees. They organised the Évian conference specifically to try and get other countries to take them in. And it is revealing that, out of the 32 participants, only Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic made any kind of commitment to accept any Jews. So it seems the US was not atypical, but rather that no-one at all wanted to take in any Jewish refugees.

So, in your opinion, what would be the ‘more moral’ solution to that problem? What should we have done with ourselves?

Even if the only solution was to immigrate to what became Israel, would it have been necessary to expel (or prevent the return of) much of the Palestinian population that already lived there?

[Torco]

I think that the zionist's answer would be something like "but of course we need Israel to be a jewish, supremacist ethnostate for jews: (though they won't use those words, cause they're yay/boo words, but still) if muslims/arabs/palestinians/whatever had political equality then Israel would become a state like any other: and in a state like any other (especially in that region with *those* people) we get pogrommed".

I don't think that makes it justified, of course, but it's important to bear in mind that when we say "just don't oppress palestinians, it's not hard" we're kind of going against the whole point of israel existing. probably that's what zionists mean when they say 'israel has a right to exist': something to the effect of the jews need their lebensraum.

[Travis B.]

But if you hold that "Israel has a right to exist" in that sense, surely Palestine has a right to exist too.

[zompist]

I think that the zionist's answer would be something like "but of course we need Israel to be a jewish, supremacist ethnostate for jews: (though they won't use those words, cause they're yay/boo words, but still) if muslims/arabs/palestinians/whatever had political equality then Israel would become a state like any other: and in a state like any other (especially in that region with *those* people) we get pogrommed".

I don't think that makes it justified, of course, but it's important to bear in mind that when we say "just don't oppress palestinians, it's not hard" we're kind of going against the whole point of israel existing. probably that's what zionists mean when they say 'israel has a right to exist': something to the effect of the jews need their lebensraum.

There's probably more agreement than disagreement in this thread... however, insisting on viewing 150 years of Jewish/Palestinian history through the lens of Netanyahuism is not just unhelpful, but rather ugly.

What people are pointing out is that the Jews of 1945-48 were refugees that no one wanted. Generally when refugees want a place to live we don't call that Nazism. E.g., Germany, to its credit, took in 1 million Syrian refugees. Do you accuse the Syrians of Nazism too? What other human rights, or humans, can be eliminated by calling refugees Nazis?

I don't think relitigating 1948 is going to shed much light on 2023-24, and there is plenty of blame for all parties; but some of the differences are important. E.g. the Israelis were fighting states, not their own subjects; while 750,000 Palestinians fled from Palestine, 850,000 Jews fled there from Arab countries; early Israel was not right-wing but rather socialist; Israel did give citizenship and voting rights to the Palestinians who remained. Also, if conflicts from before we were born must be rectified, Bolivia wants its seashore back.

It's probably simplistic to say everything went to hell in 1967, but it kinda did. Israel's neighbors were able to make peace with it on the basis of its 1967 borders, and if it had stuck to them, things would look very different today. The whole settlement program, and the abysmal treatment of non-Israeli Palestinians, is what created the current mess.

Curious fact: there was a serious proposal to resettle Jews in Alaska. Michael Chabon wrote an alt-history novel about it. Fortunately or unfortunately, Roosevelt shelved it.

[Travis B.]

There's probably more agreement than disagreement in this thread... however, insisting on viewing 150 years of Jewish/Palestinian history through the lens of Netanyahuism is not just unhelpful, but rather ugly.

What people are pointing out is that the Jews of 1945-48 were refugees that no one wanted. Generally when refugees want a place to live we don't call that Nazism. E.g., Germany, to its credit, took in 1 million Syrian refugees. Do you accuse the Syrians of Nazism too? What other human rights, or humans, can be eliminated by calling refugees Nazis?

I don't think relitigating 1948 is going to shed much light on 2023-24, and there is plenty of blame for all parties; but some of the differences are important. E.g. the Israelis were fighting states, not their own subjects; while 750,000 Palestinians fled from Palestine, 850,000 Jews fled there from Arab countries; early Israel was not right-wing but rather socialist; Israel did give citizenship and voting rights to the Palestinians who remained. Also, if conflicts from before we were born must be rectified, Bolivia wants its seashore back.

The key thing is that the Yishuv during the 1947-1948 war did not have to deliberately ethnically cleanse what had been Mandatory Palestine, and deliberately keep the thousands of Palestinians who had fled from returning home afterwards. Yes, you can definitely say that many of the Arab countries were just as much in the wrong by effectively forcing thousands of Jews who had lived there for centuries to flee with what they could fit in a suitcase at most, but that does not justify the Yishuv's conduct in the war.

Of course, at this point much of this is now a fait accompli, as Palestinians are just as unlikely to return to the villages and the land where they had lived prior to the war as Jews are unlikely to return to the Arab world where they had previously lived. In the latter case I really doubt Jews who had previously lived in the Arab world and their descendents would want to return even if they could.

It's probably simplistic to say everything went to hell in 1967, but it kinda did. Israel's neighbors were able to make peace with it on the basis of its 1967 borders, and if it had stuck to them, things would look very different today. The whole settlement program, and the abysmal treatment of non-Israeli Palestinians, is what created the current mess.

Agreed. Had Israel stuck with the 1967 borders the world would be a different place, and much of what has happened since then would not be an issue today.

[Torco]

There's probably more agreement than disagreement in this thread... however, insisting on viewing 150 years of Jewish/Palestinian history through the lens of Netanyahuism is not just unhelpful, but rather ugly.

I agree that it is, but from what I can see Netanyahuism is not a tangential concern here, I'd say it's important. so is the more general ideology of Zionism. we leftos (and we sociologists) tend to do this a lot, and it's in both cases to our credit. It really makes no sense to not look at the systemic factors here: if we look at the superficial, every case looks super unique and complicated, but look at the ideological and geopolitical dramatis personae and boom: this is clearly analogous to south africa, salazar's portugal, the contras. it is the old alliance of fascism and imperialism in the establishment and defense of a colonial proyect, intersecting the way conflicts in the periphery tend to mirror/be proxies for bigger conflicts, vast powers jockeying for position where millions of mostly brown people die so white guys across the sea can figure out who is on top. These are ugly words, sure, and I'd love it if good people hadn't fallen into zionism, just like i wish good people hadn't fallen into nazism in 38, or into this weird neofascism of bukele that seems to be poised to become the next flag on the concentration camps in my neck of the woods, but like... reality's ugly.

[Ares Land]

There are plenty of Jews here in the United States, and while of course there is anti-Semitism here as there is everywhere, it is generally on a much smaller scale here than in very many places. And while the US itself is a product of settler colonialism, Jews immigrating to the US in practice would not have been taking land from anyone or driving anyone from their homes. And for that matter, there is a non-negligible amount of immigration from Israel to the United States today. I would have said that back then it would have been more moral to try to convince the US to end its Jewish quotas than to immigrate to Mandatory Palestine and drive out the Palestinians who already lived here.

Americans certainly felt that Jewish immigrants were taking space that belonged to proper Americans -- that's why there were quotas in the first place. IIRC there even were quotas of Jews at universities. It's dubious that would have been possible and workable.
Zionistm holds that the state of antisemitism in any given country, no matter how friendly to Jews, is contingent and liable to abrupt change. With the historical record in mind, it's hard to fault that reasoning. In the early 20th century, which countries were relatively friendly to Jews, and had antisemitism on a much, much small scale than in most other places? Austria and Germany.

I agree that it is, but from what I can see Netanyahuism is not a tangential concern here, I'd say it's important. so is the more general ideology of Zionism. we leftos (and we sociologists) tend to do this a lot, and it's in both cases to our credit. It really makes no sense to not look at the systemic factors here: if we look at the superficial, every case looks super unique and complicated, but look at the ideological and geopolitical dramatis personae and boom: this is clearly analogous to south africa, salazar's portugal, the contras. it is the old alliance of fascism and imperialism in the establishment and defense of a colonial proyect, intersecting the way conflicts in the periphery tend to mirror/be proxies for bigger conflicts, vast powers jockeying for position where millions of mostly brown people die so white guys across the sea can figure out who is on top. These are ugly words, sure, and I'd love it if good people hadn't fallen into zionism, just like i wish good people hadn't fallen into nazism in 38, or into this weird neofascism of bukele that seems to be poised to become the next flag on the concentration camps in my neck of the woods, but like... reality's ugly.

Looking into Zionism is very interesting historically, but as of 2024 it's not a very useful label. Many if not most Jews (in Israel or elsewhere) are Zionists in one way or another; I can assure you most of them aren't fascists.

I believe there were historical reasons why the creation of Israel was a necessity, but let's live that aside for now. From a more practical point of view, there is a Jewish state now and there will be in the future -- though we may hope for a Palestinian state two, or a federation of some sort, or some unitary state where both Jews and Palestinians would have equal rights -- so use and overuse of the Zionist label is kind of useless.

Anyway, I think you're right in pointing out general tendancy. What is happening to Israel is that it's fallen sway to the general tendancy towards ever increasingly reactionary politics and frankly in that respect, there is nothing exceptional about Israeli politics: look at what kind of leaders and policies are popular worldwide. The pattern of voters seeing no point in the left-wing anymore and the right-wing getting increasingly radical is a very familiar one.

The key thing is that the Yishuv during the 1947-1948 war did not have to deliberately ethnically cleanse what had been Mandatory Palestine, and deliberately keep the thousands of Palestinians who had fled from returning home afterwards.

Of course that deserves to be condemned; but it's worth pointing out again that, while the treatment of Palestinians was deeply wrong, there is blame to be found on all sides. I'd add to what zompist mentioned the anti-Jewish riots sometimes culminating in Mandatory Palestine. Again, it doesn't wash the Israeli from all blame, but people don't react well to the threat of pogroms.

Agreed. Had Israel stuck with the 1967 borders the world would be a different place, and much of what has happened since then would not be an issue today.

I doubt that -- not that it washes, again, Israel of all blame, and the West Bank policy is both stupid and evil -- but there would have been some sort of ongoing conflict anyway.

[bradrn]

IIRC there even were quotas of Jews at universities.

Yes indeed, and plenty of them. As I recall, the most egregious offender was Harvard, but for a long time it was very difficult for Jews to access any higher education in the US.

(It’s interesting to note that, when it comes to modern-day quotas, I’ve heard that it is yet again Harvard which attempted to restrict access to Asian students. As they say, ‘what starts with the Jews never ends with the Jews’…)

[Torco]

I don't get it... so we should not speak of colonialism in britain because most british people were (say, at the time of queen victoria) colonialists? it doesn't make sense to speak of nazism in 38 germany cause most germans were nazis? the dominant ideology of the dominant actor in a process matters! good people are zionist, I don't doubt this (I know some), but good people believing bad things is what leads to the fascists winning: zionism is also an ideology of the ethnostate and of settler colonialism, and is at the heart of the conflict. like, man, it's like that adage about being surprised that the leopards eat brown people's faces when you support the leopards-eating-brown-people's-faces party.

though we may hope for a Palestinian state two, or a federation of some sort, or some unitary state where both Jews and Palestinians would have equal rights -- so use and overuse of the Zionist label is kind of useless.

Nah, zionism is incompatible with some of those solutions (most, possibly). because a two state solution is not possible while israel annexes and supports settlers, which seems to be quite integral to modern zionism, and a one state solution is not possible while that state is israel and israel is "a jewish state" (i.e. a supremacist ethnostate with one race being superior). preserving zionism (and preserving antisemitism, too) is only leaving open the solutions to the conflict that are predicated on successful genocide (or expulsion) of the palestinians... which seems to be the current israeli strategy, tbh. honestly, sometimes it feels like that's what "moderates" want.