War in the Middle East, again

[bradrn]

because a two state solution is not possible while israel annexes and supports settlers, which seems to be quite integral to modern zionism

I‘m a Zionist, and I don’t support the settlers. I know other Zionists who are the same. Once again, please don’t confuse Netanyahu-ism with Zionism.

[Ares Land]

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.

I think you don't get it because Zionism does not mean what you think it means. Zionism is the belief that there should be a Jewish homeland at about the current location of Israel, nothing more, nothing less.

You will find pretty much any kind of opinion on Gaza, or the West Bank settlements among Zionists.
As bradrn pointed out, he's a Zionist and does not support the settlers. There are plenty of people with similar opinions.

With that in mind, that statement here is just not true:

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,

It all comes back to my initial point: Zionism just doesn't mean what people think it means.

It's too bad there's no short, pithy word for 'Netanyahu-ism'. But perhaps it's because there's not even a clear ideology there. The key precept of 'Netanyahu-ism' is that Netanyahu should be Prime Minister of Israel -- which explains a lot. The rest of it isn't even specific to Israel, it's just the 'we need to act as horribly as possible in order to have security' that's typical of most right-wingers and a few left-wingers worldwide. You don't need Zionism to be horrible to foreign groups or minorities or to commit war crimes; the rest of the world manages just fine without it.

[Travis B.]

I think you don't get it because Zionism does not mean what you think it means. Zionism is the belief that there should be a Jewish homeland at about the current location of Israel, nothing more, nothing less.

You will find pretty much any kind of opinion on Gaza, or the West Bank settlements among Zionists.
As bradrn pointed out, he's a Zionist and does not support the settlers. There are plenty of people with similar opinions.

The key thing is that Zionism as we see it today has led to things such as the settlements, which stand in the way of a two-state solution, and the insistence that Israel remain a "Jewish state" (as opposed to a homeland for both Jews and Palestinians), which stands in the way of a one-state solution. Sure, you can have a Zionism which is not supportive of the settlements and which is open to sharing a homeland with the Palestinians, but that is not the Zionism which stands in the way of any real solution to the current predicament.

[Linguoboy]

I think you don't get it because Zionism does not mean what you think it means. Zionism is the belief that there should be a Jewish homeland at about the current location of Israel, nothing more, nothing less.

C'mon, we'r all linguists here, we all know it's never this simple. This is like saying "'capitalism is an economic system based on capital, nothing more, nothing less". Zionism is as Zionism does. You can say that support for settlements in the occupied territories isn't definitionally part of Zionism, but the fact of the matter is that there's been no halt to the establishment of settlements since 1967 regardless of whether the government has been led by Labour, Likud, Kadima, or a cabinet of national unity. This tells me there's something in the logic of Zionism as it's been implemented in the real world which leads to expansion of settlements. That's the point I think Torco has been trying to make in his last half-dozen or so posts.

It's too bad there's no short, pithy word for 'Netanyahu-ism'.

"Bibiism"?

[Ares Land]

C'mon, we'r all linguists here, we all know it's never this simple. This is like saying "'capitalism is an economic system based on capital, nothing more, nothing less". Zionism is as Zionism does. You can say that support for settlements in the occupied territories isn't definitionally part of Zionism, but the fact of the matter is that there's been no halt to the establishment of settlements since 1967 regardless of whether the government has been led by Labour, Likud, Kadima, or a cabinet of national unity. This tells me there's something in the logic of Zionism as it's been implemented in the real world which leads to expansion of settlements. That's the point I think Torco has been trying to make in his last half-dozen or so posts.

I see two problems here: one is a question of usage -- almost all Israeli Jews identify as Zionist (the remainder being very fringe groups). Not all of them share the same opinions about the Nation-State Bill, or the settlements -- far from it.

The second is what then do we call the idea that there should be a homeland of some kind for the Jewish people?

Or maybe we give up on Zionism entirely -- But then there are specific questions. Suppose, as a thought experiment we do give up entirely on the whole Zionism idea.

How is the area ruled? What happens to the Israeli Jews that live there? How do we guarantee their rights? As in, how do we make sure pogroms don't start in whatever successor state rules the area? What do we do if riots do start and turn into pogroms?
What about the law of return? Okay, fine, we repel it. Let's say then that France elects fascists and immediately dusts off the anti-Jew laws (that's more likely than you'd think). What happens to the French Jews? Less dramatically, France declares it illegal to wear a yarmulke and generally makes it illegal to be any kind of observant Jew (even more likely). What happens then?

Answering the immediate rebuttal... Yes, Palestinians do have the exact same rights, including the right to a homeland.

[bradrn]

Less dramatically, France declares it illegal to wear a yarmulke and generally makes it illegal to be any kind of observant Jew (even more likely). What happens then?

Hasn’t it already banned yarmulkes in some contexts?

[Ares Land]

Less dramatically, France declares it illegal to wear a yarmulke and generally makes it illegal to be any kind of observant Jew (even more likely). What happens then?

Hasn’t it already banned yarmulkes in some contexts?

Yes, at school, and if you're a civil servant. I honestly don't know how mandatory yarmulkes are, but I guess the current situation can be a problem already.
I should add the law isn't voluntarily antisemitic, the problem is ignorance. It was the Muslim veil that was targeted, but if you want to keep a facade of tolerance you have to ban all religious signs.

It's difficult to target Muslims without targetting Jews as well, or vice-versa; there's just too much in common.

[bradrn]

Less dramatically, France declares it illegal to wear a yarmulke and generally makes it illegal to be any kind of observant Jew (even more likely). What happens then?

Hasn’t it already banned yarmulkes in some contexts?

Yes, at school, and if you're a civil servant. I honestly don't know how mandatory yarmulkes are, but I guess the current situation can be a problem already.

I’m not sure how mandatory it is either. I don’t wear them most of the time, but then I’m not particularly observant anyway.

Nonetheless, I cannot imagine a religious Jew taking up public office if it requires them to take off their kippah.

I should add the law isn't voluntarily antisemitic, the problem is ignorance. It was the Muslim veil that was targeted, but if you want to keep a facade of tolerance you have to ban all religious signs.

It's difficult to target Muslims without targetting Jews as well, or vice-versa; there's just too much in common.

Yes, I’m aware that the point was a burqa ban. (In Australia we argued about the idea a while back, but it never went through.) And apparently it bans huge crosses too. But I’d say that Jews are the most affected, because there’s not really any alternative to a kippah, whereas Muslims can at least wear hijabs (not that that makes it any better, of course; they shouldn’t be banned at all).

[Ares Land]

Yes, I’m aware that the point was a burqa ban. (In Australia we argued about the idea a while back, but it never went through.) And apparently it bans huge crosses too. But I’d say that Jews are the most affected, because there’s not really any alternative to a kippah, whereas Muslims can at least wear hijabs (not that that makes it any better, of course; they shouldn’t be banned at all).

No, hijabs are right out. In fact any sign of religious affiliation is banned in these contexts.
It all stems from high principles neutrality, secularism, and let's face it a sense that religion is evil and we've outgrown such silly superstitions. It shows the peril of high-minded principles because as it happens, a fundamentalist Bible-thumping middle-aged Catholic man will face no trouble, whereas a moderately observant Muslim girl will.

[Raphael]

What about the law of return? Okay, fine, we repel it. Let's say then that France elects fascists and immediately dusts off the anti-Jew laws (that's more likely than you'd think). What happens to the French Jews? Less dramatically, France declares it illegal to wear a yarmulke and generally makes it illegal to be any kind of observant Jew (even more likely). What happens then?

Answering the immediate rebuttal... Yes, Palestinians do have the exact same rights, including the right to a homeland.

Yeah, but how do all those other groups facing persecution fit into that? There are, for instance, a lot of explicitly homophobic governments around the world. Do we create an "LGBTQ+ Homeland" somewhere because of that?

[bradrn]

Yes, I’m aware that the point was a burqa ban. (In Australia we argued about the idea a while back, but it never went through.) And apparently it bans huge crosses too. But I’d say that Jews are the most affected, because there’s not really any alternative to a kippah, whereas Muslims can at least wear hijabs (not that that makes it any better, of course; they shouldn’t be banned at all).

No, hijabs are right out. In fact any sign of religious affiliation is banned in these contexts.
It all stems from high principles neutrality, secularism, and let's face it a sense that religion is evil and we've outgrown such silly superstitions. It shows the peril of high-minded principles because as it happens, a fundamentalist Bible-thumping middle-aged Catholic man will face no trouble, whereas a moderately observant Muslim girl will.

Wait, I thought it was just ostentatious displays of religion which were out? I always heard of it as being specifically a burqa ban.

And, yes, I’m well aware of laïcité. I think that, as high-minded principles go, it isn’t a particularly great one. (Liberté, égalité, fraternité have stood the test of time a lot better.)

[Ares Land]

Yeah, but how do all those other groups facing persecution fit into that? There are, for instance, a lot of explicitly homophobic governments around the world. Do we create an "LGBTQ+ Homeland" somewhere because of that?

Would LGBTQ+ people even want that? Do we have to come up with a unique, generic solution that would fit any of the varied forms of persecution?

Your question is purposedly absurd, but there is something to it. How far away are supposedly non-homophobic countries from rescinding rights? Not very. Are refugees from homophobic regimes granted asylum when there's proof their lives are in danger because of their orientation? Theoretically yes, in practice so difficult as to be impossible.
The parallels are all too easy to draw.

Wait, I thought it was just ostentatious displays of religion which were out? I always heard of it as being specifically a burqa ban.

Ah, the thing is, even a headscarf counts as ostentatious.

[Torco]

This tells me there's something in the logic of Zionism as it's been implemented in the real world which leads to expansion of settlements. That's the point I think Torco has been trying to make in his last half-dozen or so posts.

Exactly! stipulating a definition that excludes bad things and then going "no my ideology is free of bad things" is easy, but not correct. but ftsoa let's go with it, because I think that the something in the logic of actually existing zionism is essential, not accidental: it has to do with what zionism is, as opposed to "see zionism is neutral, and there are some people who besides being zionists are also bad". Like, fair enough, zionism is pretty varied and people who call themselves zionists think and do all sorts of things but, then again, what does this mean

Jewish homeland at about the current location of Israel, nothing more, nothing less.

"homeland" I tend to think means a state. it could mean something else in principle, but I'd be surprised if anyone wanted to litigate this point. do we remember what a state is? it is generally understood to be the monopoly of violence over a territory: how about the other part? jewish here means an ethnicity (in theory, it could also mean jewish as in the religion, but I don't think I've heard that usage: it's more or less universally understood that being of jewish religion is not a requirement for "return" etcetera, and I wouldn't be given right of return if I converted to jewishness). So, an ethnostate, a policy of the monopoly of violence being held by a certain ethnic group, presumably in its own interest, and because it's a monopoly, this violence is exerted over itself, but also over other ethnic groups: as in a state that is somehow of and for a certain ethnicity (and, by extension, not of and for other ethnicities). how is that not explicitly being for the legal superiority of one ethnicity over another, as well as the justification of said ethnicity exerting violence over the rest of the ethnicities on the territory? at least in the concrete territories of this notional homeland? I don't know where's the mistake in my logic here, and if it's correct then it's quite understandable for the palestinians to want to fight back when the territory they live in suddenly becomes the ethnostate of some other ethnicity.

like... i'm surprised this is so controversial: a state-for-businessmen is understood immediately to mean a state that oppresses workers, that puts the businessman in a position of supremacy, where labour rights will be supressed or eliminated, and so on. a white state is understood immediately to mean a state that sets the white as superior to whatever other races. an islamist state is a state where non-muslims are inferior, politically unrepresented, and in general in a less desirable position than the muslim. a catholic state is understood immediately to mean theocracy, oppression, and the supremacy of the catholic over the non-catholic.a worker's state is understood immediately to mean a state for-the-workers (and thus, not for the businessman: any enterpreneur who finds his country calling itself a worker's state will be a quite dumb not to be at least concerned). but a jewish state? no, nothing problematic about that, it's all cool don't worry, the supremacy is just a few bad apples, nothing to do with our ideology of having a jewish state.

[Travis B.]

C'mon, we'r all linguists here, we all know it's never this simple. This is like saying "'capitalism is an economic system based on capital, nothing more, nothing less". Zionism is as Zionism does. You can say that support for settlements in the occupied territories isn't definitionally part of Zionism, but the fact of the matter is that there's been no halt to the establishment of settlements since 1967 regardless of whether the government has been led by Labour, Likud, Kadima, or a cabinet of national unity. This tells me there's something in the logic of Zionism as it's been implemented in the real world which leads to expansion of settlements. That's the point I think Torco has been trying to make in his last half-dozen or so posts.

I see two problems here: one is a question of usage -- almost all Israeli Jews identify as Zionist (the remainder being very fringe groups). Not all of them share the same opinions about the Nation-State Bill, or the settlements -- far from it.

The second is what then do we call the idea that there should be a homeland of some kind for the Jewish people?

I think the problem here is that there's a big difference between the idea of Zionism from an ideal perspective and how it has actually manifested itself in practice.

Or maybe we give up on Zionism entirely -- But then there are specific questions. Suppose, as a thought experiment we do give up entirely on the whole Zionism idea.

The only "rights" I see anyone really suggesting taking away from Israeli Jews is the "right" to go and take land from the Palestinians and drive them out of their homes, and for that matter I am all for keeping a right to return for Jews.

How is the area ruled? What happens to the Israeli Jews that live there? How do we guarantee their rights? As in, how do we make sure pogroms don't start in whatever successor state rules the area? What do we do if riots do start and turn into pogroms?

Guaranteeing the rights of Jews in a post-Zionist Palestine could be done through writing the rights of both Jews and Palestinians into its constitution (e.g. the right to observe one's religious and cultural practices and use one's native language in all of life, private and public) and by constructing it as a binational federation or confederation with specifically Jewish and Palestinian portions which are balanced to avoid either Jews or Palestinians from being dominant.

What about the law of return? Okay, fine, we repel it. Let's say then that France elects fascists and immediately dusts off the anti-Jew laws (that's more likely than you'd think). What happens to the French Jews? Less dramatically, France declares it illegal to wear a yarmulke and generally makes it illegal to be any kind of observant Jew (even more likely). What happens then?

Why repeal the law of return? I think personally that it would be preferable to extend the law of return to Palestinians rather than repeal it for Jews.

Answering the immediate rebuttal... Yes, Palestinians do have the exact same rights, including the right to a homeland.

The big problem here is that, as we have mentioned repeatedly here, the settlers and the Israeli gov't which has aided and abetted them have done everything to prevent the formation of a sovereign homeland for Palestinians.

[zompist]

do we remember what a state is? it is generally understood to be the monopoly of violence over a territory: how about the other part? jewish here means an ethnicity [...] So, an ethnostate, a policy of the monopoly of violence being held by a certain ethnic group, presumably in its own interest, and because it's a monopoly, this violence is exerted over itself, but also over other ethnic groups: as in a state that is somehow of and for a certain ethnicity (and, by extension, not of and for other ethnicities). how is that not explicitly being for the legal superiority of one ethnicity over another

You're describing 99% of the states of the world. The French state, the German state, the Chinese state, the Japanese state, the Somali state, the Saudi state, the Russian state, the Iranian state. Some awful, some not so bad. Is it the "Jewish" part that really gets your blood going? Everyone else can have one, but it's only worth protesting when it's the Jews?

I don't think you'd deny that historically the Latin American states were ethnostates, and the ethno in question wasn't the majority, either.

Now personally, I think the nation-state was a mistake which is maybe the #1 reason why otherwise rational people do great evil. The only thing going for it is that sometimes it aligns with the oppressors vs. oppressed division. Getting the Brits out of India, the Spanish out of the Americas, the Germans and Russians out of Poland, the Japanese out of China, etc., were all advances. But when all people see is ethnicity, then any ethnic division becomes a problem— e.g. Sri Lanka becomes independent, which means the majority Sinhalese start beating up on the Tamils.

What do the better ethnostates do? Well, they officially proclaim non-ethnic status, grant citizenship to everyone, guarantee rights. It kinda works: it's nicer to be a minority in France than in China. We shouldn't take the official declarations too naively, though. It's not great to be an Arab in France, even worse if you dare to show you're a Muslim, even worse if you don't happen to know French. Still, they're not generally killing each other.

I'd note again that before 1967, this was the model in Israel too. Arabs had citizenship and the vote, they weren't forced out of their houses. (They weren't better off than Arabs in France, though; it's still not a great situation.)

Can you have a bi-ethnic state? Or tri-ethnic? Sure: Belgium, Switzerland, Rwanda, Angola, Algeria, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Pakistan. Some of these work terribly, some work pretty well— OK, one of these works pretty well— but an ethnic division wouldn't necessarily work, or improve things. If there's a general political lesson, it's that just applying the normal rules of a homogenous nation-state is a bad idea, because the majority will repress the minority.

Netanyahu is doing what the Sinhalese did, what the Rwandans did, what the Russians did in Chechnya, what the Chinese are doing in Xinjiang, what the North Sudanese did, what the Burmese are trying to do— namely, stomp on minorities as hard as they can, to deny them any shred of power. That's the failure state of nationalism of any flavor.

[Travis B.]

do we remember what a state is? it is generally understood to be the monopoly of violence over a territory: how about the other part? jewish here means an ethnicity [...] So, an ethnostate, a policy of the monopoly of violence being held by a certain ethnic group, presumably in its own interest, and because it's a monopoly, this violence is exerted over itself, but also over other ethnic groups: as in a state that is somehow of and for a certain ethnicity (and, by extension, not of and for other ethnicities). how is that not explicitly being for the legal superiority of one ethnicity over another

You're describing 99% of the states of the world. The French state, the German state, the Chinese state, the Japanese state, the Somali state, the Saudi state, the Russian state, the Iranian state. Some awful, some not so bad. Is it the "Jewish" part that really gets your blood going? Everyone else can have one, but it's only worth protesting when it's the Jews?

It's not that it is a Jewish ethnostate in and of itself but rather that it is a settler-colonial state where the settler part is going on right now, rather than being mostly well in the past (even though as commented, there have been abuses in, say, the US up to the very present, albeit on a far lesser scale than in the past). If Israel evicted the settlers from the West Bank and allowed the Palestinians to constitute their own sovereign ethnostate while truly giving Arabs within Israel equal rights with Jews, Israel would still be an ethnostate, but would be a far less objectionable one.

[Moose-tache]

Everybody else gets to have an apartheid state that's actively committing genocide and lying about it, but suddenly people object when the Jews do it? Nobody makes a peep when there's ethnic cleansing in Sudan or Myanmar (don't google it), or when the AfD tries to do the fourth reich (don't google that either), or when Iran is on their bullshit (put your phone down). No one objects to any of that. They only object to Israel. People want a better world without ethnostates using violence to support religious privilege, but only in one exact spot. Everywhere else they like things to stay shit. Blatant anti-semitism. It's the only explanation.

[Travis B.]

Everybody else gets to have an apartheid state that's actively committing genocide and lying about it, but suddenly people object when the Jews do it? Nobody makes a peep when there's ethnic cleansing in Sudan or Myanmar (don't google it), or when the AfD tries to do the fourth reich (don't google that either), or when Iran is on their bullshit (put your phone down). No one objects to any of that. They only object to Israel. People want a better world without ethnostates using violence to support religious privilege, but only in one exact spot. Everywhere else they like things to stay shit. Blatant anti-semitism. It's the only explanation.

I heard plenty about Darfur or the Rohingya, for one. Or are you just being snarky?

[bradrn]

Everybody else gets to have an apartheid state that's actively committing genocide and lying about it, but suddenly people object when the Jews do it? Nobody makes a peep when there's ethnic cleansing in Sudan or Myanmar (don't google it), or when the AfD tries to do the fourth reich (don't google that either), or when Iran is on their bullshit (put your phone down). No one objects to any of that. They only object to Israel. People want a better world without ethnostates using violence to support religious privilege, but only in one exact spot. Everywhere else they like things to stay shit. Blatant anti-semitism. It's the only explanation.

Thank you for pointing this out — it’s exactly what I hate about these discussions.

I think we should be quite clear that this isn’t whataboutism. I fully respect people’s right to criticise Israel, as long as they in turn respect my right to argue back. But I could take protesters a lot more seriously, if they showed any sign of being as upset about the other problems in the world as they did about Israel. At some point, we do have to wonder why they care so much about what is, after all, a tiny little strip of land in western Asia. (I care about it because my family lives there; do they have that reason?)

(Also, there’s even more horribleness than your little list suggests. For one thing, consider Indonesia and how it’s forcing down the Papuans. Or, Morocco and its conflict with Western Sahara. Or Somaliland, until recently more functional than most recognised states in East Africa, now sadly disintegrating. Or… well, you get the idea, and it’s too depressing to list more.)

I heard plenty about Darfur or the Rohingya, for one. Or are you just being snarky?

Do you really? Like, people may support these causes, but I don’t see students taking over campuses in support of the Rohingya, or screaming anti-Buddhist chants.

[Travis B.]

Everybody else gets to have an apartheid state that's actively committing genocide and lying about it, but suddenly people object when the Jews do it? Nobody makes a peep when there's ethnic cleansing in Sudan or Myanmar (don't google it), or when the AfD tries to do the fourth reich (don't google that either), or when Iran is on their bullshit (put your phone down). No one objects to any of that. They only object to Israel. People want a better world without ethnostates using violence to support religious privilege, but only in one exact spot. Everywhere else they like things to stay shit. Blatant anti-semitism. It's the only explanation.

Thank you for pointing this out — it’s exactly what I hate about these discussions.

I think we should be quite clear that this isn’t whataboutism. I fully respect people’s right to criticise Israel, as long as they in turn respect my right to argue back. But I could take protesters a lot more seriously, if they showed any sign of being as upset about the other problems in the world as they did about Israel. At some point, we do have to wonder why they care so much about what is, after all, a tiny little strip of land in western Asia. (I care about it because my family lives there; do they have that reason?)

You could have said the same about South Africa back in the days of apartheid; obviously those who opposed apartheid were biased against Afrikaners, as there were plenty of other oppressive states that were overlooked, right?

In this case, Palestine matters right now because the IDF is bombing Gaza to smithereens and starving those it hasn't bombed in a very disproportionate fashion at the very present.

I heard plenty about Darfur or the Rohingya, for one. Or are you just being snarky?

Do you really? Like, people may support these causes, but I don’t see students taking over campuses in support of the Rohingya, or screaming anti-Buddhist chants.

I have not heard much about them recently, but I remember hearing quite a bit about them not that long ago, all things considered.