Re: BHA: Edward Said - American Zionism

["Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus@xxxxxxx>]

Carrol Cox wrote:

> Things as they are must be honored -- which translates in the present case
to
> the right of the citizens of the state of Israel to membership in a
secular,
> multi-national, multi-religion, democratic state of Palestine.

I'm quite sympathetic with the goal of creating a "secular, multi-national,
multi-religion, democratic state" -- alas, if only that were on the table!
But the Palestinians are not setting set forth any such proposal, and anyway
the "one-state" solution has long been discarded (though appealing, it's
doubtful it was ever viable, and neither the PLO nor Hamas want it).  But it
is worth noting that within Israel itself there are many Arab citizens,
including elected members of the Knesset, and the government protects
Jewish, Moslem, and Christian holy sites alike.  Israel is very far from a
utopia (I've been there), but in spite of its terrible flaws it is already a
multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-party, democratic state.

As I said before, I'm not excusing the Israel government's military actions
and oppressive policies.  I strongly object to them.  However, I think it's
important to pursue Caroline's point that what the situation calls for is
analysis (not, say, moralistic denunciations and finger-pointing), and that
if we wish to understand the situation and arrive at some feasible solution,
we need (among other things) to understand Jewish Israelis' feelings,
especially their feeling that they are constantly being forced to defend
their right to exist -- in other words, that religious and historical as
well as political issues are involved here.  Caroline presented some
historical reasons for these feelings, grounded in the Jews' experience of
the Holocaust; I added reasons based in political and religious conflicts
happening today.  I think the need to analyze all parties' perspectives --
whether or not we agree with them -- is mandated by critical realism's
commitment to verstehen as one part of social analysis.

Carrol also wrote:

>                              The state of
> Israel neither has nor ever had any right to exist.

I've heard claim about Israel this many times from some members of the left.
I have to admit that I've never quite understood it, and it has become more
puzzling as the years have passed.  For one thing, it seems rather behind
the times: Egypt and Jordan have both accepted Israel's existance, and Syria
and the PLO have implicitly accepted it by conducting negotiations.  More,
it is unclear to me what the statement "Israel has no right to exist" means
or why Israel seems to be the only country regularly said to have no such
right.  It appears to call for something much more drastic than a change in
government leaders or government policies -- that the system of government
must be abolished and perhaps the state's geographical borders should be
entirely re-drawn.  It that correct?  If so, I would like to understand the
basis for the claim that the state of Israel is illegitimate.  As I've said
on previous occasions, political theory of this sort is not my forte, so if
anyone is willing to offer a sustained argument, I'm willing to listen.  In
the meantime let me describe every single possible interpretation I can come
up with (including ones that probably do not apply to you, but may apply to
others), so you can more readily identify any misunderstanding.

1) It is simply an expression of anger, and has no real theoretical
purchase.  -- I start with this because I think in some cases it is in fact
true; I presume that it is not true of you, but I may as well put it out
there anyway.

2) It is made more or less arbitrarily, without a fully worked-out
analytical basis.  -- This is something of a last resort, to be considered
if all else fails.

3) It is an expression of (possibly unconscious) anti-semitism.  -- Like #2,
I won't go here unless there's no other choice.  However, let's bear in mind
that people can make anti-semitic statements (like racist and sexist
statements) without realizing their implications, and can reject these ideas
once they recognize their significance.

4) It is synecdochal, that is, the argument is really that *all* states are
illegitimate and have no right to exist.  -- This of course is the
philosophy of anarchism, which is at least consistent, but I've never seen
the claim that Israel has no right to exist used in this way and your
statement makes no such allusion, so this interpretation seems forced.

5) Along the lines of #4, it alludes to the Leninist theory of the
whithering away of the state under communism.  -- Again, and for the same
reason, this interpretation seems forced.

6) It derives from a consistent political principle which applies to all
states that have similar features or have engaged in similar activities.  --
Finally, a reasonably likely hypothesis.  There are many potential
candidates for this principle.  However, I haven't yet managed to identify
which one it is, because everything I've come up with also applies to states
which (to my knowledge) leftists do not regularly claim have no right to
exist.  Let me give some examples.  Illegitimate states could be those
created by colonists who displaced the existing inhabitants and subjected
them to various types of maltreatment, like Australia.  States without even
a right to exist could be those which have a well-established record of
human rights violations, such as Guatemala, Nigeria and China.  Illegitimate
states could be ones which have had a policy of expansionism, like
contemporary Russia, which has no intention of returning lands seized from
Finland during World War II.  Or young states shouldn't exist, such as the
Czech Republic.  Or extremely small states, like Liechtenstein.  As you can
see, I'm trying everything, but from what I can find, there's nothing
exceptional about Israel, such that it has no right to exist whereas the
others do.  In fact, states which (unlike Israel) exclude large portions of
their populations from participation in the political process such as some
fundamentalist Islamic nations where women can't vote, or have engaged in
widescale genocidal slaughters like some in Africa, nevertheless seem to
have a right to exist.  Then again, maybe I'm simply out of the loop and
many leftists *do* believe that some of these states have no right to exist
and require wholesale elimination rather than a change in policies,
government, or whatever the problem is.

As you see, I've found no reason why Israel's existence is exceptionally
egregious: plenty of countries have done the same or worse.  As I said
above, I'm quite open to being informed differently.  But as far as I can
tell, there is only one thing unique about Israel, and we all know what it
is; and I hope that any of you who feels that Israel has no right to exist
will at least consider the possibility that -- whether you mean for it to be
or not -- the position is in fact anti-semitic.  While many people have
criticized Israel's actions (and often rightly so), consider that the more
extreme view that Israel has no right to exist is shared by anti-semites in
certain fundamentalist Islamic countries and neo-Nazi groups.  Consider
whether, as a practical matter, that position could be implemented in the
foreseeable future without making the situation even more horrifying.  And
then reconsider whether you should hold this view.

Regards, T.

---
Tobin Nellhaus
nellhaus@xxxxxxxx
"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce




     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---