Our Zoom call this Friday will be about the controversy at the University of California at Berkeley Law School, where nine student groups last year declared that they would not host Zionist speakers. In part because of that decision, the federal Department of Education is now
Yes, Balfour was quite antisemitic. I don't think that's true of all christian Zionists, either then or now. But stereotypes of Jews as alien and all-powerful did influence Britain's decision to support the Zionist project, which they thought would help them curry favor with Jews in the US and Russia, who they saw as more powerful than they really were--and who they thought could ensure American and Russian support in WWI. Segev deals with some of this. I think Rashid Khalidi is at work on a book at the parallels between Ireland and Israel-Palestine.
of course Israeli Jews have rights: The individual right to be treated equally, to have freedom of religion, speech etc and the collective right to autonomy (running schools in Hebrew, etc). These rights are what make a democracy a liberal democracy. But none of this entail denying voting rights and legal equality to Palestinians, which undermines democracy itself.
I agree. Maybe should have made that clearer. The Zionist organization probably didn't have that much to fear in America--but it did have a lot to fear in democracy. Best, Peter
i've argued this for years. self-determination in the framework of legal equality, which means Jewish autonomy (and Palestinian autonomy) not Jewish (or Palestinian) sovereignty. And yes, this is compatible with the cultural, non-statist zionist tradition that dates from Ahad Ha'am. You can read more here https://jewishcurrents.org/there-is-no-right-to-a-state
Beinart is showing in this article that he has no principles: that hating Israel is all that matters to him. The majority gets whatever it wants and the minority has to abide by it is not “democracy,” Beinart, it’s populism. And populism directly contradicts your so-called progressive and liberal values. Minorities have rights, including Jewish minorities, even if that upsets you.
An Arab majority oppressing and ruling over a Jewish minority for the rest of time is democratic the way Segev says it is because Arabs are the majority and that’s what they want. But most people know it’s actually quite the opposite of democratic: that minorities have fewer votes but they also have rights. And it’s not anti democratic for minorities to set up institutions that only benefit them. Just ask Black Lives Matter.
PS: I would never in a million years actually give you money, but I would like to know if in your Zoom call about the “Jew free zones” in Berkeley you discuss the preposterous hypocrisy of pro-Palestinians banning Zionist speakers while simultaneously whining about how there’s “a Palestine exception to free speech.” Fuckers.
Peter, you have touched on a fundamental hypocrisy.
You complain that Zionism was "anti-democratic" because since the majority of people in Palestine were Palestinian Arabs who didn't want Jews to have a state, their views were overridden.
How then does that align with the liberal, progressive views of respecting minority rights? You cannot complain and say that it's "anti-democratic" when a minority advocates for their rights, against the will of the majority, and also claim to be liberal and progressive. Did the American Civil Rights movement "run counter to the principles of democracy", when a black minority demanded rights and were opposed by the majority of white racists?
"Israeli Arabs" can vote, but they canNOT vote for a party that does not support Israel as a Jewish and democratic state [sic]. A couple of weeks ago I was talking to a Zionist who didn't know that.
And I went to a Regavim event a couple of weeks ago (to observe). They had five of them in Toronto. There were seventeen people at the one I attended, none of them young (!). The speaker didn't say the land was given to the Jews by God, but by Britain, after World War I. Interesting. Why anyone, today, would regard the disposal of land they didn't own by the colonial powers of the time as morally, let alone legally, valid is beyond my understanding.
Spot on as regards the Palestinians. However, the issues of over-riding Court decisions, impact for women, support of yeshivas,, etc. are not rooted in the past and are frightening and important changes.
I don't know how it fits into your position about democracy in the USA, but, for me, the American fight to destroy democracies world-wide (and especially in Central and South America) in its role as an imperial empire, is equally important.
As always, so thoughtful thank you for all you do. Happy New Year!!
Wow, what quote at the end! I know a lot of attention is (and not wrongly) focused on America when it comes to The Israel-Palestine conflict, but I think it's really important to remember that England really started this whole thing. And wasn't Balfour himself an anti-semite (as Christian-Zionists often are sadly)? Not to point fingers at others, because when dealing with conflict, the most important thing to do is start with SELF-interrogation, but England's colonialist projects (Israel is a little different in this regard, but there are some common strands of course) have caused most of the major conflicts in the world. I say this, because I think we can learn about each one from studying each one. They all have their own flavor, but many commonalities. The Troubles in Ireland is one I like to look at when it comes to Israel-Palestine. Ireland is England's first/oldest colony. I find some of the narrative around terrorism, "democracy," exclusion, etc between the two conflicts to have dynamics that can glean wisdom from one another. Also, just generally, I'd love to see England take more responsibility for the crap it's left all over the world. Maybe I don't hear it because I'm not there, but from a distance, it seems shocking to me how little awareness/action there is with England taking responsibility for its many nefarious actions.
hi the only solution to Israel problem is simple but must be in cooperation with Jordan.
you label Israel as Palestine which is a grave mistake. Palestine is Biblical Israel which comprises of Modern Israel and Jordan.
Today Israel should annex the entire West Bank and issue Jordanian Passport to its Palestinian population with special right to reside in Israel as long as they will stay away from Terror respect their family society and the state of Israel as a jewish state as it is stated in the Quran writing by the Muslim Prophet Mohammed/
today we have an estate of biblical stature called the temple mount which has been annexed by Israel under its local law while the Top part of the Temple Mount has been handed over to the Jordan under special understanding.
So my idea is nothing new. Sadly our leader missed the boat in 1967.
As for Gaza Israel must give it back to Egypt officially and the citizen of that strip should be issued with Egyptian passport.
The time has come to be clearer about the state of Israel. The Ottoman empire never created a Muslim Palestinian state because that would go against the Quran. As for the Christian world they deliberately avoided giving back old Jerusalem and the west bank to the Jews for antisemitism never died at the end of the Shoah and lives till today in the blood of the western world.
The issue is to keep the peace and to give the people of the land dignity. thank you. Just a thought towards peace
Yes, Balfour was quite antisemitic. I don't think that's true of all christian Zionists, either then or now. But stereotypes of Jews as alien and all-powerful did influence Britain's decision to support the Zionist project, which they thought would help them curry favor with Jews in the US and Russia, who they saw as more powerful than they really were--and who they thought could ensure American and Russian support in WWI. Segev deals with some of this. I think Rashid Khalidi is at work on a book at the parallels between Ireland and Israel-Palestine.
of course Israeli Jews have rights: The individual right to be treated equally, to have freedom of religion, speech etc and the collective right to autonomy (running schools in Hebrew, etc). These rights are what make a democracy a liberal democracy. But none of this entail denying voting rights and legal equality to Palestinians, which undermines democracy itself.
I agree. Maybe should have made that clearer. The Zionist organization probably didn't have that much to fear in America--but it did have a lot to fear in democracy. Best, Peter
i've argued this for years. self-determination in the framework of legal equality, which means Jewish autonomy (and Palestinian autonomy) not Jewish (or Palestinian) sovereignty. And yes, this is compatible with the cultural, non-statist zionist tradition that dates from Ahad Ha'am. You can read more here https://jewishcurrents.org/there-is-no-right-to-a-state
Is this Jacques Albeldas my cousin! If so, it's really wonderful to hear from you.
Thanks. Much appreciated. Peter
Yes, that's true. Religious control over important aspects of Israeli life isn't new but it could grow more intrusive. Best, Peter
I lost the old ones! Thanks, Peter
Beinart is showing in this article that he has no principles: that hating Israel is all that matters to him. The majority gets whatever it wants and the minority has to abide by it is not “democracy,” Beinart, it’s populism. And populism directly contradicts your so-called progressive and liberal values. Minorities have rights, including Jewish minorities, even if that upsets you.
An Arab majority oppressing and ruling over a Jewish minority for the rest of time is democratic the way Segev says it is because Arabs are the majority and that’s what they want. But most people know it’s actually quite the opposite of democratic: that minorities have fewer votes but they also have rights. And it’s not anti democratic for minorities to set up institutions that only benefit them. Just ask Black Lives Matter.
PS: I would never in a million years actually give you money, but I would like to know if in your Zoom call about the “Jew free zones” in Berkeley you discuss the preposterous hypocrisy of pro-Palestinians banning Zionist speakers while simultaneously whining about how there’s “a Palestine exception to free speech.” Fuckers.
Peter, you have touched on a fundamental hypocrisy.
You complain that Zionism was "anti-democratic" because since the majority of people in Palestine were Palestinian Arabs who didn't want Jews to have a state, their views were overridden.
How then does that align with the liberal, progressive views of respecting minority rights? You cannot complain and say that it's "anti-democratic" when a minority advocates for their rights, against the will of the majority, and also claim to be liberal and progressive. Did the American Civil Rights movement "run counter to the principles of democracy", when a black minority demanded rights and were opposed by the majority of white racists?
As always, spot on. Thanks, Peter.
"Israeli Arabs" can vote, but they canNOT vote for a party that does not support Israel as a Jewish and democratic state [sic]. A couple of weeks ago I was talking to a Zionist who didn't know that.
And I went to a Regavim event a couple of weeks ago (to observe). They had five of them in Toronto. There were seventeen people at the one I attended, none of them young (!). The speaker didn't say the land was given to the Jews by God, but by Britain, after World War I. Interesting. Why anyone, today, would regard the disposal of land they didn't own by the colonial powers of the time as morally, let alone legally, valid is beyond my understanding.
Spot on as regards the Palestinians. However, the issues of over-riding Court decisions, impact for women, support of yeshivas,, etc. are not rooted in the past and are frightening and important changes.
I don't know how it fits into your position about democracy in the USA, but, for me, the American fight to destroy democracies world-wide (and especially in Central and South America) in its role as an imperial empire, is equally important.
As always, so thoughtful thank you for all you do. Happy New Year!!
Wow, what quote at the end! I know a lot of attention is (and not wrongly) focused on America when it comes to The Israel-Palestine conflict, but I think it's really important to remember that England really started this whole thing. And wasn't Balfour himself an anti-semite (as Christian-Zionists often are sadly)? Not to point fingers at others, because when dealing with conflict, the most important thing to do is start with SELF-interrogation, but England's colonialist projects (Israel is a little different in this regard, but there are some common strands of course) have caused most of the major conflicts in the world. I say this, because I think we can learn about each one from studying each one. They all have their own flavor, but many commonalities. The Troubles in Ireland is one I like to look at when it comes to Israel-Palestine. Ireland is England's first/oldest colony. I find some of the narrative around terrorism, "democracy," exclusion, etc between the two conflicts to have dynamics that can glean wisdom from one another. Also, just generally, I'd love to see England take more responsibility for the crap it's left all over the world. Maybe I don't hear it because I'm not there, but from a distance, it seems shocking to me how little awareness/action there is with England taking responsibility for its many nefarious actions.
hi the only solution to Israel problem is simple but must be in cooperation with Jordan.
you label Israel as Palestine which is a grave mistake. Palestine is Biblical Israel which comprises of Modern Israel and Jordan.
Today Israel should annex the entire West Bank and issue Jordanian Passport to its Palestinian population with special right to reside in Israel as long as they will stay away from Terror respect their family society and the state of Israel as a jewish state as it is stated in the Quran writing by the Muslim Prophet Mohammed/
today we have an estate of biblical stature called the temple mount which has been annexed by Israel under its local law while the Top part of the Temple Mount has been handed over to the Jordan under special understanding.
So my idea is nothing new. Sadly our leader missed the boat in 1967.
As for Gaza Israel must give it back to Egypt officially and the citizen of that strip should be issued with Egyptian passport.
The time has come to be clearer about the state of Israel. The Ottoman empire never created a Muslim Palestinian state because that would go against the Quran. As for the Christian world they deliberately avoided giving back old Jerusalem and the west bank to the Jews for antisemitism never died at the end of the Shoah and lives till today in the blood of the western world.
The issue is to keep the peace and to give the people of the land dignity. thank you. Just a thought towards peace