[Peace-discuss] Review of Last Night's Program in anti-Semitism

[David Green]

Hi Stuart,
   
  The purpose of my post was to publish a comment on a show that I did not see--I don't even know if it was shown on WILL. The comment was disseminated on the Not in My Name (Chicago) discuss list, without further disucssion. I don't endorse the comment as a whole, although I would assume unless corrected that the show was indeed a piece of propaganda--it could hardly be anything else, since charges of anti-Semitism serve as a distraction from the fundamental issues. But it is admittedly somewhat of a red herring for the author of the critique to stress the failure of the show to mention that it was wrong to establish a Jewish state in 1948--even though it was wrong, it's been a done deal for quite some time.
   
  The question is what can be done to right that wrong, either in terms of a one-state democratic solution, or in terms of a two-state solution and justice for Palestinian citizens of Israel. I suspect that the purpose of the show was to distract viewers from these fundamental problems, as it usually is when the phrases "anti-Semitism" and "right to exist" or mentioned. Claims of Israel's fantasized "right to exist," ad nauseum, have been addressed (also ad nauseum) by those who rightfully assert that no nation has a right to exist, and that Israel is accorded diplomatic recognition in the same manner as every other nation, no more or less, such recognition being the right of sovereign states to offer or withhold without explanation or apology. Those who challenge Israel's policies of occupation/discrimination do so based on the assumption that recognition or passive acceptance of a state's continued existence in its current general form depends on that state's protecting
 the rights of its citizens, as well as observing international agreements (the Geneva Conventions regarding the rights of the occupied and the obligations of occupying powers). As a state not of its citizens, but of the "Jewish people," and as an occupying power, Israel passes neither of these tests.
   
  Nevertheless, it is the moral and legal obligation (as well as the wise and pragmatic strategy) of those proposing substantive change in the political form/existence of Israel to do so in a non-violent manner, in pursuit of the basic human and civil rights of all of those in the area, including of course the Jewish citizens of Israel; in either scheme, or an alternative (for example, bi-national) one. This standard is met by those advocating a one-state solution in a manner that will obviously not be achieved without the consent of Jewish Israelis themselves, although external tactics such as boycotts and severing diplomatic recognition need to be discussed as potentially legitimate (non-violent) options (means of persuasion)  by the international community, both in moral and pragmatic terms, as they were with South Africa.
   
  Finally, Palestinians in the occupied territories do indeed retain the right of violent resistance against the occupying military under international law, for what it's worth (not much in pragmatic or moral terms), without being accused of denying Israel's "right to exist," or even of violating the human rights of their military targets. It is equally unhelpful to accuse them of anti-Semitism, although obvioiusly I don't know whether that charge was included in this program.
   
  David

Stuart Levy <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu> wrote:
  On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 07:16:51AM -0800, David Green wrote:
> This unattributed review has been disseminated:
> 
> The PBS TV show, "Anti-Semitism in the 21st Century," that just aired
> tonight in the United States, was a very sohpisticated piece of 
> pro-Israel > (hence anti-working class) propaganda. There were a lot
> of talking heads. One was Tony Judt, who wrote an article in the
> New York Review of Books a few years ago
> that _advocated_ (http://www.nybooks. com/articles/ 16671), for the 
> first (and virtually only) time in the 21st century establishment press,
> a one-state solution to the Palestine conflict. But, revealingly,
> the idea that it is _wrong_ (http://newdemocracyworld.org/state.htm)
> for there to be a Jewish state in Palestine did not see the light
> of day in this documentary. If Tony Judt, in his taped interview,
> expressed his one-state solution belief, it was edited out.

[...]

So this anonymous reviewer is actually saying (here and elsewhere
in the review) that (s)he thinks Israel shouldn't have been
established as a state, that there should be no Jewish state where
Israel is today, even within the pre-1967 borders -- is that right?
The front page of the newdemocracyworld.org site seems to confirm that
they think so too.

Given the UN's long-since acceptance of Israel's existence, that seems
a strange thing to suggest at this point. And the reviewer doesn't
even suggest why Israel's existence should be considered wrong,
as if in some moral sense. Why would he expect a documentary
on antisemitism to bring this up?

Do you (David or anybody) understand where this person might be coming from?
How is this review being disseminated (besides on this list)?

I certainly want Israel's government to act rightly,
and to be bound by UN resolutions and by the agreements it's made,
which it is not doing. But calling for it to cease to exist
is foolish, and much worse, it promotes the idea that Israel
really needs to fear for its national life -- which it does not.
It's this kind of language that served as a cover for Israel's
bombardment of Lebanon last summer, and is liable to serve so
again in promoting an attack on Iran.

Stuart


 
---------------------------------
Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070111/3bc2e5dc/attachment-0001.html