by Martin Gilbert
Israeli citizen humiliating refugees in Tel Aviv
I WAS brought up in a fairly pious Jewish family. It might be assumed that all Jews are Zionists. Not so.
The idea of a State of Israel,
known as Zionism arose around the
1880’s-1890’s. Pre 1914 Palestine had
Jewish settlements inspired
by a range of political ideas.
There were
socialists, communists and anarchists. The right
wing
Jewish Chronicle tagged those activists as not being proper Jews.
A
stance that paper holds to-day. Below, some historical detail is
offered.
Post 1918, following the end of
the Ottoman empire Palestine
became part of the middle east “carve-up”
by French, British and
other powers.
Oil interests also grabbed a slice.
We now have two contestants.
One, totally bent
on Israel’s destruction because the Palestinian
people are controlled
by opportunists and fundamentalists.
They do not represent the
constituents they claim. Israel too has its
share of fundamentalists and
opportunists holding power.
But they have a 21st
century sophistication, quite lacking in the
Palestinians.
Both peoples
want to get on with life, having a peace that is not imposed by
militarism.
After 1945 in Europe, there were
many people displaced by the war. Jews were a significant number.
The
Zionist propaganda at that time claimed “a land without people for a
people without land”.
It ignored the Palestinians.
Following various events they were confined to an increasingly small
area.
It has been known as Gaza or the Jordan Valley. It’s ground water
and other water resources have been much reduced by the best irrigation
engineers in the world: the Israelis. Another
reason why the so called “two state solution” is impossible.
Over the decades much
international opinion has condemned Israeli colonialism in their
treatment of the Palestinians. Ever increasing settlements by Israel
continue to complicate the situation and make it worse. But too
often such international opinion has been toothless. Any criticism of
Israel has been attacked by the right as anti semitic.
Recently, Donald Trump said that
Israel should take over the Jordan valley. He is supported by the
Christian right.
They believe that Jews should have the same
geopolitical borders
they had in Biblical times.
But some Jews
in America, the U.K. and Israel have said Trump considerably adds to
the problems. Consistently, the magazine
Jewish Socialist have given
detailed reports, supporting that opinion.
Under South Africa’s apartheid
system Black Africans had to have passes to work in white areas. Also,
they were forced to live in specific areas called Bantustans.
The so called “two state solution”
is no answer. At best the
Palestinian state would only be like a
Bantustan: still controlled by
fundamentalists.
A distant idea is that
all Palestinians should be integrated into Israel
and areas that have have been stolen from them.
Recent statements by the Chief Rabbi add to the confusion and miss information. He gives the impression that “the Jewish
community” is of one, monolithic
structure, just one opinion.
It’s rather like an Arch Bishop claiming to
speak for all Christians. Lessons can be drawn from the struggle
against apartheid.
Truth and reconciliation groups
have made much progress. South
Africa still has serious problems but
there is no perfect answer.
martin gilbert, November 2019
**********************
Posts
6 comments:
The state of Israel is not the embodiment of Judaism, it is based on Zionism, a political ideology formulated by Theodor Herzl, that many Jews were initially opposed to. Many religious ultra-orthodox Jews, such as the Neturei Karta and the Satmar Hasidim, are opposed to the modern state of Israel. The Torah Jews are also vehemently opposed to Zionism and argue that most of the world's Jews today,are not Semites because they are not from the Jewish DNA line of Abraham, but originate from South eastern Europe and are Jews by religious conversion. Arthur Koestler, wrote a book called the 13th tribe, which he called the Khazar's. Today, the Askenazi Jews are thought by some to be the descendants of the Khazar. The Sephardi Jews had lived in Palestine well before the Russian and Polish colonizers moved in, and by all accounts, co-existed with their Palestian neighbours.
I was sent a link to this article and I will copy here what I said to my friend.
It's very confused. Martin rightly sees the 2 state solution for what it is but he doesn't see that Israel is a settler colonial state.
He is wrong on the origins of ZIonism. The idea didn't materialise in the 1880-1890s. It had been around for a lot longer amongst the Christian Zionists in particular.
When he says 'Pre 1914 Palestine had Jewish settlements inspire by a range of political ideas. There were socialists, communists and anarchists'
that's not true. The settlements, then called kvutza were sponsored by the Palestine Office. They weren't an eclectic mix of socialists etc. They were people who were colonists whose immediate foe was the Arab who they had evicted from the land. They were led by Palestine Poale Zion which was a rightward moving social democratic group and other non-socialist groups like Hapoel Hatzair. The settlements were always seen by the Director of the Palestine Office, a reactionary racist and believer in eugenics, Arthur Ruppin, as the most effective means of colonisation. They brought over Yemenite Jews to do the hard work and they were treated as badly as Arabs, because they were seen as Arabs. They died like flies.
When he says that there are 2 contestants
'One, totally bent on Israel’s destruction because the Palestinian people are controlled by opportunists and fundamentalists. They do not represent the constituents they claim. Israel too has its share of fundamentalists and opportunists holding power. But they have a 21st century sophistication, quite lacking in the Palestinians. Both peoples want to get on with life, having a peace that is not imposed by militarism.'
This is a racist caricature of the Palestinians. They are not 'controlled by fundamentalists' this is a typical Orientalist way of looking at colonised people. They are 'controlled' by dark forces because they are not 'sophisticated' by the 21st century racists that control Israel. It completely fails to understand that one people are oppressors and the others oppressed. The 'sophistication' of the Israeli racists including people like Deputy Defence Minister calling Palestinians 'animals' and saying that even gay Jews have a higher soul. I could repeat such comments ad nauseum but if Martin Gilbert thinks comments like that of the Chief Rabbi Ovadia Yosef that Blacks are monkeys or that of the Chief Settler Rabbi Dov Lior that a Jewish fingernail is worth more than a thousand Jewish lives he needs to check his racism not give lectures to others.
Gilbert says 'After 1945 in Europe, there were many people displaced by the war. Jews were a significant number.'
In Europe there was certainly a displacement caused by factors such as the treacherous behaviour of large parts of the German Volksdeutche who lived in Czechoslovakia and elsewhere. Without going into the rights and wrongs of what happened in Europe in the wake of the second world war there is no comparison with the ethnic cleansing in Palestine whose roots were entirely different, the desire to 'cleanse' Israel of non-Jews. The proper comparison is with Nazi Germany's expulsion of the Jews.
So apart from that it's fine!
tony greenstein
Whilst Tony makes several useful balancing correctives to Martin's original piece he does tend towards hectoring reductionism. Whilst its true that Christian Zionism predated Herzl, Tony unfairly downplays Herzl's role to simply score a sterile debating point. Herzl's Zionist Congress of 1897 is widely recognised as a crucial political event. More importantly Tony insists on asserting the reductionist analysis of Israel as a settler colony. Again in many ways it is but like all historical analogies in some ways it isn't. Colonies are classically created, peopled and controlled from a mother country but Palestine was, and continues to be, "colonised" by Jews from several countries. A colony of sorts but with unique features.As with Tony's response to Gilad Atzmon (on this site) he seems to delight in making enemies out of potential friends. We need to widen our alliance against Israel's Apartheid State not splinter into factions. Lively critical debate is essential but there's non need here to put the boot in.
Christopher Draper's comments are utter nonsense and part of the 'analysis' of Gilad Atzmon, who he quotes. Atzmon is not a friend of the Palestinians and opposes BDS which he sees as a Jewish conspiracy.
Anyone who is at all acquainted with Atzmon's views that Jews control the world and that there is a direct link from Moses to Netanyahu understands what antisemitism as opposed to anti-Zionism is. Its fools like Draper who have provide the food for the Zionists to feed on.
See my A Guide to the Sayings of Gilad Atzmon, the anti-Semitic jazzman
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2011/03/guide-to-sayings-of-gilad-atzmon-anti.html
and what many Palestinians, including Ali Abunimah Joseph Massad and Omar Barghouti had to say about this imposter
Granting No Quarter: A Call for the Disavowal of the Racism and Antisemitism of Gilad Atzmon
https://uspcn.org/2012/03/13/granting-no-quarter-a-call-for-the-disavowal-of-the-racism-and-antisemitism-of-gilad-atzmon/
or perhaps
'1. I am not a Jew anymore 2. I indeed despise the Jew in me (whatever is left) 3. I absolutely detest the Jew in you'
https://twitter.com/giladatzmon/status/546722720671875073
As for the total nonsense about settler colonialism. It is the only explanation of Israel and Zionism that makes sense. All others are subjective or racist.
It matters not a jot where the settlers came from its what they do w hen they got to Palestine that counts. If Draper knew anything about South Africa he would know that there was no mother country there too.
It was originally Dutch until the British replaced them. The settlers came from Holland, Germany and other countries inc. Britain. The Boers fought 2 wars against the British. It is irrelevant where the settlers came from it was what they did in displacing the Black population and exploiting them that matters.
I am all in favour of 'potential friends' but racists and antisemites are not amongst them.
Yes we need to widen our alliances but not to include the fruit cakes and loony tunes of the far-Right
I suggested Mr. Greenstein has a talent for treating allies as enemies and he responded with a virtuoso performance!
Apologies to Tony Greenstien and Chris Draper for my delay in replying to their comments
I made no error in showing Israel as a colonising entity. I only failed to mention that, at its founding Israel was a new form of that process..Re. The origins of “Zionism” we could say goes back to“By the waters of Babylon, we sat down and wept when we
remembered……..”
Tony knows that in the 19th century the terms: anarchist, socialist, and communist were used alike by our detractors and those who were confused as to who was say what, why and when. George Orwell’s essay about difficulties in explaining political terms is apt here.
One idea though in the 19th century was to have Jewish homeland in South America. It was an idea supported by Israel Zangwill and others. Zangwill taught at the Jewish Free School, in London’s east end where my paternal grandfather attended ( the right wing one, not the very left wing one). That teacher wrote “THE KING OF THE SHNORERS” (a Yiddish word meaning beggars). It is a brilliant peek at late 18th century Jewish life. Please forgive my lapse into pedantry!!.
Does Tony see those who control the Palestinian people as enlightened and progressive?? My view is that they are acting as the Israeli’s jailers. Maybe Tony miss trusts those who demonstrated against those “jailers” because they were young and only a few of them??
Also, please note that I reject authoritarian pronouncements where ever from:- fundamentalist Rabbis, Jews , anarchists or Marxists.
Regarding my references to the displaced persons camps after 1945:- It showed the “stick-and-carrot” situation those holocaust survivers were in “stay here and rot or go to Israel”.
Historicly we see a similar pattern, Protestant victims of 18th century land enclosures being told “stay here in England
as wandering paupers or let us take you to Ulster where you will be land lords with our protection” . Same stick same carrot”.
Re. contributions from Chris Draper. I often argue with him but basicly we are on the same side.
Post a Comment