Tuesday, June 28, 2011

How Zionism will come to a close


This has always struck me as obvious but I guess I should spell it out explicitly. Zionism will end about the same way Apartheid ended. So it may be useful to take a look at how Apartheid ended.

There never were hostile conventional, and much less nuclear, forces in Africa capable of marching to Johannesburg or Cape Town and capturing the Apartheid state by force. If Apartheid had not capitulated, there would be no forces hostile forces in Africa capable of doing so even today.

What there was, was a situation where the resources available to sustain Apartheid were declining while those available to oppose it were increasing. Would there ever have come a point where there were more and better organized guns on the anti-Apartheid side than the pro-Apartheid side? Maybe in 100 years. That was the general direction or trend by the time Apartheid ended, but it was a trend that posed no threat of being reached in any near or medium term.

Long before anti-Apartheid forces actually got more bullets than pro-Apartheid forces, the anti-Apartheid forces would have had enough bullets to make the quality of life White South Africans enjoyed unsustainable.

That was the short and medium-term threat that resulted in White South Africans negotiating a relatively graceful end to their Apartheid project.

That is the short and medium-term threat that will result in Jewish Israelis negotiating a relatively graceful end to their Zionist project.

I write this because I often read claims that Israel's current conventional and nuclear weapons superiority over the other countries in its region make it invincible. Nobody cares about Israel's conventional or nuclear weapons. They don't play a role in the function that determines Israel's viability at all.

Anti-Zionist groups will not need more guns that Israel overall to reach the point that they can shoot Israeli passenger airplanes from the sky from their territory. Once that point has been reached, Israel will either have to clear the area of Palestinians, accept that they just are not able to use airplanes the way everyone else in the world can, or negotiate a graceful end to Zionism. Of course, they are going to choose the third option.

The example of shooting down airplanes is just one way that comes to mind that a hostile population with unmet demands can make it impossible for an oppressing population to enjoy a reasonable standard of living. It is really not even a good example, but it illustrates that given resources, which would be very available if the United States did not maintain a US/Zionist colonial structure to deny political power to the people of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Kuwait and others, there are a lot of ways the Palestinians could it just not worth it for Israel to maintain a necessarily majority Jewish state for its 5.7 million Jews.

This is not even a difficult state to reach. The United States has expended trillions of dollars directly and indirectly preventing the outcome of anti-Zionist forces having the resources necessary to fundamentally disrupt the quality of life of Jewish people in Palestine. If not for that, Zionism would not have lasted even as long as Apartheid did.

So what would happen, really before, but I'll say when Palestinian resistance organizations get even a significant chance of successfully being able to destroy an Israeli airliner with three hundred passengers on it?

Could Israel use its nuclear forces as a deterrent? Can Israel say to Egypt, to an accountable Republic of Arabia, Iran, Lebanon, Syria and/or Iraq that if anyone pays or otherwise helps equip the Palestinians with Chinese, Russian, Ukrainian or French-made anti-aircraft weapons, Israel will mount a nuclear response? Who would believe that threat? The threat just is not credible.

Let's say that despite their threat not being credible, Israel actually carried it out. Let's say Israel kills 10 million Muslims in retaliation for the three hundred Jewish passengers on that airplane. Would that save Israeli lives or cause more Israelis to die? When Israel uses a nuclear weapon on a civilian Arab or Muslim population, it has, at most, a few years left of existence, and it guarantees a huge number of Jewish deaths worldwide.

Nuclear weapons are of no use at all against the real short and medium-term threat against Israel, the threat that White South Africans capitulated to.

What about Israel's conventional weapons? Israel can threaten to occupy more territory to prevent the Palestinians from being armed. Except now Israel is fighting the war it lost in Lebanon in 2006 on more sides and against more and better financed opponents. The civilians it saves from attacks on airplanes it will lose in the form of soldiers carrying out any occupation of the hostile territories around it.

The cost of preventing the Palestinians from emerging as a force capable of disrupting the Jewish way of life in Palestine by conventional military methods ends up being at least almost as high, maybe higher, than the cost of the disruption itself.

The job of the US/Zionist colonial structure is not importantly to prevent anti-Zionist forces from reaching conventional or nuclear parity with Israel. The most important role of the colonial structure is to prevent the people of the colonies of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Kuwait and others from supporting the Palestinians just as the US citizens support the Jewish Israelis.

Once that structure breaks down, and it is coming apart now, the average person in what is now Saudi Arabia cares a lot more about the Palestinians than the average American does about the Israelis. The Palestinians will have an amount of resources available to them by the cooperation of a government of an independent Republic of Arabia that will be more than enough to impose high daily costs on Jewish Israelis if they choose.

The United States keeps more than 100 million people living under colonial subject dictatorships to prevent that from happening. Its tremendous expenditures in the region, ultimately including the costs of its occupations is for the service of preventing the outcome above. Barack Obama lies when he describes this process as the US' strategic objectives "not being perfectly aligned" with its supposed long term vision.

But when the US becomes unwilling or unable to perform the task of maintaining a US/Zionist colonial structure, a task that violently contradicts the US' founding core values, Zionism will end. It will not end because of a nuclear exchange or because of a defeat of its conventional forces - even though without the US/Zionist colonial structure adversaries of Zionism could, unlike in Southern Africa, very quickly achieve both nuclear and conventional parity with Israel.

Zionism will end because, like in South Africa, the writing will be on the wall, that even though Israel has legacy advantages, the trends will be pointing in a direction that Jewish Israelis will be better off living with a non-Jewish political majority than helplessly watching their adversaries become more and more able to disrupt their way of life.

16 comments:

George Carty said...

Why can't Israel eliminate the Palestinian threat by expelling or exterminating them?

One crucial difference between Israel and Apartheid South Africa is that White South Africans depended on cheap black labor for their high standard of living. This was a strong reason not to attempt to create an all-white South African state.

(Although bizarrely, back in the 1920s the South African Communist Party of all people had the slogan "Workers of the World! Unite and fight for a White South Africa!")

Israel on the other hand has always sought to avoid dependence on Palestinian labor, and historically its Histadrut labor union movement sought to obstruct Israeli firms from employing Palestinians.

Arnold Evans said...

Israel exterminating Palestinians in concentration camps? Basically it wouldn't work. The colonial structure Israel requires to be viable would break down long before then.

Once the Palestinians have full Arab and Muslim support in their region, they can make the expulsion, much less the extermination of the Palestinians a very unattractive option for Israel. Much more unattractive than living under in a state that may not have a Jewish majority.

George Carty said...

Your original post essentially posits that the greatest threat to Zionism comes from Palestinian terrorism, and that the purpose of the US/Zionist colonial structure in the Middle East is to make it more difficult for Middle Eastern Muslims to fund and arm Palestinian terrorists.

My point is that Palestinian terrorism only threatens Israel if there are Palestinians within the lands controlled by Israel. Remove the Palestinian population and the terrorist threat goes away. The only threat to Israel is then conventional invasion, which can be deterred by Israel's nuclear arsenal. The colonial puppet regimes in the Arab world would no longer be necessary.

Of course, if Israel did follow this path there'd probably be a massive worldwide economic embargo which would utterly ruin the Israeli economy.

As for expulsion vs. extermination, I suspect the former would be the plan for Israel, but it may turn into the latter, as the Jordanians would almost certainly destroy the bridges over the River Jordan if there was any attempt by Israel to expel the Palestinians in their direction.

Arnold Evans said...

Of course, if Israel did follow this path there'd probably be a massive worldwide economic embargo which would utterly ruin the Israeli economy.

Pretty much. That path would not be easier on the 5.7 million Jews of Israel than negotiating a graceful end of Zionism.

Your characterization of my original post is mostly accurate. I'd probably say the threat or potential for terrorism would be enough to defeat Zionism before the threat or potential for conventional military conflict becomes enough to defeat Zionism.

It's really the same decision the White South Africans made for the same reason.

One quibble is that beyond an invasion, independent Arabs could blockade Israel which would be immune to nuclear counter-measures and also put Israel into a position that it's easier just to call off Zionism.

But even though independent states in the region would eventually, and relatively quickly close the gap in conventional military strength, that doesn't matter because Zionism, like Apartheid, wouldn't last long enough to see its current lead in conventional arms fully dissipate.

Anonymous said...

Israel and South Africa have many things in common, but they have one fundamental difference that sets them apart. Western support for Israel is firmly rooted within the theory of multiculturalism, which is a political/cultural concept that has been on the rise in the United States since the 1960's. It is within this framework that many supporters of Israel, whether Leftist or Neocon, are able to operate in Western countries and influence political discourse in favor of Israel without anyone challenging them (at least not openly or aggressively enough). One of the central tenets (if you can call it that) of multiculturalism is to understand the importance of Jewish suffering, both historical and potential future sufferings, and steps that every Gentile must take to prevent it. I tend to agree Atzmon when he says it's almost like a secular religion:
http://www.counterpunch.org/atzmon03032007.html

This was not the case with South Africa. In many ways, the case of South Africa was the exact opposite of Israel, because supporting the indigenous Africans against European Whites fit so well within the multicultural framework.

For one to understand the level of Western support for Israel and forecast it's future, one needs to understand the set of political and cultural forces that are in play in the US. Multiculturalism has been on the rise in the US since the 60's and has yet to peak. When (or if) it does peak, it will also bring an end to unconditional Western support for Israel.

lidia said...

"Western support for Israel is firmly rooted within the theory of multiculturalism, which is a political/cultural concept that has been on the rise in the United States since the 1960's"

No, it is not. Western support to Zionist colonialism is rooted in western colonialism. All else is just hot air. Of course, Holocaust industry has its use, but only as a fig leaf.

Anonymous said...

"Western support to Zionist colonialism is rooted in western colonialism."

Either you don't live in the US or you are seriously deluded.

Making the above comment could you get you fired from most public jobs in the US (actually from most private companies too), because it's considered racist to compare Zionism to colonialism. Multiculturalism says Jews are eternal victims and those who criticize them are labeled as anti-Semites. This is means you are an anti-Semite by making the above comment.

Most good liberals consider Zionism a reaction to White European racism. They see the Palestinian problem as an inconvenient side effect of liberating the eternal victims: the Jews.

lidia said...

of course, supporters of colonialism are mostly not going to admit it. They use smoke and mirrors, just as you say it. Some of them could even believe in it :) But the colonialism is a colonialism by any other name....

And I do NOT live in USA but I do know something about USA politics. If "multiculturalism" was the reason, USA would not do what they really do in Haiti, for ex.

George Carty said...

Here in Britain the Holocaust hasn't been Zionized to the same extent that it has in the United States.

Here it was anti-neo-Nazi activists such as the Anti-Nazi League (now renamed to Unite Against Fascism) which played a big part in bringing the Holocaust into the public eye.

The ANL had links to the Socialist Workers' Party, which was 100% anti-Zionist. In fact, in the past decade there was a political party called "RESPECT - The Unity Coalition" which combined SWP activists with Muslim Association of Britain activists. The MAB is essentially the UK wing of the Muslim Brotherhood movement.

Most of the districts contested by RESPECT had heavily Muslim populations.

Dermot Moloney said...

"So I'll let history argue better than I could."

You cant for the events you said would transpire involving a nation state ending due certain actions ( shooting airlines out of the sky) by its own choice has never occurred in recent history.
Even in south africa the nation did not end, it merely changed its policies towards how it treated its citizens in its borders. 

So arnold i stress again your piece relies on far fetched presumptions not supported by history.

The fact that you try to use history to defend your piece is frankly bizarre for history actually argues against it, again the likes of sharon thought he could attempt such a thing and it has been unsuccessful.

Arnold Evans said...

Everything you've written you could have written about White rule of South Africa in 1979.  Every single point.

So I'll let history argue better than I could.

Dermot Moloney said...

How zionism will come to a close?

Arnold your entire case is made up of presumptions that simply dont hold out in reality.

Basically you think that others can make life in israel and on israelis so hard that they will simply end the existence of their state.

This is frankly moronically stupid, its like something that certain israelis believe, that if they can punish the Palestinians enough they will simply give up. A few decades later we cant exactly say that such a move has been that successful.

Basically for you belief to work the other people in the region have to be both militarily and personally willing to engage in such an action.

Others would have to not intervene.

And israel will have to behave in the way that you have predicted.

All these things are pretty out there but to believe that they will all happened is completely detached from reality.

Trying to blockade israel to shoot down its civilian airlines would be difficult  for israel has a large coast, also such a move nowadays not to mention later would bring about international outrage even from those critical against israel.

Secondly one must think very little about the moral character of arabs if one thinks that they would engage in a policy so extreme.

Factually we know such a thing would not occur for current democratic governments in the region do not engage in such behavior and also due to the fact that most people in the region are willing to accept peace in return for the two state solution. They do not support all out aggression nor do they believe that violence will achieve their goals.

So the idea that the arab actors involved are going to behave as arnold believes is far far fetched, a presumption not grounded in reality.

Also such actions if they did occur would most likely rally world opinion against those involved making such moves, in a way it would rally world opinion just as apartheid rallied world opinion. And just like apartheid such policies would have difficulty sustaining themselves.

The worse presumption by arnold is israels reaction to all this, again with the same mentality of those like sharon he believes that a people will just give up their existence as a national group or rights to a national group due to mistreatment but this is easier imagined than put in place.

The truth is a nation would not end itself due to the actions mentioned, even full scale invasions are often unable to stop a country from being.

As i said before these are presumption not grounded in reality.

Presumptions not grounded in reality? Maybe this site should be renamed that.

George Carty said...

I see that Spain has recently decided that descendants of the expelled Sephardic Jews will become eligible for Spanish citizenship. I wonder what effect this will have on Israel?

Currently I get the impression that Sephardic Israelis are usually more hard-line on the Palestinian question than Ashkenazis (perhaps because they the latter see Europe and North America as potential boltholes, while the former do not) -- maybe this will change things?

лидия said...

. ALL Zionists are racists. It is a core of Zionism - than Jews have right to take others' land. GC, please not repeat racist Zionist Ashkenazi propaganda against Zionist racist Mizrahim.
The reality is : there are more liberal Ashkenazi Zionist racists than liberal Mizrahim Zionist racists. Liberal Zionist racists are against Palestinian right of return. Anything else is just smoke and mirrors (or tear gas and aparteid wall)

George Carty said...

Sephardic and Mizrahi Israelis do not see themselves as racists, but as
victims of Arab Jew-hatred. Most of them originated in Arab countries
and were expelled to Israel in the wake of 1948, despite the fact that
they were no more to blame for the Nakba than the Palestinians were to
blame for Hitler's Holocaust.

This expulsion was stupid in the extreme, as it gave the Zionist enterprise a legitimacy that it never deserved.

I assumed that Sephardim and Mizrahim were more anti-Arab because they are more likely to vote Likud than Ashkenazim -- are you suggesting that this voting pattern isn't anything to do with the strength of anti-Arab sentiment at all, but on something else? (Maybe they are just more socially conservative?)

What do you think it would take for the Sephardim and Mizrahim could reconcile with the Arab world and reverting to their old status as "Arab Jews"? (After all, aren't a lot of them fluent in Arabic even now?)

лидия said...

Left Zionists do not see themselves as racists, else. So what?
1) A lot of Mizrahi Jews are duped by Zionists, set up and lured to occupied Palestine
2) A lot of Mizrahi Jews do NOT agree that they are victims and that they are proud Zionists
3) Some Mizrahi Jews helped Zionists to set up Mizrahi Jews (Egypt)
4) Arab states which expelled Mizrahi Jews had been asked by Zionists to do so (Iraq)
5) Of course, all Mizrahi Jews should have a right of return to their homeland, but Palestinans is even less guilty in their plight than Mizrahi in Palestinians' - Mizrahim are colonizers of Palestinian land. If Mizrahim stop to be Zionists and colonizers, they sure could reconcile

One more time - ALL Zionist parites, Merez included, are racist. Period. There were different fractions of racists always. So what?.