I see this statement made often, just saw it recently made over at raceforiran so I thought I'd write a quick response.
At the time Israel became a UN member state, the UN also determined that Congo should be a Belgian colony (along with many other such as Vietnam and Algeria for France and India for Great Britain), Apartheid South Africa was a UN member state. The UN was at the time an openly racist, openly Western colonialist institution.
The statement I see often is true. Israel is a UN member state. I've never been sure what argument that statement was ever meant to advance.
Israel will still be a UN member state after it accepts non-Jewish refugees and their descendants, no longer has an enforced Jewish political majority, changes its flag and changes its name.
If Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, UAE, Kuwait and other current effective US colonies were free to pursue foreign policies set by those countries' voters, we would see post-Zionist Israel this decade. Much faster than the eight years between US sanctions on Apartheid South Africa and the installation of that country's first Black prime minister.
The United States is expending a tremendous amount of resources preventing fewer than six million Jewish people from suffering the indignity that befell South Africa's White population. South Africa's Whites live under a majority-Black government but US policy is that Israel's Jews must, at any cost, - especially any cost to the non-Jewish people of the region - never live under a majority non-Jewish government.
The question of Israel is how long the US will be able and willing to pay the cost of subjugating over 400 million non-Jews in Israel's region on behalf of those fewer than six million Jews.
The fact that Israel as an enforced Jewish political majority state is a UN member could not be less relevant.
6 comments:
I think that Middle Eastern countries should start inviting back descendents of their pre-Zionist Jewish populations. That would undermine Israeli paranoia about a second Holocaust, which in turn would eliminate the Samson Option threat.
(If the Samson Option was ever actually used, no Jew on Earth would ever be safe again, so it would only be used if the Israel Jews really did think they were about to be exterminated...)
GC thinks too high about Zionists if he suppose that Zionists are motivated by paranoia. Zionists are motivated by colonial racist greed. period.
Iranian and some other Jews (Morocco) live in their countries. Does it help? Not a bit. On the contrary, Zionists are all time trying to lure Jews into Israel, not the other way around. They need Jews as a cannon fodder, but, even more important, as 'demographic" weapon against Palestinians. Zionists OPENLY call Palestinian citizens of Israel "demographic threat". So, sane Jews do not live in Zionist colony, and Zionist Jews do NOT wish for Arabs invite them back. After all, in Zionist colony they are "master race". Till the end of Zionism (I suppose, pretty near now), Jews would not return to their countries. But I am sure with the end of Zionism they would. I suppose the end of Zionism would be possible with the democratic ME, so I could not see why the ME population would not invite Mizrahi Jews to return, if they wish to do it.
Regarding Samson Option - I do not believe that even Zionists could be SO crazy. As Arnold pointed before, white racists in Africa threatened to do something like it, but they clearly did not :)
"I've never been sure what argument that statement was ever meant to advance."
That it is a legal state under international law, also trying to dismiss the decisions of the un isnt always the wisest move for it helps to provide fuel to colonists in the west bank.
"If Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, UAE, Kuwait and other current effective US colonies were free to pursue foreign policies set by those countries' voters, we would see post-Zionist Israel this decade."
The available evidence doesnt back up this claim.
"subjugating over 400 million non-Jews in Israel's region on behalf of those fewer than six million Jews."
They are those who are facing oppressive policies because of israel, but these would be the palestinains, not the likes of the kuwaitis or saudis.
"Till the end of Zionism (I suppose, pretty near now)"
Could you be nice enough to provide a time frame that we can test how accurate your predictive powers are?
I thought the Zionists (most of them anyway -- no doubt there are some who get their jollies oppressing "inferior" Arabs) regarded themselves as a national liberation movement, little different to the many others which came into being during the 19th century.
The problem is that practically every other national liberation movement concerned a people who already had a homeland (a piece of territory where they were the majority ethnic group) and their aim was to either to free that homeland from a foreign empire (or three foreign empires in Poland's case), or (in the case of Italy and Germany) to overthrow the petty princes and establish a united national government.
The Jews had no homeland, so the Zionists had to create one. As a homeless nationalism, Zionism became perforce an ideology of ethnic cleansing.
As for Zionists being paranoid, that's the result of the Holocaust. One can note that Armenia (another nation that suffered genocide in the first half of the 20th century) has also been responsible for brutal ethnic cleansing (of Azeris in Nagorno-Karabakh) driven by this paranoia.
As for Apartheid South Africa not using its nuclear weapons, that's because it only had free-fall bombs, which could have been stopped by conventional air defence (at least if the rest of the world had closed ranks against Apartheid). Israel has nuclear ballistic missiles. Also, the white South Africans aren't as paranoid as the Israelis, as deaths of Boers in British concentration camps during the Boer War, while horrible, weren't on the same scale as the Holocaust, and were the result of British callousness, not of a premeditated genocide.
1) GC would be surprised to learn that Zionists from the beginning saw their endeavor as a colonization. Jabotinski, for ex, openly in 1920th compared Palestinians with "Red Indians" (he also commented that no colonized people would agree to be colonized even by such nice colonizers as in will-be USA, he seriously saw colonization in USA as benign). The very telling quotation from Ben Gurion
"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?" In short, it was NOT about "national liberation" but about "taking/sealing their country". Just like in Rhodesia.
2) I do not see any reasons to base my understanding of Zionism on their "paranoia". It just does NOT add anything I could not find in looking at ANY OTHER colonizer. The same about Armenia - they did no more and no less than their neighbors who had not suffered from either genocide or paranoia.
3) Thus I see no reason to dwell on Afrikaners paranoia as well, esp. given we have argued about it before.
Post a Comment