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.
19 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.
My point is that Zionism, as a homeless nationalism, was both national liberation (from the Zionist POV) and colonization (from the Palestinian POV). Rhodesia's UDI may have been a sort of national liberation, but the original colonization of Rhodesia certainly wasn't.
GC, Zionists WANTED to grab more rich land. They spoke about South America and Africa. They just were not lucky in getting them.
And I cannot get how anyone could make one's "national liberation" on others' colonized land. Irish national liberation was and is in Ireland, not in Africa or America. Vietnamese national liberation fought for Vietnam, not for Africa or Latin America. Algerian national liberation was in Algeria. Palestinians are not going to be nationally liberated in Africa or America, but in Palestine, and their is the real national liberation.
Jews are NOT people, they are religion-cultural bodies - several of them at least. Zionist Jews were and are just colonizers, their fantasies and lies notwithstanding.
Irish, Vietnamese, Algerian and Palestinian nationalisms were not homeless -- they already had a homeland which they could (or can, in the Palestinian case) fight for.
How do you feel about the Armenian nationalism of the late-19th and early 20th century? Armenian nationalism resembled Zionism in that the nationalist population concerned was a small minority (in the six Ottoman vilayets that the Armenians claimed for their homeland, over 80% of the population was not Armenian, but Kurdish or Turkish) meaning that massive ethnic cleansing would be needed to create an Armenian nation state. It did differ from Zionism however in that it was no "colonization" from outside, but was for the intended benefit of an indigenous (albeit minority) population.
Other nation-states established in former Ottoman territory also necessitated ethnic cleansing -- in parts of what became Bulgaria, Muslims were the single largest group, and there were almost as many Greeks as Bulgarians.
European colonial settlers in what now is called USA are good analogy to Zionism as well. No wonder Zhabotinski used them as an example of "nice" colonialists.
But Zionists were not as lucky though as settler colonialists (USA). Zionists could not (for different reasons but not for lack of trying) to cleanse all Palestinians from Palestine, and natives of the ME would never agree to the Zionist colonial settler state.
"most Egyptians favor overturning the 1979 peace treaty in which Egypt became the first Arab country to formally recognize Israel.Roughly six in 10 want to annul the treaty, up from last year's 54 percent. Opposition to the treaty significantly rose over the last year among young people and the highly educated, Pew said"
here http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11601102-poll-most-egyptians-think-us-aid-billions-have-negative-effect?lite%3Focid=twitter
(by the way, there is also "Cairo receives $1.3 billion annually from the U.S. government in military aid, according to the State Department. However, the Pew poll shows six in 10 Egyptians think it has a negative effect...)
Both Armenians and Bulgarians were NOT colonial settlers from abroad. Jews, who had been living in Palestine before Zionist colonization were NOT Zionists. Zionism was and is a colonialism, just like in Rhodesia.
GC, you could unearth million other examples from all human history :) Zionists do it as well. But it could not change the simple fact - Zionism is the colonialism and Israel is Rhodesia (Egypt is Angola). They will have the same fate.
In North America and the Antipodes, the natives were still in the stone age, and over 90% of them were wiped out by Old World diseases, often before white men even arrived in their area. In what is now the Southern United States, it is believed that Hernando de Soto's pigs were the main culprit in terms of spreading the pathogens. (Did a similar holocaust happen in the ancient Middle East and give rise to the Judeo-Islamic pork prohibition, I wonder?)
The Europeans cannot be held morally responsible for this -- the natives were so horrifically vulnerable that they were living on borrowed time, and it wasn't a question of if the Old World would kill them, but when.
The Zionists -- who sought to sweep away a nation (Palestine) which was their near-equal in development -- were far more morally reprehensible than the settlers in North America and Australia (who believed they were settling virgin land, and were in fact repopulating a post-apocalyptic wasteland). It still wasn't as bad as the Nazis' Generalplan Ost though, or the Mongol conquests (which actually sought a technological retrogression).
GC, European settlers murdered enough natives directly, or just left them without livelihood (land and so on) , so, please, do not try to excuse them. We know what colonizers did and why - all their "believes" are irrelevant. Hitler "believed" that Slaves were not rightful inhabitants of their lands, so what?
Zionists also used to talk about "land without people for people without land" in Palestine. They still try to "prove" that there were no Palestinians as such before Zionist colonization of "desert".
ALL colonialists are more or less the same - Nazis, Zionists or their teachers aka "pilgrims, pioneers and founding fathers". All of them were grabbing others' land under some stupid lie pretext.
Monglos, on the other hand, were just nomads who needed more land to their not too progressive mean of production. They were awful to their victims, but now Iraqis say that USA/UK "hi-tech" occupation are much worse. By the way, imperialist wars and colonialism usually bring exactly retrogression. Even in Russia deindustrialisation was the result of "liberation from communism" with the friendly help of imperialists.
The Zionists can point out that Israel/Palestine was Jewish in population before it was Arab, so it isn't at all clear that your preference for indigenous populations over newcomers is a valid argument against Zionism! (That's why I asked about your views on Armenian nationalism -- if you opposed Zionism for its crimes of ethnic cleansing, then you would have to side with the Ottoman Empire against the Armenian ethnic nationalists...)
How long must a population inhabit a land before they are its "rightful owners" in your view? Given that you are anti-Zionist and pro-Amerindian, it must be somewhere between 500 and 1400 years ;)
Gc, have you read my posts? Or have I been not clear enough? OK, then
1) One more time, Jews native to Palestine (and the ME as a whole) were NOT Zionists. Zionist Jews were colonizers from afar.
2) I am not speaking about any population "inhabiting" any land - I speak about colonial settlerism. Neither Armenians not Natives in today USA were colonial settlers, unlike Zionists, Boers or "founding fathers".
I have made those 2 points before here, but if you still cannot get them, I could repeat them more times :)
Perhaps you've got a point insofar as the Mizrahi Jews were not Zionists pre-1948. Thing is though, the Mizrahim are now some of the most hardline Zionists, because the Arab states made a foolish decision to expel them to Israel.
Didn't this Arab decision to make their own countries Judenrein just add more fuel to the Zionist propaganda portraying Arabs as genocidal maniacs?
It was Zionists (colonizers) and NOT Arabs who wanted and plotted by any means to get Mizrahim to Palestine. Zionists needed cannon fodder, cheap labor and pure Arian (sorry, Jewish) human stock to get "Jewish state" in Palestine, even though Zionists treated Mizrahi Jews not unlike WASP settlers treated Irish, Italian, Polish settlers. So, Zionists used lies, terror (under false flags) and simply cut deal with still semi-colonial Arab states.
One more time - without Zionism, Mizrahi Jews would live in the ME just as they did for millenia, maybe better - because Pan-Arabism saw "Arab Jews" not different from Christian Arabs - as a part of Arab nation.
One of the most obnoxious Zionist lies - and there is pretty tough competition - Zionists first bragging that they created "Jewish" state for all Jews and then accuse Arabs for "expelling" Jews -with the same breath.
Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and importing, often by the most foul means, Mizrahi Jews to take Palestinians' place are the two sides of the same settler-colonialst coin.
There was no good reason (other than sheer bigotry) for the Arab states to expel their Jews. Those Jews had no part in Zionist crimes, and expelling them would lose their economic contribution (just like Spain lost when it expelled its Jews and Muslims).
It is therefore conceivable that the Zionists bribed corrupt Arab rulers into expelling their Jews, but why didn't anyone expose such a scheme had it in fact taken place?
1) Jews were NOT "expelled" from Arab states, at least not as Zionist hasbara tells it
2) Zionists ASKED Arab semi-colonial rulers to send Jews to Palestine. It is not "conceivable" - it is a historical fact. It WAS exposed by anti-Zionists. If you are not aware of some facts, it does not meant the facts were not here.
I recommend you this article - a good review of the question of "Jewish refuges from Arab states"
http://psreview.org/content/view/16/70/
Post a Comment