people(s)
BOSNIAN-AMERICAN
I really hope this doesn't come off as racist or offensive, but as Jews, do you feel pressured not to criticize Israel's actions because it may be seen as antisemitic self-hatred? I ask because I heard once from a Jewish media personality, I can't recall who, that, as Jews, you can't really criticize Israel and, if you did, other Jews might question your loyalty. So I ask: do you support the decisions of the Israeli government with respect to its neighbors, and do you think you're allowed to criticize Israel?
ME
You pose a very interesting question. Here are my thoughts:
I think that, for a variety of reasons, many Diaspora Jews find it more problematic to criticise Israel than do their Israeli counterparts. I, for one, am reluctant to judge Israel negatively but I will acknowledge what I consider to be bad policies of the Israeli government or negative aspects of Israeli society, as is my right.
I think some criticism of Israel is, indeed, anti-Semitism in the guise of anti-Zionism. This is true even when those spewing such garbage are Jews or even Israelis. In other words, there are anti-Semitic Jews and anti-Israeli Israelis. Again, this is due to a variety of factors, which can be discussed elsewhere.
I do not believe one can be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic, at least in the way I define Zionism, which is that Jews constitute a people, not just a religious group, that their ancestrial homeland is the Land of Israel, and that, like all other distinct peoples, they have a right to self-determination and an independent country, in this case, in the Land of Israel.
Beyond that, there are presently 5.5 million Jews in Israel and they're not going anywhere, nor should they. This constitutes the largest, or second largest, Jewish community in the world. One can not be opposed to the existence of such a large segment of world Jewry without being anti-Semitic.
A person, or organisation, whose focus on Israel is disproportionate and disproportationately negative, to me is anti-Semitic. A person, or organisation, who doesn't acknowledge or denigrates the Jewish / Israeli narrative and only considers the Palestinians', who doesn't accept the complexity of the Israel-Palestine conflict and only blames Israel, to me is anti-Semitic.
Of course, a person, or organisation, who finds an Israeli / Jewish conspiracy at every turn, denies Israel's right to exist, denies the right of the Jews to a homeland in Israel, denies / minimises / downplays Jewish claims to Israel, denies the "authenticity" of Ashkenazi or European Jews, denies the Holocaust, supports deporting Israeli Jews "back to their countries of origin," compares Israelis to Nazis, or Jews to apes and pigs, accuses Israel of commiting genocide against the Palestinians, of harvesting Palestinian organs, of using the blood of Arab children to make wine and Passover matzah, of causing the Holocaust or of collaborating with the Nazis in carrying out the Holocaust, who believes that there would be Mideast peace and world peace if only Israel disappeared, etc., etc., is anti-Semitic.
That said, there's still lots of room for criticising Israeli policies and Israeli society, and for supporting the Palestinians. However, this must be done with balance and proportion. Whoever spends all their time, or even much of their time, trashing Israel and then claiming they're being silenced for doing so...is probably anti-Semitic.
ISRAELI
Well said.
ANTI-ZIONIST FRENCH JEW
You confuse some very different issues.
Before talking about the right of a people to self-determination, the notion of "people" should be defined, and why it is that it should have the right to self-determination.
The problem here is that there are many definitions for what constitutes a people, and the one which is valid in the case of self-determination is a people being those who consider themselves as such and already live on a defined piece of land. Which is logic, a human group shouldn't be ruled by outsiders.
This is the major difference between jews and other "people", we are by escence, a diasporic group, as such, the right to self-determination which is valid when a group is being oppressed by a foreign entity is not applyable here.
In the end, jews are sovereign not by having their own land, but by being fully integrated in their respective countries.
However, since what is done is done, this is also true for Israeli jews who are as much at home in the region as I am in France, palestinians in Palestine, Syrians in Syria, Woody Allen in New York, south koreans in Korea and so on.
So french jews are sovereign in France, american jews in the US, israeli jews in Israel, Argentinians in Argentina and so on. But jews as a whole should not, because we are all over the place.
This is one of the most fundamental problems with zionism, it is based on a sophism.
ME
I don't wish to engage you in a debate about Zionism or your definition / characterisation of Jewish peoplehood / sovereignty. I'll just state that I disagree with you in the strongest of terms and leave it at that. I suspect that we would never be able to come to any kind of agreement or accommodation anyway.
MOROCCAN
Quote:
I do not believe one can be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic, at least in the way I define Zionism, which is that Jews constitute a people, not just a religious group, that their ancestrial homeland is the Land of Israel, and that, like all other distinct peoples, they have a right to self-determination and an independent country, in this case, in the Land of Israel.
Other than that I agree with what you said
ME
Well that's a start. Just so you know, I don't negate the Palestinian claim to peoplehood and to Palestine by supporting the peoplehood of the Jews and their claim to Israel. The tragedy of the conflict is that, due to the twists and turns of history, these two claims overlap. They both need to be fulfilled with dignity and justice for there to be peace and security in the land.
MOROCCAN
I have no problem with the first part of what you said, i.e. that Jews constitute a people and aren't just a religious group, and that their ancestral homeland is Israel.
However, it isn't true that all distinct peoples have the right to self-determination and an independent country.
Plus of course in the meantime (2 millenia) the Jews ancestral homeland became inhabited by others.
ME
Maybe I should have qualified that statement by stating that, in an ideal world, all distinct peoples should have a right to self-determination and, sometimes, an independent country, where circumstances allow or warrant it.
Take the Kurds, for example. There are at last 25 million Kurds vs. about 6 million Palestinians. Yet few talk about an independent Kurdistan compared to those who advocate an independent Palestine, perhaps because the plight of the Kurds is so impossible to resolve or perhaps because the Jews aren't the ones oppressing them. But surely they deserve justice as much as the Palestinians. However, some form of Kurdish autonomy might be more realistic than outright independence.
And, certainly the Land of Israel / Palestine became inhabited by others over the 2000 years since the dispersal of the Jews by the Romans, who, by the way, changed the name of Judaea to Palestine in order to erase all Jewish claims to the land. But the Jewish presence in the Land of Israel / Palestine, though at times severely diminshed, has remained unbroken throughout history. This in no way refutes or diminishes Palestinian ties to the same land.
MOROCCAN
Quote:
Maybe I should have qualified that statement by stating that in an ideal world all distinct peoples should have a right to self-determination and, sometimes, an independent country, where circumstances allow or warrant it.
I agree.
Self-determination isn't always a right in such cases since a country's right to perserve its territorial integrity is seen as more important.
Self-determination is a right when a people is ruled by a foreign entity- as in the case of colonialism.
Even if I accept your definition of a people, I don't think Jews have the right of self-determination. (My problem isn't with your def. of a people or your def. of Jews but rather that they have a right to self-determination.)
ME
Do Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria have a greater right to preserve their territorial integrity or do Kurds have a greater right to self-determination? Its off-topic from Israel / Palestine but I'd like to hear your thoughts. And what of China and Tibet or India, Pakistan and Kashmir or Russia and Chechnya? The list goes on and on.
Furthermore, in the case of China and Tibet, China doesn't acknowledge that Tibet is oppressed but Tibetans would surely disagree. Who do you believe? Who decides with case is stronger and based on what evidence
MOROCCAN
That's what I sa id. Not all peoples have the right to self-determination since a country's right to perserve its territorial integrity is seen to trump it.
POLE
I don't like words "to have the right" because it can have two different meanings:
1. The objective right (as in the UN Human Rights charter which says that every nation has the right to self-determination).
2. The subjective / practical right (as granted by a sovereign to his serfs or practical law saying that no one has the right to expose his country to losing its territorial integrity).
I don't think a country's territorial integrity is more important than the will of people, because countries are (rather, should be) supportive of ideas made by the people and not against them.
ME
I agree.
MOROCCAN
I don't think a country's integrity is more important than the will of people either. But that's the way it is.
ME
Ok, so Israel has a right to preserve the territorial integrity of its internationally-recognised territory (i.e. pre-1967), perhaps with some negotiated alterations / land swaps, while Palestine has a right to self-determination and political sovereignty, perhaps with some agreed-upon limitations, such as demilitarisation. Can we agree on that?
MOROCCAN
At this point I think that's the best solution, yes.
ME
Peace.
