tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post7945906897494585656..comments2024-03-28T04:26:49.354+00:00Comments on Tony Greenstein's Blog: Colin Bell - A good example of the anti-Semitism and Zionism of Gilad Atzmon's SupportersTony Greensteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14300640929161205370noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-13507946853945474002011-06-20T01:52:37.830+01:002011-06-20T01:52:37.830+01:00But that is what the 2 States solution is about. ...But that is what the 2 States solution is about. Removing the Palestinians politically whilst utilising their land. In practice this does also involve exploitation but exploitation is not the sine qua non of Apartheid.<br /><br />The Apartheid model has been adopted by the Arabs of Israel and the Palestinian movement. Some of us try and relate to those we are in solidarity with.<br /><br />Bell/Atzmon asks whether or not ‘the discourse of the struggle against the Jewish State should be shaped by ‘Jewish sensitivities’?’ I’m not sure what this means or rather I think I do only too well. If by this is meant the sensitivitiy of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Zionist Federation then of course no. But Bell/Atzmon really mean Jewish anti-Zionists. If Israel is really the consequence of some Jewish genetic disorder then of course it is futile having anti-Zionist Jewish activists. Indeed they are as much the enemy as the Zionists and to Atzmon even more so.<br /><br />Again another idiot analogy. ‘Was the fight against Nazism shaped by German sensitivities?; I hope it was though I doubt it. But was there one German sensitivity? Who is meant by this? Anti-fascist Germans or Nazis? It is a Zionist argument that all Germans were Jew hating Nazis. That was the thesis of the execrable Daniel Goldhagen’s Germans: Hitler’s Willing Executioners. It was a book lambasted by serious academics but loved by the pro-Israel gutter press of the USA. Nice to know that Atzmon/Bell subscribe to such nostrums.<br /><br />Bell/Atzmon ask ‘Did we take on board the Afrikaners’ touchy spots when campaigning against the apartheid?’ Probably not though there were no Afrikaners outside South Africa. Whereas Israel claims to be a Jewish state not a state of all living in Israel. But was there anything inherent in being an Afrikaner that led to Apartheid? Was it inevitable that a society with Afrikaners in it must be an apartheid society? I suggest that the history of South Africa in the past 20 years suggests the answer is no. Separation from the indigenous population was a feature of ALL settler-colonial societies. The Rhodesian ‘Black Peril’, the fear of miscegenation, all White clubs in India, the examples are endless. What Israelis do is simply not unique.<br /><br />So yes, certainly call a spade a spade but first be sure that it is a spade and not a fork!Tony Greensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14300640929161205370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-39359001910278534952011-06-20T01:52:15.737+01:002011-06-20T01:52:15.737+01:00But many of Zionism’s apologists also say that it ...But many of Zionism’s apologists also say that it is a ‘Jewish national liberation struggle’ not a form of colonialism. It is no surprise that Atzmon and his friends disagree.<br /><br />Colin Bell and Atzmon say that ‘colonialism defines itself by having a clear material relationship between a ‘mother state’ and a ‘settler state’. In the case of Zionism however, it is impossible to determine what was, or is, the ‘Jewish mother State’. In fact there is no Jewish mother State and there has never been one.’<br /><br />What is colonialism? Take Australia or South Africa. It involves settlers from outside, wherever they come from, invading the land, by force or surreptitiously, occupying and developing the land and resources and subjugating the indigenous population. In Africa this meant turning peasants into landless labourers through things like the hut tax. It is what colonialism does that defines it as such. The issue of a mother country is secondary, like the migraine analogy that Colin Bell/Atzmon employ. What mother country did the American settlers have after 1883? In the War of Independence they had kicked the British out. Were they no longer colonists? Was t his now no longer settler colonialism? <br /><br />And when the Voortreckers in 1831 began their sojourn into the heartland of South Africa, setting up the Boer Republics of the Orange Free State and Transvaal, were they not colonialists? They were escaping the British colonialists? Who was their mother country? Britain? But they never came from Britain but a mixture of European countries, especially the Netherlands. T hey even fought a war, the Boer War. Does that mean they weren’t colonists? Actually the stupid part of the British left under Hyndmann actually did believe this rubbish.<br /><br />So the statement that ‘Zionism is original and unique of its kind, and it has no precedent in history.’ is just nonsense. Zionism was modelled on European colonialism, not leas the Prussian model of 1913 as Gabriel Piterberg in ‘Returns of Zionism’ has explained. That Atzmon/Bell don’t understand or know anything of European colonialism explains why they feel the need for an anti-Semitic explanation instead. Neither the holocaust nor Zionism is exceptional or unique. <br /><br />Of course if you reject colonialism, then yes Zionism (which has now reapeared a category!) is indeed ‘a totally unique Jewish ideological project’. It is easy for the racist simpleton to believe that it is because Jews are bad, greedy, money men or whatever, that Israel is what it is. But I can point to far worse examples of human rights abuses, not least in Egypt, Bahrain today, Burma and Sri Lanka to name but a few. Jews aren’t particularly involved in those state, indeed the USA is primarily involved in 3 of the 4 examples. <br /><br />I don’t mind Atzmon/Bell ‘offend(ing) some of the very few Jews who are kind enough to support Palestine.’ If that is your purpose, to divide the Palestine solidarity movement into Jewish and non –Jewish then fine. Its not a question of our ‘sensitivities’ but whether there is to be an effective solidarity struggle or one riven by the divisions of racists. That is Atzmon’s goal and that is what Colin Bell parrotts without understanding. <br /><br />Bell/Atzmon nearly gets it right for once (after all a stuck clock is right twice a day). Yes Zionism was not concerned with exploitation. In fact the 2nd Aliyah from 1904-14 was explicitly a reaction against the 1st Aliyah (wave of emigration) that did in fact become European planters in Rishon Le Zion and the settlements of Baron Edmond de Rothschild. But Apartheid is about separation and Malan and Verwoerd, its ideological guides, were clear on the policy of bantustisation, i.e. removing the Black African population to areas of the country without resources of any independent means of survival and removing political rights from Black Africans who remained in Southern Africa. In fact it was a failure.Tony Greensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14300640929161205370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-11950657552213898452011-06-20T01:51:53.104+01:002011-06-20T01:51:53.104+01:00Really? So the continuing function of the Jewish ...Really? So the continuing function of the Jewish National Fund, its refusal to allocate land to 93% of Palestinians is just a whim. In fact the JNF Law of 1953 and its Covenant with the State of Israel of 1961, whereby it did the dirty work of the State itself is just accidental? And the recent passing of a Communities Act to allow local ‘Jewish’ residents to bypass the High Court decision in Kadan is also accidental? And the raft of new measures like the Nakba Act is also incidental? And the open advocacy of transfer of the Arabs of Israel and the expansionist nature of Israel itself are also accidental? And the Judaification of the Negev and Galilee? Merely a passing whim of ‘self maintenance’ and nothing to do with the principle of Zionism that Israel must be a Jewish state above everything? Unfortunately Bell and Atzmon understand nothing of Zionism, hence their resort to crude anti-Semitic stereotypes.<br /><br />It is understandable that Colin Bell believes, having imbibed like his mother’s milk the words of Atzmon, that ‘Israel and Israelis are actually impervious to Zionism’. Yes Israel didn’t solve the Jewish question. It exacerbated it and the debate between Zionism and anti-Zionism is a debate between the existence of a racist and potentially genocidal movement and state and those who believe that Israel behaves as it does merely for pragmatic reasons. <br /><br />Colin Bell asks therefore why we ‘always refer to Israeli crimes as a Zionist symptom?’ Because as in South Africa a fairly unique state was created which privileges one section of the population, defined as ‘Jewish’ as opposed to another section of its citizens, non-Jews. That is what Zionism is about just as Loyalism in Northern Ireland tried the same and of course Apartheid in South Africa. This is why I say that Atzmon is not anti-Zionist although he pretends to be. He doesn’t understand Zionism and certainly his followers don’t.<br /><br />Bell asks ‘ Why don’t we refer directly and openly to the ‘Jewish State’, because at the end of the day, this is how Israel defines itself.’ Because I don’t take the self-definition of Zionism and its creation at its word! There is nothing about the Israel state that is inherently or intrinsically Jewish. It does not spring from the well-spring of the Talmud. If it did the question would raise, why now and not two thousand years ago? Why was Zionism formed and why did Jews emigrate to Palestine primarily in the first part of the 20th century? Colonialism might provide the answer and the Balfour Declaration is a clue.<br /><br />It has nothing to do with sensitivities to people and everything to do with understanding that Zionism was a political movement that was up to 1945 a minority amongst world Jewry. It was only Hitler and the holocaust Atzmon denies that changed that situation. Northern Ireland was defined as a Protestant state but did its discrimination against Catholics really arise from the Protestant religion or from British imperialism wanting a strategic base in Ireland?<br /><br />If Zionism is not a colonial project how come it sought first and foremost an alliance with imperialism? Herzl travelled Europe looking for such a sponsor – from the Czar of Russia to the Grand Duke of Baden to the German Kaiser, the King of Hungary, the Pope, many minor aristocrats and the Ottoman Sultan before finally trying to arrange the Uganda Project with British Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain in 1903. It saw itself as a colonial project, it identified with people like Cecil Rhodes and Smuts in southern Africa. What possible reason is there for thinking it is not colonialist? Maybe Colin Bell should read up on the origins of the Israeli state. I can give him a list of books to be going on with so that he doesn’t write in such ignorance in future!Tony Greensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14300640929161205370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-63385538287477841112011-06-20T01:51:31.561+01:002011-06-20T01:51:31.561+01:00Colin Bell argues that Zionism is not a colonial p...Colin Bell argues that Zionism is not a colonial project and Israel is not a settler-colonial state. This is a feature of the Atzmon/anti-Semitic discourse which seeks to explain Israel in terms of ‘Jewishness’ rather than simple material, political and economic forces.<br /><br />The Israeli state was created as a Jewish state as defined by its founders. There has been much argument as to what this has meant but Netanyahu has made it clear that it means Israel is a state of all Jews, wherever they live as opposed to a state of its own citizens. <br /><br />The Zionist Organisation, whose aim was a Jewish state, was responsible for bringing Israel into being. The institutions it established, such as the JNF had clearly a clear remit viz. to ‘redeem’ the land at the expense of the indigenous populaton.<br /><br />It may have escaped our good Atzmonite’s notice, but British imperialism was in the habit of establishing colonies in the 19th and 20th century. Often they were settler-colonial ones such as in South Africa and latterly in Palestine. There is nothing confusing about this except in the minds of anti-Semites and followers of Atzmon. The term Apartheid is one employed by Palestinians. Maybe they are confused and delusional. I think not. It means literally separate development and that would clearly apply in the occupied territories, where there are separate systems of law i.e. military rule for the Palestinians. But it also applies within Israel itself where Arabs receive very different treatment from Israeli Jews. There is segregation in every field. Be it land, employment, education or merely social. There is a deliberate policy to remove Arabs from ‘Jewish’ life and presence. This to me is Apartheid. If Mr Bell is still confused that is his problem.<br /><br />There is not intent in using such categories to resist the true ideology driving the Israeli state, rather to demystify it and show that it is typically colonial, as it itself used to claim, rather than being somehow ‘Jewish’. Colonists behaved much the same whatever their religion. It is the Atzmonites and other anti-semites who wish to pretend that Israel is the unique product of ‘Jewishness’.<br /><br />Zionism above all was a movement intent on creating a Jewish majority state, however ‘Jewish’ was defined. Zionist was rationalised as many things including an attempt to ‘transform the Diaspora Jew into an authentic and civilised human being’. Most of us are wary about how colonial and imperialist movements define themselves. The British Empire according to Rudyard Kipling was the ‘White Man’s Burden’. No doubt Bell accepts that too?<br /><br />Such a notion, implying Jews outside Israel were inauthentic human beings and uncivilised, was par for the course of anti-Semites and racists. That Zionism subscribed to this is not surprising but I don’t take my definitions from either Zionists or anti-Semites. Atzmon clearly does.<br /><br />Apparently ‘Israel is not driven or even particularly inspired by Zionism any longer -it is, instead, engaged in self-maintenance. More so, Israelis are hardly even that familiar with Zionist ideology. For most Israelis Zionism is little more than a dated and archaic concept – it may have historical significance -but it has zero meaning in daily life.’Tony Greensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14300640929161205370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-76531580384794252042011-06-16T16:35:37.342+01:002011-06-16T16:35:37.342+01:00Yes it is very remiss on me not to reply sooner. ...Yes it is very remiss on me not to reply sooner. It is on the top of my agenda and I can only plead overwork but fear not I shall reply, though not at such lengthTony Greensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14300640929161205370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-27440868659772061272011-06-16T08:09:47.205+01:002011-06-16T08:09:47.205+01:00Either you are still sleeping.....
Or your brainwa...Either you are still sleeping.....<br />Or your brainwashed mind is out of cells.your very very very good friendnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-84185280672378660522011-06-14T02:33:42.186+01:002011-06-14T02:33:42.186+01:00I shall respond to this outline of Atzmon's th...I shall respond to this outline of Atzmon's thesis tomorrow, as I want to go to bed now! Suffice to say I don't agree but I will give a full and considered response later.<br /><br />Colin is too modest to reveal that he subsequently rowed back on this thesis that I was a Zionist agent, funded by Mossad!Tony Greensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14300640929161205370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-63940567155260767632011-06-13T21:14:19.475+01:002011-06-13T21:14:19.475+01:00Apartheid
And what about apartheid? Is Israel an ...Apartheid<br /><br />And what about apartheid? Is Israel an apartheid State? In Israel we clearly witness racial separation and legal discrimination. However, I would argue that Israel is not an apartheid system for apartheid was set in place to exploit the indigenous peoples, yet, to keep them living on the land. Israel, on the other hand, is there to destroy the indigenous population - the Israelis would be relieved if they woke up one morning to find out that the Palestinians had simply left the region.<br /><br />Those who are Naïve enough to buy into the apartheid narrative probably believe that Israel may collapse soon, because this is what history teaches us about apartheid. Again, we like the apartheid model because it makes Israel look (relatively) ‘ordinary’. We do not want to offend anyone, especially the few Jews who support us.<br /><br />But here is a question that I must address to righteous Jews and fellow Palestinian supporters around the world: do you really believe that the discourse of the struggle against the Jewish State should be shaped by ‘Jewish sensitivities’?<br />Was the fight against Nazism shaped by German sensitivities? Did we take on board the Afrikaners’ touchy spots when campaigning against the apartheid? Isn’t the time ripe to call a spade a spade? I do accept the crucial importance of Jews in this movement and I try to work with as many Jews as possible. Yet, I wonder, isn’t it time for Jews to overcome their sensitivities and look into the subject with open eyes? Isn’t the time ripe for all of us to do the same? Shouldn’t we question the supporters of the Jewish State, and ask exactly what Jewishness stands for?<br /><br />I believe that this is exactly what we have to do-for the sake of a better future in Palestine, we must openly engage in these crucial questions. I also believe that more than anyone else, it is Jews who must confront these questions. I would expect Jewish activists within our movement to lead this move rather than trying to silence it.<br /><br />[1] Zionism may be a useful term when referring to Jewish lobbying around the world. It may throw light on the activity of Sayanim around the world, and it may explain the inclination of some Brooklyn Jews to make Aliya. It may also explain why some Jewish Leftists join forces with rabid Zionist institutions as soon as someone questions what Jewishness stands for.<br /><br />[2] It can be reasonably argued that the relationships between Israel West Bank Settlers and the indigenous peoples could be understood in colonial terms.your very very good friendnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-20446449094180795982011-06-13T21:13:46.718+01:002011-06-13T21:13:46.718+01:00Colonialism
Zionism is not colonialism either. As...Colonialism<br /><br />Zionism is not colonialism either. As much as many activists around us insist that we must regard Zionism as a colonial project, the truth must be stated: colonialism defines itself by having a clear material relationship between a ‘mother state’ and a ‘settler state’. In the case of Zionism however, it is impossible to determine what was, or is, the ‘Jewish mother State’. In fact there is no Jewish mother State and there has never been one. Zionism is not a colonial project and it has never been one. It is indeed true that the Jewish State exhibits some colonial symptoms.[2] But then, some brain cancer patients also exhibit some symptoms of migraine. A proper diagnosis aims at discovering the true cause behind symptoms. To diagnose is to trace a true disease rather than provide a superficial explanation that may be linked to a number of sporadic symptoms.<br /><br />But it is also clear why so many of us love the colonial paradigm, despite it being flawed: the followers of the colonial paradigm accept that Israelis are not different from the British, French or Dutch; they just happen to celebrate their ‘colonial’ expansionist symptoms ‘100 years after everyone else’. Also the colonial paradigm promises a ‘solution’ at the end of the road — a post colonial reconciliation is just a matter of time, they stress.<br /><br />Again, I am sorry to disappoint so many people I really care about, but I have to say it: Zionism is original and unique of its kind, and it has no precedent in history. Unfortunately, it doesn’t fit into any materialist model, for the aspiration behind Zionism was, and still is, spiritually driven.<br /><br />So why do we continue to make this crude mistake, and always refer to Zionism as colonialism? Why don’t we refer to Zionism as what it is; a totally unique Jewish ideological project? Simple, because we do not want to offend some of the very few Jews who are kind enough to support Palestine. We accept their sensitivities, and voluntarily remain quiet about it all. We would do whatever it takes to keep everybody happy. After all, we are a peace movement.your very good friendnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-72537477146401551542011-06-13T21:13:08.891+01:002011-06-13T21:13:08.891+01:00The Zionist/ anti Zionist debate is, in fact, a de...The Zionist/ anti Zionist debate is, in fact, a debate that takes place within the Jewish Diaspora, and not within Israel itself. It belongs to the realm of Jewish identity politics. It has very little political significance out of that context.<br /><br />Because Israel and Israelis are actually impervious to Zionism, ‘Anti Zionist’ activity and ideology have very little impact at all on Israel and Israelis.[1] Israelis are only concerned with direct actions against their Jewish State, and for them, sanctions are a matter that concern and worry them a great deal. Israelis though, are hardly concerned at all with seeking solutions to the so called ‘Jewish Question.’ From an Israeli perspective the Jewish state is the ultimate solution for the ‘Jewish Question.’ I guess that from a realistic and pragmatic perspective, one may have to agree, Israel didn’t really solve the ‘Jewish Question’ it just moved it to a new place.<br /><br />Why do we then, continue to make this crude mistake, and always refer to Israeli crimes as a Zionist symptom? Why don’t we refer directly and openly to the ‘Jewish State’, because at the end of the day, this is how Israel defines itself.<br /><br />The answer is simple: it is because we really do not want to offend anyone. We accept that Jews have suffered all through their history and we accept their unique sensitivities. Hence, voluntarily, we self-censor ourselves. We voluntarily give up on our capacity to think freely, coherently, openly and critically.your good friendnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-68247982811547592482011-06-13T21:12:30.399+01:002011-06-13T21:12:30.399+01:00It occurred to me recently that the Palestinian so...It occurred to me recently that the Palestinian solidarity discourse is spiritually, ideologically and intellectually driven by some very misleading terminology: crucial notions such as Zionism, colonialism and apartheid (heard in every discussion, and present in every text book about the conflict), are either confusing, or even delusional: I believe that they are there to actually block any attempt to grasp the true spirit and ideologies that drive the Jewish State rather than to clarify the situation.<br /><br /><br /><br />Zionism<br /><br />Many of us tend to refer to Zionism as the ideological driving force behind Israel.<br /><br />But make no mistake: Israel is not Zionism, and Zionist ideology and politics have very little at all to do with Israeli politics or practice.<br /><br />It must be understood that Israel and Zionism are, by now, two distinct categories. While Zionism was defined by its founders as an attempt to ‘transform the Diaspora Jew into an authentic and civilised human being’, Israel can, nowadays, only be seen as the pragmatic product of such an ideology.<br /><br />It may surprise many of you to hear that these days, Israel is not driven or even particularly inspired by Zionism any longer -it is, instead, engaged in self-maintenance. More so, Israelis are hardly even that familiar with Zionist ideology. For most Israelis Zionism is little more than a dated and archaic concept – it may have historical significance -but it has zero meaning in daily life.<br /><br />Zionism is, in fact, a Jewish Diaspora discourse. It is there to differentiate between world Jewry that largely supports Israel, and a few sporadic Jewish secular voices who want to maintain their Jewish national identity while opposing the Jewish State.your good friendnoreply@blogger.com