Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumMizrahi Nation
...A confluence of interests has endeared this same narrative to Israel’s enemies, who have used it to increasing effect. In Israel, goes one variant of the story, Arabs were made to pay the price of a European problem. A less benign variant posits that Israel is not a solution to anyone’s suffering but instead a colonialist European state imposed by empowered Westerners upon a native Middle Eastern population: that blond pioneer is less a victim rebuilding himself as a free man or an agent of progress than he is a white Rhodesian rancher.
It is 2014, and it should be clear to anyone on even passing terms with the actual country of Israel that all of this is absurd. Israel has existed for nearly seven decades and, like most things on earth, has turned into something that would have surprised the people who thought it up. Half of Israel’s Jews do not hail from Europe and are descendants of people who had little to do with Herzl, socialism, the kibbutz, or the Holocaust. These people require not the addition of a footnote, but a reframing of the story. Hard as this is for those of us whose minds were formed in the West, this means putting aside the European morality play that so many still see when they look at Israel, and instead viewing non-Europeans as main characters.
In what follows I will not try to offer anything resembling a comprehensive history but only trace an alternative way of seeing things and point out what this might yield by way of insight into the life of the country that exists today.
I’ll begin by introducing my friend Rafi Sutton....
more:
http://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2014/06/mizrahi-nation/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)A colonial power (Great britain) seized the territory for itself against the wishes of hte native population (who were promised recognition as an independent state if they rebelled against the Ottomans.) This imperialist, occupying power cut a deal with its wartime funders to basically subcontract the territory and deliver it to another European population to have and rule. Even before the establishment of Israel the wishes, desires, and needs of the native population were cast aside, and the most common narrative revolves around the notion that Palestinians should just self-subjugate, accept a lesser station, and cede their lands, lives, and dignity to the Master Race - whether that race be Briton or Jew.
There is nothing there that suggest anything except a purely colonial venture, made by Europeans, fpr Europeans, at the great and continuing expense of the native peoples.
Arguing that the presence of Mizrahi Jews proves otherwise is no different than arguing that the presence of Vietnamese people in america means that the United states isn't an imperial, colonial state. In both cases they are immigrants who have come into a colonial European state built on the suffering and expense of a native population (With the exception of course, of those Jews who were present prior to the waves of immigration and the british selling-off of someone Else's land)
shira
(30,109 posts)1. Every colonial enterprise represented or derived from an existing mother country or group of countries – Zionism did not.
2. No other colonial enterprise viewed itself as returning to its homeland – Zionism did.
3. No other modern colonial enterprise was driven by the desire of the COLONIZERS to escape persecution and discrimination – Zionism was.
4. No other colonial enterprise viewed its colonial ambition as being part and parcel of their national cultural, psychological and moral renewal – Zionism did.
5. No other colonial enterprise satisfied itself with only one colony – Zionism did.
6. No other colonial enterprise desired so passionately to settle a land devoid of natural resources – Zionism did.
7. No other colonial enterprise desired to create an independent state (all the others saw themselves as dependent colonies of the mother country) – Zionism did.
8. No other colonial enterprise desired to create an entirely new society – Zionism did.
9. In other words, Zionism is unique (just like the rest of Jewish history) and thus the Middle East conflict is unique.
http://israelseen.com/2011/11/24/jewish-pr-and-its-discontents-negative-hasbara-part-iv/
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Your pet bloggers can go about all the self-justifying and special pleing autofellatio they want, but it doesn't change the reality of Israel as a colonial state.
shira
(30,109 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Every line there could be used to describe the United States, South Africa, Australia, Mexico, and Brazil. All of which were colonial states of England, the Netherlands, Spain, and Portugal. Israel is an outgrowth of Great Britain's colonial empire, just as Australia or Canada is.
shira
(30,109 posts)....returned to their historical and ancestral homeland, sharing the same culture, religion, traditions, and language as their ancestors did in that very same land. Jews are indigenous to Israel, not colonists. They are the only people on the planet who share the same identity as the last Jews who ruled Israel over 2000 years ago.
Meanwhile the Palestinians see themselves as part of a greater Arab nation. Arabs originate from Arabia and colonized that area centuries ago. So according to the dictionary definition of historic colonialism, it's the Palestinians who come closer to being colonists than Jews.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)They share the same language, culture, religion, traditions, and are descendents of the Jews who lived there.
No other people can claim that. Well maybe the Phoenicians, Moabites, Edomites, and Philistines but they're extinct. The Jewish people are still around and intact as a people. Same continuous identity. Indigenous. Aboriginal.
Meanwhile, Arabs colonized the area and Palestinians see themselves as part of a great Arab nation. That makes them the colonists.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Zionism was still a colonialist project that involved the resettlement of a large population and the removal of the indigenous population. You can bang on about how there were Jews there in ancient times all you want, it doesn't change that reality. (And you're apparently ignorant of the genetic studies on Palestinians that show them to be very closely related to Jews and likely descended from the ancient historical populations of the region who didn't leave in the Diaspora).
shira
(30,109 posts)Not.very.liberal.
The Palestinians, being part of a greater Arab nation according to Article 1 of the 1964 PLO charter, are not indigenous. Arabs from Arabia colonized the land. There is no people they can point to, in a continuous line going back thousands of years, who they can claim as their own - same culture, language, traditions, and blood line. Jews can do that. Palestinians cannot. In fact, 100 years ago in 1914 the only Palestinians of the area were the Jews. The Palestinians cannot trace back to a people or nation like themselves beyond 100 years ago.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)You don't get to paint "reclaiming your historic homeland" as some sort of noble and righteous undertaking when it involves kicking the people living there already out, sorry. (And "Palestine" as such was an area under the control of the Ottomans; the fact that it wasn't an independent state doesn't mean there were no Palestinians.)
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Fri Oct 10, 2014, 08:56 PM - Edit history (1)
That's not indigenous.
And they weren't simply kicked out. Their leaders chose to go to war against the Jews. They chose poorly. Had they accepted the Partition Plan, no one would have needed to move anywhere.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Conquerors generally don't come in large enough numbers to completely replace the indigenous population. My ancestry is British; there have been studies of the genetics of the British Isles that show that contrary to prior assumptions there was no large-scale population replacement due to the Anglo-Saxon invasions. There are in fact genetic studies that show the same thing happened in Palestine; the Palestinians are the descendants of indigenous Jews and Christians who converted and eventually intermarried with their Arab conquerors; see here for instance: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Nebel-HG-00-IPArabs.pdf
And meanwhile 80% of the maternal ancestry of Ashkenazim is European (which doesn't exactly make them "indigenous", either): http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/science/ashkenazi-origins-may-be-with-european-women-study-finds.html?_r=0
shira
(30,109 posts)Not.Indigenous.
Indigenous people do not take on the identity of those who colonize them, yet still claim to be the same people they were pre-invasion, pre-colonialism.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)and whether the Jewish people originated in what is now Israel or not is completely irrelevant to the fact that the modern state of Israel is the product of a programme of settler colonialism.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)oh and Chinese, Khmer, let me think a minute longer.......................all of them can claim a direct unbroken millennia long line to the areas in which they now live, however if Japanese were to take strt taking over Korea that would be colonization, same could be said for Russians taking over Scandinavia again colonization, just because ones ancestors lived in a place a millennia or more ago does not make it theirs forever
King_David
(14,851 posts)Ha
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Take notes, Dave.
King_David
(14,851 posts)With all the inaccuracies we keep on pointing out.
It's not an easy topic for the novice.
Clearly
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)Need a little study up of the issues.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Your problem is that the area of my study does not begin or end with kahanist propaganda
King_David
(14,851 posts)No not really .
Coming from you though it's like water off a ducks back . Mirrored projection of angry.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I can't think of other similar examples of this particular kind of denial.
shira
(30,109 posts)....and hyperbole designed to harm not only the Jewish state but hurt and insult nearly all Jews worldwide who support arguably the greatest collective achievement in Jewish history (the successful re-establishment of our historic homeland).
DanTex
(20,709 posts)who were fleeing from persecution?
You know, I'm not Jewish, but if I was I might take offense at the notion that colonizing and ethnically cleansing Palestine was the "greatest achievement" in Jewish history.
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Fri Oct 10, 2014, 06:07 PM - Edit history (1)
...where their ancestors once lived, speaking the same language, following the same traditions, same culture, and religion?
None. Israel is the first modern indigenous state.
The re-establishment of Israel is far and away the greatest collective achievement in Jewish history. Of course there's a very tiny percentage of Jews who would take offense at that and be against the mainstream, but that's always been the case throughout Jewish history. Jews have a lot to be proud of as a collective when it comes to Israel. It's not perfect. No country is. But it's a thriving, very successful, free liberal democracy guaranteeing the safety of all people who live there. A wonderful, unprecedented achievement for a such a young country.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)views. That hasn't been my experience, based on the Jews that I know personally, but I will admit it's not a random sample, mostly progressive and intellectual. But this strange theory that Jews are indigenous and zionism wasn't colonialism is something I haven't seen much of. Probably because the people I know understand what the words "indigenous" and "colonialism" mean.
shira
(30,109 posts)....as their historic Jewish homeland. True or False?
If the only Jews you know are from DU and small leftist circles, it's no wonder you're unaware of mainstream Jewish thought.
I have First Nation inlaws from Canada who tell me - without me mentioning anything - that the Jews are indigenous to Israel. We rarely talk Israel but when the topic is brought up, that's one of the first things THEY say. Not me...
DanTex
(20,709 posts)who knows, maybe you're right.
In real life, the Jews I know have political views that are not notably distinguishable from any other people I know. It's funny that you bring up DU, because DU is one of the few places where I've actually interacted with right-wing Zionists.
shira
(30,109 posts)....up here in a very liberal Boston suburb. It's hard to find anyone Jewish with rightwing views here, and the membership is large. The Rabbi is very liberal. The Jews here are secular as well. It's difficult finding anyone in the synagogue with anti-Israel views we see here at DU. I don't know of anyone. Doesn't mean they don't exist, but it demonstrates how mainstream Jewish views are on Israel.
You keep saying my views are rightwing, but that means nothing to me. People here at DU see most elected Dems as rightwing on Israel. Dennis Kucinich is probably considered just left of center on Israel here at DU and not leftwing enough. The political spectrum is skewed so much here that being called rightwing on Israel is laughable.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Yes, I think your views on Israel are right-wing. I can't find any difference between what you say and the views of people like John Bolton. If anything, you are further to the right.
I guess it all depends on where the center is. In your view, the entire world's human rights community is the "fringe left" and objecting to US involvement in Guatemala makes you some kind of hard-lefty-peacenik.
shira
(30,109 posts)The vast majority being liberals who vote democratic in every election. I realize that doesn't count for much here at DU given that Israel bashers here can find no elected Dems who share similar anti-Israel views.
I'm not sure you know much about human rights when it comes to Israel. Many throughout the human rights community believe it's okay to discriminate against Palestinian refugees, keeping them and their descendants in miserable conditions within camps for generations....without giving them the choice to become citizens like every other refugee population.
If that's your idea of human rights, it's certainly not liberal.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Like I said, maybe "mainstream Jewish opinion" is actually as far right as you say it is.
As far as human rights, I don't claim to be a worlds's leading experts on the topic, but there are some people who are experts, and virtually every single one of them disagrees with your assessment of the situation. I know, I know, they're all "biased"...
shira
(30,109 posts)Only people who loathe Palestinians would support keeping them in camps as refugees for over 7 decades. That's as anti-humane as it gets. I'll bet some rightwingers even realize that, even if you don't.
That you think your position on Palestinians is liberal is simply insane. Palestinians don't need rightwing enemies when they have 'friends' like you and those in your camp who'd deny them the choice of becoming full citizens in the lands they were born in.
The so-called human rights community supports keeping future generations of Palestinians in camps. You won't find any statements from them denouncing the treatment of these refugees in Arab lands where they have been denied equal rights for 7 decades. Such people are anti-human, not humanitarian.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)according to what I've been told here, so if you care so very deeply about Palestinians why do you seem to spend so much time demonizing those who would see that come to fruition? As it is apparently the only solution to the refugee problem
shira
(30,109 posts)Rather than being denied equal rights for the past 7 decades throughout the mideast.
Even if they retain their refugee status, they'd be in a much better situation than within the camps.
========================
Your pro-Palestinian buddies would deny them that choice.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)There is indeed an economic element to that fact
what we want is a viable Palestinian state to end this
what the other side seems to do is demonize, smear, make posts about what was said-we tend to about what is being actually done-see a difference?
shira
(30,109 posts)They'd have access to professions currently denied to them.
They'd have the OPPORTUNITY to work their way out of the camps.
============
Your friends of Palestine would deny this to all of them, being the IN-humane posers they are masquerading as peaceful humanitarians.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)by another country, a fact that would seem to make any argument about those horrible human rights folks and (Arab) countries that keep them refugees rather null and void of any moral standing or legal not to mention any real importance in making Palestinian lives better
Only one thing will work and that is a viable Palestinian State
follow the thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=83511
Israeli
(4,139 posts)I actually read the complete article all the way through .
Makes a change from your usual Right wing religious American sources .
So lets talk politics ....how much do you know about Israeli politics and the Ashkenazi and Sephardi/Mizrahi divide ?
Here is a good place to start :
http://www.timesofisrael.com/traditional-jews-vote-likud-beytenu-while-the-orthodox-choose-bennett/
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I thought it had been established that it was.
Israeli
(4,139 posts)...its not truly Rightist either ....probably Centralist would be a better description ....should suit you
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I am surprised that you think that way about that source.
shira
(30,109 posts)I don't know why you wrote in another thread that Ynet was rightwing when they're left of center (liberal by American standards).
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I think at DU, Ha'aretz would be considered centrist - and anything to the right of it (Ynet, Times of Israel, JPost) is right-wing. And then 972mag, Mondoweiss, Truthdig, Common Dreams and similar sources are just left of center.
shira
(30,109 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Most Democrats would be considered right wing here with respect to Israel. There are a handful that might be considered centrist on the topic, but not many (Keith Ellison, Pat Leahy, fmr President Carter, Dennis Kucinich, etc).
shira
(30,109 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)How does that sentiment go over here?
shira
(30,109 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)From what I can tell, you are the only person posting here who is a descendent of actual Zionist migrants. Do you consider it to have been a colonial enterprise?
Israeli
(4,139 posts)...so yes I do .
Who we are
http://forum-ezrachy.tripod.com/englishIndex.html
shira
(30,109 posts)They tend to be more religious and more nationalist.
Russian immigrants tend to be more rightwing and nationalist as well, but minus the religious component.
Israeli
(4,139 posts)....and in the past they were ....but the younger generation are changing .
You should give here a read :
http://eng.haokets.org/
About :
Haokets started out ten years ago, in August 2003, as a personal blog in Hebrew by Dr. Yossi Dahan and Dr. Itzik Saporta. In an attempt to offer an alternative to the mainstream Israeli media motivated mainly by ratings and subservience to capital and political interests, we decided to broaden its scope to a magazine-like format, while still adhering to a non-commercial ethos. Currently our website offers an independent platform for critical discussion, where hundreds of writers publish on socioeconomic, cultural and philosophical issues, human rights activism, feminism, and especially Mizrahi politics which has been consistently neglected by both the mainstream media and the more leftist voices in Israeli non-governmental politics.
http://eng.haokets.org/about/
The Russian immigrants will change to ....in time .