Making the progressive case for Israel

[oberliner]

Excerpt from the end of the piece:

My point is this: I want to work with all progressives - here, in Israel and the Palestinian territories - to build the confidence and trust that will be required to bring about a lasting agreement.

I will be critical of Israel when I need to be. But I call on my friends and colleagues who support the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people to cease the language of de-legitimisation; to end the comparisons with South Africa and Nazi Germany; to halt the demands for boycotts of Israeli produce and people; to put an end to the movement to sever academic ties; and to recognise Israel's strong and continuing adherence to the self-same progressive values that we fight for here at home.

It is not left wing or progressive to ally ones-self with those that seek Israel's destruction, or those who don't value one iota the type of society we strive for in this country. So I am appealing for all those who value peace and justice to support our values where we see them lived out, and to assist - not obstruct - those people working on the ground to resolve their conflict and build their progressive society.

http://www.progressives.org.uk/articles/article.asp?a=7777

[JuniperLea]

1. That sounds very...

...my way or the highway to me.

[kayecy]

2. Do many "progressives" compare Israel to South Africa or Nazi Germany?......

But I call on my friends and colleagues who support the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people to cease the language of de-legitimisation; to end the comparisons with South Africa and Nazi Germany;

Do many "progressives" compare Israel to South Africa or Nazi Germany?......Many Zionist compare Hamas & Fatah to the Nazis.

It is not left wing or progressive to ally ones-self with those that seek Israel's destruction

"...seek Israel's destruction" is the favorite accusation of pro-Zionists.......Where are the Europeans or Americans that support such destruction?......

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. Yes and no respectively.

Many progressives compare Israel to South Africa - I'm one of them. Only a handful compare Israel to Nazi Germany, and I think that doing so is both stupid and offensive.

South Africa treated the blacks as second-class citizens in their own homeland.
Israel refuses even to allow the Palestinians into most of their own homeland, or to found a state in what's left of it.
Nazi Germany murdered most of the Jews in their own homelands.

I think it's fairly clear that the second is somewhat worse than the first, but nowhere near as bad as the third.

[Ken Burch]

8. "seek Israel's destruction" is an inflammatory and unacceptable term

Even those who support a unitary state don't really "seek Israel's destruction"(full disclosure, I don't support that in the present circumstances but also don't regard it as an inherently evil objective in the long-term, provided it were carried out with parity of esteem for both national communities and with an agreement that no one would be persecuted or oppressed in any way)don't seek "Israel's destruction". They envision a unitary state as a democratic place in which Jewish and Arab people would live in equality and with mutual respect. This is nothing at all like "driving the Jews in to the sea"(a phrase that no Arab leader ever actually used, btw.)

[Violet_Crumble]

18. It was hyperbolic nonsense. I'm not seeking Israel's destruction by boycotting...

I'm boycotting products from Israel and I'm going to continue to do so until Israel ends the occupation. There's some major OTT hyperbole going on if anyone thinks that boycotting Israel because of the occupation is seeking Israel's destruction...

[aranthus]

51. I recognize that you aren't,

nor are many in the West who support BDS. However, that is the intent of the movement from the Palestinian BDS perspective, and that is what Westerners are being used to support, even if they don't actually support it themselves.

[Violet_Crumble]

56. Even if the intent was to seek one binational state, I still think the statement was hyperbolic...

From what I understand of it, the Palestinian BDS perspective wants to see one binational democratic state, not 'the destruction of Israel', which of course conjures up images of violence, devastation and death. And even if someone were to seek the destruction of Israel, boycotting Israel would have to be one of the most ineffectual ways of trying to do that....

[aranthus]

53. It's the core of the conflict.

Why do you think there has been a war between Arabs and Israelis for over 60 years? Of course the Arab side has sought Israel's destruction. Much of it still does.

And of course a "unitary state would mean Israel's destruction, even if it wouldn't be dangerous to the future existence of Israel's Jews (which it likely would). A "unitary state" would be an Arab state by mere demographics. Since the point of Israel is to be a Jewish state, a unitary state wouldn't be Israel. So calling for a unitary state is by definition calling for Israel's destruction.

[aranthus]

52. Not many (subjective term), but some do.

"Many Zionist compare Hamas & Fatah to the Nazis."

Since both Hamas and Fatah either publicly or clandestinely seek the destruction of the Jewish state, which would necessarily require the destruction of most of Israel's five million plus Jews, the comparison may not be completely accurate, but it is at least more on target than the comparison of Israel to Nazis. Which is why the comparison of Israel to Nazis and Hamas to Nazis aren't actually comparable.

"...seek Israel's destruction" is the favorite accusation of pro-Zionists.......Where are the Europeans or Americans that support such destruction?...... "

I would think that Norman Finklestein (American) would qualify, and possibly Tony Judt (English).

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. Confidence and trust are neither possible nor necessary.

"Peace through ending the hatred" died a long time ago. "Ending the hatred through peace" is still a possibility, but will take generations of uneasy distrust but not actual violence first.

The barrier to that is that the status quo is currently preferable to Israel to ending the occupation. The only ethical way to change that is external pressure - meaningful sanctions and condemnation.

I don't know who this person is - he may be a good and well-meaning man for all I know to the contrary. But he is a membero f a group called "Labour Friends of Israel" and friends of Israel are, by their very nature and existance, obstacles to peace - the only possibility for peace in the Middle East is if Israel comes to believe that continuing its current treatment of the Palestinians will make the rest of the world its enemy, and that to maintain friendships it has to change its ways.

Also, "I will be critical of Israel when I need to be" is a statement only ever made by people of whom it is not true.

[oberliner]

5. "Friends of Israel are, by their very nature and existance, obstacles to peace"

Wow - that is quite a statement.

Certainly no doubt where you stand on things!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. It's not one I make lightly.

There are - obviously - a great many good, honest people who desperately want peace and are working hard for it and consider themselves to be friends of Israel. I don't like having to condemn all those people - most of them people far more worthy of admiration and respect than I am - but I think that ultimately their efforts are at best misguided and at worst counterproductive.

I do not think that there is any realistic hope of peace coming from within Israel. I don't think there's *much* hope of peace being imposed from outside, either (I think that much the most likely option is that the occupation will be permanent, and the Palestinians will remain in refugee camps), but it's the only road left possibly open.

[LeftishBrit]

12. I disagree on most of this...

'friends of Israel are, by their very nature and existance, obstacles to peace'

That is a sweeping statement. I suppose one could say, especially on anti-nationalist grounds, that unconditional friends of *any* country are a potential obstacle to peace; but then you'd have to say that 'friends of Britain'; 'friends of America'; 'friends of Palestine'; 'friends of Monaco'; etc. are also obstacles to peace. Exceptionalism against Israel is as bad as exceptionalism for Israel.

'the only possibility for peace in the Middle East is if Israel comes to believe that continuing its current treatment of the Palestinians will make the rest of the world its enemy, and that to maintain friendships it has to change its ways.'

The trouble here is that most right-wing (and many centrist) Israelis are xenophobic-isolationists who ALREADY regard the rest of the world as their enemy. Demonstrations of enmity (which is not the same as criticism) will only cause the Israeli right to dig in its heels further. It's like expecting UKIP to change its ways because the EU expresses hostility towards it. And there are a lot more Israeli isolationists (for understandable historic reasons) than there are British UKIP members.

IMO, the only potential way to peace is to pressurize *all* sides toward a two-state solution.

[shaayecanaan]

21. I agree with your final sentence...

"IMO, the only potential way to peace is to pressurize *all* sides toward a two-state solution.

I quite agree and I wish these purportedly liberal people would dedicate as much effort towards pressurizing the Israeli government as they do lambasting their leftist colleagues.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

58. The rest of the world, *except for the USA*.

I agree that most Israelis thing that most of the rest of the world, except for the USA, is against them - I agree with them on that.

But I think, and I think that most Israelis think, that most Americans, and most American politicians, are strongly pro-Israel -strongly enough to continue to provide Israel with carte blanche support, no matter what it does.

I think that the only hope for peace in the ME is to persuade the Americans to make their continued support for Israel, or some of it, conditional on an end to the occupation. I don't see much hope of that, but I think it's less impossible than peace coming from inside Israel.

And every friend of Israel whom Americans listen to is an obstacle to that.

[Hippo_Tron]

62. For whom is the status quo preferable to ending the occupation?

Maybe for Netanyahu, the Israeli right, and the Israelis who live in the occupied territories. But I think the vast majority of Israelis would trade away the West Bank for a guarantee of peace. The problem is that it's extremely difficult to enforce a guarantee of something ex post when you have to give away the incentive ex ante.

[Jefferson23]

6. Labour Friends of Israel

The Organization
Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) is a Westminister based pro-Israel lobby group working within the British Labour party. It is considered one of the most prestigious groupings in the party and is seen as a stepping stone to ministerial ranks by Labour MPs. LFI boasts some of the wealthiest supporters of the party, and some of its most generous donors, such as Lord Sainsbury of Turville, Michael Levy, Sir Trevor Chinn and Sir Emmanuel Kaye<2>.

The committee wields considerable influence in Westminster and is also consulted routinely by the Foreign Office and Downing Street on matters relating to the Middle East. Tony Blair is known to consult its members over Middle East policy <3>. The body also has Tory and Liberal Democrat sister organizations. The late Labour MP Gwyneth Dunwoody, chairman of the Commons transport select committee, was the life president of LFI, while David Mencer,a former volunteer for the Israeli Defence Force, is its current director.

A small time player during the Thatcher years, LFI first made it into the news when one of its erstwhile guests, Erwin Van Haarlem, a Czechoslovakian art dealer turned out to be a spy for the Czech intelligence services. The 1987 gathering, to which Van Haarlem was invited because of his ”apparent support for Jewish causes”, was also attended by members of the House of Lords, leading trade unionists, industrialists, and the former chief of staff of the Israeli army.<4>


Buying Influence
While Labour originally carried a reputation for having more voices sympathetic to the Palestinians – especially during the Thatcher years – the New Labour government of Tony Blair has reversed this orientation. Although one of Tony Blair’s first acts after becoming an MP in 1983 was joining LFI, the relationship truly developed in the early 90s, when as shadow Home Secretary, Tony Blair met Michael Levy at a private meeting at the latter’s house. Michael Abraham Levy is a former chairman of the Jewish Care Community Foundation, a member of the Jewish Agency World Board of Governors, and a trustee of the Holocaust Educational Trust. <5> According to Andrew Porter of The Business, Levy expressed his willingness “to raise large sums of money for the party” which led to a “tacit understanding that Labour would never again, while Blair was leader, be anti-Israel” <6>.

in full: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Labour_Friends_of_Israel

[oberliner]

9. Shooting the messenger - always a solid go-to tactic for discussion

Popular on both sides of the aisle it seems.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. That's not shooting the messenger. That's giving background on the group...

I can give you examples of shooting the messenger that I've seen in this forum if you'd like to see what the difference is...

[oberliner]

22. You're right, it's not

My bad.

However - no actual comment on the content of the message itself, just "context" from Sourcewatch about the organization to which the author belongs.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Violet_Crumble]

28. Yr right. There's nothing wrong with providing background info...

There's plenty of comment in the thread. If you need some help locating it, I can point you to it.

[oberliner]

30. And if you need help learning about the words "your" and "you're"

I can point you in the right direction as well!

Your snark is really not appreciated.

You go out of your way to tell people to be nice and civil.

I would encourage you to heed your own advice.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. I know the difference, and I enjoy using 'yr'

And there was nothing I said that was snarky. I was offering to point you to comments that have been made in this thread, as you appeared to be interested in discussing comments that were made. If you don't want to discuss the contents of the article, that's fine, but I'd prefer not to be dragged into silly squabbling.

I would encourage you to stick to the contents of the OP, instead of trying to make things personal :)

[Jefferson23]

23. Shoot away if you like....the background speaks for itself. The OP

is contrived disingenuous support for Palestinians, One can indeed hold progressive
views with exceptions..as this subject is his exception imo.

[oberliner]

26. Do you think the background might be biased?

The sources for Sourcewatch are not themselves entirely free of their own particular slant on things.

[Jefferson23]

54. Not on any significant level...no. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

13. Labour Friends of Israel includes people from all over the Labour political spectrum

From Tony Blair to veteran leftist Ian Mikardo.

[Jefferson23]

24. Not at its inception, no. That may or may not be a pertinent distinction

for some, but it is for me.

[Ken Burch]

7. The comparisons between Palestinians and Nazis ALSO need to stop

Can we just agree that NOBODY in this thing is a Nazi?

[LeftishBrit]

11. I agree. Calling EITHER Israelis OR Palestinians Nazis is not only demonization that is

counterproductive to the cause of peace, or of influencing the actions of either group; but is trivializing the real horrors of Nazism.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Ken's talking about comparing them with Nazis. Calling them Nazis is the most obvious form...

..but I've seen subtle and not-so-subtle comparisons in the past, and I suspect that's the sort of thing Ken's talking about...

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Agreed. There's no place in I/P discussion for any Nazi comparisons, imo n/t

[Ken Burch]

16. If this person was just making the case for progressive support for the existence of Israel

that would be one thing.

But it sounds like he's interpreting "support for Israel" as "defend the Occupation and the settlements".

That is asking too much.

[oberliner]

17. Where is there any defense of the occupation or the settlements in this piece?

Can you point to a specific sentence or two that gave you that impression?

[Violet_Crumble]

19. If those are progressive values, count me out...

As I have set out, it's because Israel embodies progressive values that I am a proud friend of Israel.

Yeah, progressive values like occupying and building settlements on territory that Israel occupies, building the separation barrier not along the Green Line, but deep into parts of the West Bank, and killing Palestinian civilians in Gaza and using the excuse it's self-defence just to name a few. It's not left wing or progressive to ally ones-self with those who support the occupation and settlers and those who try to discourage others from speaking out against those things...

[oberliner]

25. That is shocking

The progressive values the author enumerates are things like equality for women, a flourishing LGBT communnity, a critical media, an independent judiciary, well-organized trade unions, support for scientific innovation, educational excellence, freedom of religion, and a welfare system that supports the poor and marginalized.

I cannot imagine that these are not values that you would support.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. No, saying that occupation and killing are not progresive values isn't shocking...

Y'know, those things Israel does that the author glossed over? In fact, I listed them just in case anyone was going to come along and object, so I think you should read the things I listed and explain to me how they're progressive values. There's no way any of them could be considered the slightest bit progressive...

[oberliner]

29. There isn't anything in the article saying 'the occupation and killing' are progressive values

The progressive values he is praising are the ones I just listed for you.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Yes there is. This is directly from the article. You need to go and reread it..

'As I have set out, it's because Israel embodies progressive values that I am a proud friend of Israel.'

Here's what he set out, though in a glossed over sort of way, which is probably why you failed to notice it:

'And in response to this terror, to protect its people, Israel built a security barrier, which many didn't like, but has drastically limited the ability of suicide bombers to enter Israel, at least for now.'

'It was, I know, hard for people to watch what was happening in Lebanon and Gaza on their TV screens because innocent civilians were killed - as sadly happens in all wars.

Whereas Israel viewed these as wars of survival, support for Israel plummeted as a result.'

and then there's this clanger:

'It's partly because there are two progressive principles that Israel is accused of denying the Palestinian people: one is their right to self-determination; the other is the general principle of "fairness", the sense that the Palestinians are not treated fairly by a powerful majority.'

Accused of?? He comes across as though he doesn't agree that Israel's denying the Palestinian the right to self-determination, and doesn't think that the Palestinians are treated unfairly at all.

[oberliner]

34. No there isn't

In fact, he specifically lists the occupation as something he is critical of.

The progressive values that he admires are very clearly and explicitly listed in the article for all to see.

It is shocking that anyone on this board would not concur with his praise of at least some of those values.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. I just posted it. I suggest you go back and read what I posted...

Those ugly things that you didn't notice him listed were there in the article and are among the progressive values he admires. I don't know about you, but I don't find making excuses for those things in any way progressive. The reason I listed them was because I wanted to be clear exactly what progressive values I was objecting to. Not sure how that can be twisted into an attempt to say I disagree about other issues I didn't list...

Just come back to ask you to point out where in the article he 'specifically lists the occupation as something he is critical of'. I couldn't find it...

[shira]

36. Is Australia more progressive than Israel given these facts...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x330852#331353

[Violet_Crumble]

37. Huh? Why are you going on about Australia all of a sudden?

That's just bizarre...

[shira]

38. Can you please answer my question rather than inquire as to why I would ask such a question? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

39. Sorry, no can do n/t

[shira]

41. The point is that Israel's easily as progressive as any other flawed liberal democracy...

...including the USA, UK, Australia, etc.

My point wasn't to slam Australia, only to show that what you're attempting in response to Oberliner can be done WRT any liberal nation in the world.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. So fucking what? This thread is about Israel, not the rest of the world n/t

[shira]

43. Would you ever say, given Australian policies, that if Australia is "progressive"...

...then "count you out"?

[Violet_Crumble]

44. This thread is about Israel, not Australia...

If you want to be useful, go and find me the bit in the OP where a specific mention is made of opposing the occupation. I've read it several times now and still can't pin it down. And if you want to ask questions about Australian politics, you could venture out of this forum and wander over to the Australia forum, where there's one or two of us who sometimes hang out there and talk about all things Australian. I'll even start a new thread there and come back and give you the link so you can come over to the forum and ask us all the questions you can think of...

[shira]

45. Just pointing out hypocrisy and double standards. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

46. You were? I'm not sure who you think is hypocritical. Here's a link to the Australia forum...

Yr very eager to discuss Australia's treatment of Aboriginals, so here's the thread I started so you can come and get the thoughts of some other Australian DUers...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=199x3211

[shira]

47. You still don't get it. You're holding Israel to a higher standard than any other liberal nation

...when you claim Israel isn't progressive like other liberal nations worldwide that are also flawed.

Most are "worse" than Israel given the circumstances.

[Violet_Crumble]

48. No, I'm not. And if you click on the link and post in the Australia forum you'll see why...

Go on. You know you want to do it. I've given you the link to the thread and asked what we as Australians can do to improve things. Given yr fascination with Australia, I'm expecting you'll be eager to post in the thread and share yr thoughts! I've even added the accusation you just made into the OP. I think that while it's completely wrong, it's an interesting thing to discuss...

[shira]

49. You're making out like Israel doesn't belong in the progressive community of nations...

...that in comparison to all others it's worse - that it doesn't fit due to its flaws.

That's why you're for BDS only for Israel and not for any other progressive nation "worse" than Israel.

That's why you'd never say "count me out" WRT Australia or any other liberal nation "worse" than Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. There's no such thing as a 'progressive community of nations'...

What an absolutely silly and homegrown concept! And fyi, I said count me out as a progressive if progressive values involve excusing building a separation barrier that travels deep inside the West Bank and justifying the killing of Palestinian civilians as being Israel defending itself. See, the difference is I don't recall ever believing that the shit things my country has done are the slightest bit progressive, so I don't know what the hell yr going on about hypocrisy for...

Anyway, if you want to keep on talking about Australia, I've started a thread for you in the Australia forum. Go there and discuss Australia, coz I'm leaving you to yr own devices if yr going to continue to do it here...

btw, you could have at least pointed me to the bit in the OP that specifically mentions opposition to the occupation. Thanks for nothing!!

[shira]

55. Can you name one progressive or liberal democracy that rates better...

...in your view than Israel?

[Violet_Crumble]

57. Nope. I seem to have mislaid my list...

Y'know, that neatly numbered list of members of that 'progressive community of nations'. Now, where did I put it? ;)

[King_David]

60. Well I will answer then

No it is not !

[Violet_Crumble]

61. Feel free to explain why you think that...

See, this isn't some stupid competition where one country is ranked as more progressive as another, and I'm confused as to why you and that other poster seem to think it is. All it comes across as is a major case of 'LOOK!! OVER THERE!!!'

[Violet_Crumble]

59. That thread I started for you in the Australia forum? It's getting some responses...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=199x3211#3214

Seeing you were so interested in changing the subject in this forum to Australia, and appeared to be labelling me a hypocrite without knowing fuck all about what work I've done on indigenous issues, I'm shocked that you wouldn't have followed the link and posted for the first time ever outside the I/P forum!

[shira]

63. See posts 47, 49 above...

Those obsessed with demonizing Israel could very well find more wrong with any other nation on the planet, and that's my point. If you're looking only for the bad things, then every other liberal democracy on the planet rates worse than Israel given the circumstances.

Don't believe me? Fine.

Want to challenge me on that? I'm up to the task.

If not, oh well....

[Violet_Crumble]

64. I read them. They're still as stupid as they were on the first read...

You don't have a point. Bringing up things that Israel does that are most definately not progressive is not 'looking only for the bad things'. And as to why you randomly brought Australia up the way you did was lame, Shira. Really lame. Not quite as lame as yr insistance on trying to rank every country in the world in stupid lists, but it's nearly there....

What part of I'm not fucking interested in yr stupid leaderboard are you not grasping? It's pathetic and stupid in the extreme...

[shira]

65. Ok, great. Thanks for the stimulating discussion. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

40. Getting things back on track, I've reread the article and can't find that specific mention...

Can you point me to it? I'm pretty sure there is no specific mention of the occupation in that article....

[Violet_Crumble]

31. 'I will be critical of Israel when I need to be'

That's nice and all, but I notice he precedes that with: 'And yet I have observed a curious phenomenon: whenever I say something supportive of Israel I am almost always challenged to say something critical too. It's as if I have to buy permission to say something positive.' How is that different from the demands made for people who say something critical of Israel to make sure they say something more critical of the Palestinians? And also, he sort of comes across as trying to deter people from asking the obvious question 'So, when have you felt the need to be critical of Israel and what was the criticism?' Because I suspect the response would be: 'See what I mean? Whenever I say anything positive about Israel, I'm always asked to point to something I've said that's critical!'