"To be clear, I am not defending what Israel is doing, its government, or policies. Like many American Jews, supporting Israel is about supporting it's right to exist as a Jewish homeland in a small fraction of its biblical footprint, along side a sovereign Palestinian nation."
This, in one paragraph, captures what I think is the entire p…
"To be clear, I am not defending what Israel is doing, its government, or policies. Like many American Jews, supporting Israel is about supporting it's right to exist as a Jewish homeland in a small fraction of its biblical footprint, along side a sovereign Palestinian nation."
This, in one paragraph, captures what I think is the entire problem.
First, when your first and only instinct when somebody talks about the atrocities Israel is committing is to indulge in whataboutism and cite examples of Jewish persecution throughout history, yes, you are defending what Israel is doing.
I've had so many conversations about his topic, with people who I can tell are decent, caring, otherwise reasonable people, but they allow themselves to turn all of that machinery off when it comes to this issue because they are determined to defend Israel at any cost. As I say above, the hard part is refusing to look the other way when the stories, or indeed the facts, no longer flatter our friends.
So again, I understand the instinct to defend Israel. But part of loving something is being willing to admit when it's wrong. To demand that it demonstrate the best, not the worst of itself.
And the second part, though perhaps off topic, is that I think the concept of a Jewish homeland is extremely shaky morally and practically and I don't think it can hold. At least without the cruelty and oppression that Israel is currently practicing. I say this as someone who's been to Israel, who has close friends there, and who fully supports its right to exist. I'm just questioning the sustainability and justness of its current concept.
For example, imagine if, after slavery, a "black" state had been created. In Texas, say. And the black people there set up various policies to ensure there would always be a black majority that would always vote in black interests and maintain control of black land. Imagine, as would inevitably be the case given racial attitudes at the time, the majority white states around them occasionally attacked them, but thanks to support from other powerful nations (perhaps the British empire, feeling guilty for their role in slavery and resentful of the U.S. for its rebellion), this black state was militarily powerful enough to fight them off.
Imagine if, emboldened by this military strength, this state began to encroach on surrounding states; stealing pieces of territory, running white farmers off their land, establishing control over movement and resources over the dangerous racists in Louisiana, perhaps.
Lest we forget, black people are still impacted by slavery today. The foundation of the racism that black people face today is the idea, created during slavery that black people are a "race' and are inferior to white people. That's how slavery was justified. But would you consider this to be a just or sustainable state? Would you think the horrors of slavery justified this state's actions, however terrible, in perpetuity?
Anyway, again, this is a very different conversation. Just food for thought and perhaps an insight into how more impartial observers view this situation. I'd be delighted to chat about it (and far lighter topics) over sushi one day.
Perhaps a better way to articulate my issue is to refer to the book, “Jews Don’t Count” by David Baddiel. You may be familiar with him, if not the book. It addresses the double-standards and omission of Jewish identity within historically oppressed groups—conflating Jewish identity with white supremacy/white supremacists (based on a singular Jewish ethnicity)—and how it’s fomented a lot of the Jew-hatred we are seeing today under the guise of social justice. So it’s not about being anti __________. It’s about being white-washed, alienated, and vilified. This is the justification for blaming all Jews for whatever Israel does.
I don’t believe I denied Israel was doing something wrong. My defense is of its existence. While the Arab league nations have largely given up on their attempts to remove Israel from the world map (genocide), groups like Hamas—and the Iranian government—maintain that goal. So I see what’s happening as an extension of the original Arab/Israeli conflict, using proxies and PR tactics.
The partition plan that created Israel, and what would have been a Palestinian Arab homeland was not unique to the Jews. A year prior, the model was very notably used to create India (Bharat) and West and East Pakistan (Bangladesh as 1971) to help quell violence between Hindus and Muslims. I believe more recently, there was the creation of North and South Sudan to stop the genocide. And then there are the vast majority of Muslim nations that have Islam as their official state religion. Couldn’t those be considered Muslim homelands?
So as much as the idea of a Jewish homeland seems shaky to you, there’s precedent and on-going practice for other oppressed groups. I don’t believe it’s a big ask for you or anyone else to apply equal application of this practice to Jews.
Maybe another way of relating the meaning of Israel to Jews is something like this: even though you are English, it’s safe to assume your ancestry traces back to Africa. What does Africa mean to you? Is there a spiritual, emotional, or other underlying connection to those roots? Does it give you any comfort knowing that having Black skin in Africa is just normal—even if you never planned on living there? For many Jews, the idea of Israel brings some sense of psychological safety that there is a homeland—that we are not at the mercy of the whims of any other religious, racial, or other persecution for being a Jew—even if we never plan to move there. Jews have been run out of every place they dwelt in the Christian and Muslim world at some point in history. This is including the Spanish, English, and Dutch colonies of the "New World." Your home country of England has even apologized for ethnically cleansing its Jews 800+ years ago. Memories are long.
Or how about this…humans don’t learn from history and keep replaying the same tape on a loop. The Levant has been conquered and colonized repeatedly for millennia. To some it’s a holy place, to others, a strategic military and economic cross-roads. And probably something else to someone else. But everyone wants it.
Anyway, I am planning to pull down my posts and move on with my actual real life. These are conversations I prefer to have in person and removing the posts is the best way I can think to cut through this Gordian knot of a topic.
"I don’t believe it’s a big ask for you or anyone else to apply equal application of this practice to Jews."
Haha, if you'd like me to stop replying I will. I'll restrict myself only to addressing the above point, because it's important. But happy for this to be my last reply.
Yes, I agree completely. The application of any principle should be consistent. And I'm consistently opposed to the creation of ethnostates on the basis of religion or ethnicity or any aspect of group identity. I'm not singling out Jews here at all.
To my knowledge, Israel's legal and often illegal enforcement of the Jews' alleged God-given right to a piece of land is unique. But if not, as I said above, I'd object exactly as strongly to a "black" state or a "Christian" state or a "Muslim" state.
Not least because, in each of the cases you mention, there was enormous death, brutality and suffering, both at the time, and in many cases, still years later, as a result of the creation of these states. There's a reason why both the partition of India and the expulsion of Arabs are known in their native languages as "The Catastrophe." There's a reason why there's still a genocide happening in Sudan. There's a reason why Jews and Muslims are still dying in the Middle East.
If outsider military might is used, I think it should be used to unite people, most of whom, I'll remind you, were already living in peace. Jews and Muslims have lived in that part of the world, largely without incident, for centuries. It was European anti semitism, the British empire's God complex, and religious extremism on both sides that led to the mess we see today.
So yes, I sadly agree with you that we don't seem to learn from history. But we should. And Israeli Jews have more reason to have learned from history than most. Indeed, as I've pointed out, the Jews who experienced the worst of that history *have* learned from it. I'm just praying that nobody, Jewish or Muslim or anything else, has to experience those same horror before they learn too.
Quick follow-up. I am deciding to keep my posts up. Regardless of the topic, I hope our exchange here can serve as an example of how to have a civil dialogue online. Lofty ambition?
“To my knowledge, Israel's legal and often illegal enforcement of the Jews' alleged God-given right to a piece of land is unique. But if not, as I said above, I'd object exactly as strongly to a "black" state or a "Christian" state or a "Muslim" state.”
The Crusades were EXACTLY about a religion’s God-given claims to the holy lands. Religion was used as a “justification” taming the “savages” and “infidels” of all the places conquered and colonized by the Christian and Islamic worlds. Religions were the umbrella political system that united pfeifdoms, sheikdoms, tribes, etc., prior the to the development of political nation states as we know them today.
More specific to Israel/Palestine (and applicable to India/Pakistan), this is exactly the Arab Islamist claim to the land—and 1,300+ years later written in Hamas’ charter. I believe it’s called the “ummah,” and it basically states that any land conquered by Islam can never be given up or surrendered to non-Muslims. The Islamic Empire was a conquering and colonizing force that originated in the Hijaz (Saudi Arabia post WWI colonialism). They didn’t build the pyramids of Giza or the Roman aqueducts and amphitheaters in the Levant. The didn’t build the Byzantine church that became the Hagia Sofia Mosque in Istanbul (which was once Constantinople).
"To be clear, I am not defending what Israel is doing, its government, or policies. Like many American Jews, supporting Israel is about supporting it's right to exist as a Jewish homeland in a small fraction of its biblical footprint, along side a sovereign Palestinian nation."
This, in one paragraph, captures what I think is the entire problem.
First, when your first and only instinct when somebody talks about the atrocities Israel is committing is to indulge in whataboutism and cite examples of Jewish persecution throughout history, yes, you are defending what Israel is doing.
I've had so many conversations about his topic, with people who I can tell are decent, caring, otherwise reasonable people, but they allow themselves to turn all of that machinery off when it comes to this issue because they are determined to defend Israel at any cost. As I say above, the hard part is refusing to look the other way when the stories, or indeed the facts, no longer flatter our friends.
So again, I understand the instinct to defend Israel. But part of loving something is being willing to admit when it's wrong. To demand that it demonstrate the best, not the worst of itself.
And the second part, though perhaps off topic, is that I think the concept of a Jewish homeland is extremely shaky morally and practically and I don't think it can hold. At least without the cruelty and oppression that Israel is currently practicing. I say this as someone who's been to Israel, who has close friends there, and who fully supports its right to exist. I'm just questioning the sustainability and justness of its current concept.
For example, imagine if, after slavery, a "black" state had been created. In Texas, say. And the black people there set up various policies to ensure there would always be a black majority that would always vote in black interests and maintain control of black land. Imagine, as would inevitably be the case given racial attitudes at the time, the majority white states around them occasionally attacked them, but thanks to support from other powerful nations (perhaps the British empire, feeling guilty for their role in slavery and resentful of the U.S. for its rebellion), this black state was militarily powerful enough to fight them off.
Imagine if, emboldened by this military strength, this state began to encroach on surrounding states; stealing pieces of territory, running white farmers off their land, establishing control over movement and resources over the dangerous racists in Louisiana, perhaps.
Imagine if black extremists found their way into the government, writing in their charter that "from sea to shining sea there will be only black sovereignty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likud#:~:text=The%20original%201977%20party%20platform,the%20realization%20of%20Zionist%20values.)."
Lest we forget, black people are still impacted by slavery today. The foundation of the racism that black people face today is the idea, created during slavery that black people are a "race' and are inferior to white people. That's how slavery was justified. But would you consider this to be a just or sustainable state? Would you think the horrors of slavery justified this state's actions, however terrible, in perpetuity?
Anyway, again, this is a very different conversation. Just food for thought and perhaps an insight into how more impartial observers view this situation. I'd be delighted to chat about it (and far lighter topics) over sushi one day.
If you keep replying I won’t shut up.
Perhaps a better way to articulate my issue is to refer to the book, “Jews Don’t Count” by David Baddiel. You may be familiar with him, if not the book. It addresses the double-standards and omission of Jewish identity within historically oppressed groups—conflating Jewish identity with white supremacy/white supremacists (based on a singular Jewish ethnicity)—and how it’s fomented a lot of the Jew-hatred we are seeing today under the guise of social justice. So it’s not about being anti __________. It’s about being white-washed, alienated, and vilified. This is the justification for blaming all Jews for whatever Israel does.
I don’t believe I denied Israel was doing something wrong. My defense is of its existence. While the Arab league nations have largely given up on their attempts to remove Israel from the world map (genocide), groups like Hamas—and the Iranian government—maintain that goal. So I see what’s happening as an extension of the original Arab/Israeli conflict, using proxies and PR tactics.
The partition plan that created Israel, and what would have been a Palestinian Arab homeland was not unique to the Jews. A year prior, the model was very notably used to create India (Bharat) and West and East Pakistan (Bangladesh as 1971) to help quell violence between Hindus and Muslims. I believe more recently, there was the creation of North and South Sudan to stop the genocide. And then there are the vast majority of Muslim nations that have Islam as their official state religion. Couldn’t those be considered Muslim homelands?
So as much as the idea of a Jewish homeland seems shaky to you, there’s precedent and on-going practice for other oppressed groups. I don’t believe it’s a big ask for you or anyone else to apply equal application of this practice to Jews.
Maybe another way of relating the meaning of Israel to Jews is something like this: even though you are English, it’s safe to assume your ancestry traces back to Africa. What does Africa mean to you? Is there a spiritual, emotional, or other underlying connection to those roots? Does it give you any comfort knowing that having Black skin in Africa is just normal—even if you never planned on living there? For many Jews, the idea of Israel brings some sense of psychological safety that there is a homeland—that we are not at the mercy of the whims of any other religious, racial, or other persecution for being a Jew—even if we never plan to move there. Jews have been run out of every place they dwelt in the Christian and Muslim world at some point in history. This is including the Spanish, English, and Dutch colonies of the "New World." Your home country of England has even apologized for ethnically cleansing its Jews 800+ years ago. Memories are long.
Or how about this…humans don’t learn from history and keep replaying the same tape on a loop. The Levant has been conquered and colonized repeatedly for millennia. To some it’s a holy place, to others, a strategic military and economic cross-roads. And probably something else to someone else. But everyone wants it.
Anyway, I am planning to pull down my posts and move on with my actual real life. These are conversations I prefer to have in person and removing the posts is the best way I can think to cut through this Gordian knot of a topic.
"I don’t believe it’s a big ask for you or anyone else to apply equal application of this practice to Jews."
Haha, if you'd like me to stop replying I will. I'll restrict myself only to addressing the above point, because it's important. But happy for this to be my last reply.
Yes, I agree completely. The application of any principle should be consistent. And I'm consistently opposed to the creation of ethnostates on the basis of religion or ethnicity or any aspect of group identity. I'm not singling out Jews here at all.
To my knowledge, Israel's legal and often illegal enforcement of the Jews' alleged God-given right to a piece of land is unique. But if not, as I said above, I'd object exactly as strongly to a "black" state or a "Christian" state or a "Muslim" state.
Not least because, in each of the cases you mention, there was enormous death, brutality and suffering, both at the time, and in many cases, still years later, as a result of the creation of these states. There's a reason why both the partition of India and the expulsion of Arabs are known in their native languages as "The Catastrophe." There's a reason why there's still a genocide happening in Sudan. There's a reason why Jews and Muslims are still dying in the Middle East.
If outsider military might is used, I think it should be used to unite people, most of whom, I'll remind you, were already living in peace. Jews and Muslims have lived in that part of the world, largely without incident, for centuries. It was European anti semitism, the British empire's God complex, and religious extremism on both sides that led to the mess we see today.
So yes, I sadly agree with you that we don't seem to learn from history. But we should. And Israeli Jews have more reason to have learned from history than most. Indeed, as I've pointed out, the Jews who experienced the worst of that history *have* learned from it. I'm just praying that nobody, Jewish or Muslim or anything else, has to experience those same horror before they learn too.
Quick follow-up. I am deciding to keep my posts up. Regardless of the topic, I hope our exchange here can serve as an example of how to have a civil dialogue online. Lofty ambition?
I lied…you are too irresistible not to reply.
“To my knowledge, Israel's legal and often illegal enforcement of the Jews' alleged God-given right to a piece of land is unique. But if not, as I said above, I'd object exactly as strongly to a "black" state or a "Christian" state or a "Muslim" state.”
The Crusades were EXACTLY about a religion’s God-given claims to the holy lands. Religion was used as a “justification” taming the “savages” and “infidels” of all the places conquered and colonized by the Christian and Islamic worlds. Religions were the umbrella political system that united pfeifdoms, sheikdoms, tribes, etc., prior the to the development of political nation states as we know them today.
More specific to Israel/Palestine (and applicable to India/Pakistan), this is exactly the Arab Islamist claim to the land—and 1,300+ years later written in Hamas’ charter. I believe it’s called the “ummah,” and it basically states that any land conquered by Islam can never be given up or surrendered to non-Muslims. The Islamic Empire was a conquering and colonizing force that originated in the Hijaz (Saudi Arabia post WWI colonialism). They didn’t build the pyramids of Giza or the Roman aqueducts and amphitheaters in the Levant. The didn’t build the Byzantine church that became the Hagia Sofia Mosque in Istanbul (which was once Constantinople).