Future historians will be able to judge whether Israel at the end 0f 2009 was on the brink of an existential crisis or had already gone over the edge. Mainstream political actors find the second option inconceivable. The intellectually honest, however, are no longer willing to waffle, understanding that the status quo is untenable. Thus, a Likud hardliner, MK Tzipi Hotovely, endorses the one-state solution and, below, centrist author and academic Gadi Taub to assert that a showdown between the State of Israel and the fundamentalist settlers is inevitable.

The land or the state

Op-ed, Gadi Taub, Yediot, December 21 2009

Judging by the reports, it appears that the IDF is preparing to enforce the construction freeze in Judea and Samaria as if this were an attack on nuclear facilities in Iran.  On the face of it, this would seem to be a serious exaggeration.  The security establishment regards the inflammatory rhetoric of the settlers as if this were truly an enemy army numbering 300,000 people.  But the rhetoric is far from the reality.  The settlers will not try to subdue us by arms.  They are used to having the state pamper them, and they believe that the “price tag” policy will deter us.

Although this is not an enemy army, we are talking about a fundamental clash between two kinds of Zionism, which are incompatible, and therefore we should not make light of the magnitude of the shock that we will undergo before we succeed in dividing the land.  The Zionism of the settlers is a Zionism of the land, while the Zionism that most of us hold is a Zionism of the state.  It is easy to confuse them: The Zionism of Herzl, Ben-Gurion, Weizmann and Jabotinsky is also closely tied to the Land of Israel, whereas the Zionism of the settlers also holds the State of Israel in high regard and is willing to sacrifice a great deal for it.  It is not by chance that the religious settlers volunteer en masse for combat units, and that the spirit of sacrifice on behalf of the collective is a central part of their education.

Despite this, the difference is central and important, and the rift has only been growing since the 1970s.  As Aviezer Ravitzky observed years ago, in his important book Messianism, Zionism and Jewish Religious Radicalism [originally entitled “The Revealed End and the Jewish State” in Hebrew], the disciples of Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Hacohen heap praises upon the ideal state, while withholding them from the actual government.

The ideal state is the one that sanctifies settlements, and when the actual government restricts settlements—it loses its legitimacy.  This is what stands behind the freedom that the settlers have taken to block the path of those enforcing the construction ban, to demonstrate at an IDF swearing-in ceremony, to teach the students of hesder yeshivas that they are subject to an authority higher than their commanders.  The state is holy only inasmuch as it promotes settlement activity.

Hanan Porat clarified well the difference between the two types of Zionism—Zionism of the land versus Zionism of the state—when he said in the past that “the commandment of settling the land has several aspects, including Jewish sovereignty over the entire Land of Israel.”  In the eyes of the mainstream, the opposite is true: Jewish sovereignty has several aspects, one of which is settling the land.

This refers, then, to the difference between the end and the means.  In the eyes of the settlers, the state is a means to the end of fulfilling “our duty to the Land of Israel, in immigration and settlement” (as stated by the founding document of Gush Emunim).  In the view of mainstream Zionism, settlement is a means of establishing the sovereignty of the state.

As time passes, it becomes apparent that the difference is a chasm.  The two views can be expected to face each other in a head-on collision: After all, it is clear to any sensible person that Israel stands before the choice between a large state with an Arab majority and a less large state with a Jewish majority.  Loyalty to the Land of Israel has become the most tangible danger to the basic principle of political Zionism: A Jewish and democratic state.

There is no need for panic.  Disengagement demonstrated that at the end of the day, the Zionism of the land will bend to the Zionism of the state, if the state is determined enough.  The settlers have neither the means nor sufficient ideological confidence to part from the state, not to mention declaring war on it.  And although the thorough deployment of the security establishment may look excessive, it is in fact good that it is preparing for the future with great seriousness: Israel has to make it clear to the settlers that Zionism will not tolerate any attempt to place the land above the state that we have established on it.

—–

Tzipi Hotovely

This is from MK Tzipi Hotovely, one of the more rightwing members of Likud:

“Israeli law should be applied on the Judea and Samaria region,” Hotovely said during a conference in the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya and stated she did not rule out granting citizenship to Palestinians.

The MK explained that “Judea and Samaria are a part of the land of Israel,” and blamed the Palestinians for the failure of the political process. “We strongly wish to get a divorce, but the other side doesn’t want to separate.”

Hotovely told Ynet later in the evening, “It’s unthinkable that Jews in Judea and Samaria would live under occupation and under a military regime. The distorted policy, which states that every construction permit must be approved by the defense minister harms the most basic rights.

“It’s time to lift the question mark over Judea and Samaria and view the people living there as citizens with an equal status. Thinking ahead, strategically, we should consider granting gradual citizenship to Palestinians based on loyalty tests.”

And with that, the usually unimpressive Hotovely became the first Likud member to face reality: you cannot settle the West Bank and talk about a solution to the Palestinian problem at the same time, unless you are ready to turn the Palestinians into equal citizens.

The “loyalty tests” part is indeed troubling, but let’s look on the bright side this time: if Netanyahu is talking about two states, and the radical right about a bi-national one, it seems that Israelis are finally realizing that the occupation can’t go on for much longer.

Adelson

UPDATE/ADDENDUM: December 10 2009 — Noam Sheizaf at Promised Land and Bryan Altinski by e-mail both point out that by supporting this legislation, I’m ultimately undermining the same freedoms I’m trying to defend. Point taken. No end justifies the means. Especially when freedom of speech is at stake. I wrote, “in this atmosphere one is tempted to clutch at straws,” and I have.

On Friday (December 4 2009) we surveyed US casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson’s ongoing intervention in local politics, trading American money for Israeli influence. Engaged for nearly two decades in building a highly effective local network of neo-conservative institutions, Adelson wanted more. In July 2007 he launched Israel Hayom, a blatantly pro-Netanyahu newspaper engaged in highly uncompetitive practices. We quoted Israeli prize laureate Nahum Barnea of Yediot, who, in a recent Globes interview, bluntly warned that Adelson was a clear and present danger to Israeli democracy.

This morning’s (December 9 2009) Maariv reports (full text after jump) that a bi-partisan Knesset bill seeks to bar foreign ownership of Israeli newspapers

A large group of Knesset Members is seeking, through new legislation, to restrict control of the Israeli media by people who live abroad. The bill calls to ban people who are either not citizens or residents of Israel to receive a license to own a newspaper.

Good news.

Lieberman

This has been a terrible year for Israeli democracy. Already fundamentally flawed — more than three million stateless and right-less Palestinians under effective Israeli control for42 years; institutionalized discrimination against an “enfranchised” Arab minority; severe restrictions on religious freedom — what is left is being undermined. The freedom of expression and association of Israeli citizens has driven an extraordinarily open public debate for a country at war. Since the the outbreak of the Second Intifada in 2000, however, these rights have been constantly questioned by the security establishment and right-wing partisans . The Gaza war accelerated the process exponentially. Dissent was systematically silenced and the domestic media debate was all but monolithic.

The Netanyahu government is poised to deliver coup de grâce. The combination of Lieberman putinism and Shas chauvinism is enough to turn every day into a rearguard action to defend another threatened freedom. But another development presents a much more fundamental threat. In an ironic twist, just as the neoconservatives exited DC, they took office in Jerusalem. The Prime Minister’s Office is staffed by movement ideologues (many of whom are alumni of Adelson’s Shalem Center.) They are working towards a restructuring of the Israeli public sphere and are working closely on this effort with partners formally outside the government — Dore Gold of the JCPA, Gerald Steinberg of NGO Monitor and Gonen Ginat of Adelson’s Israel Hayom, for example.

One major vector is the Ron Dermer initiated campaign to suppress Israeli human rights NGOs, currently led by Steinberg. Over the past two weeks, with everyone else focused on the settlement freeze, I have bored Coteret readers with daily accounts of a last-ditch defense waged by progressive civil society groups.

Dermer and friends

A border-less Israel has been in a perpetual internal security crisis at least since 1967. It does not have a constitution or a real tradition of pluralistic democracy. Bouncing back may be much more difficult than it was in for post-Bush US.

In this atmosphere, one is tempted to clutch every passing straw and I jumped all over the Maariv story. An extraordinary coalition of MKs, a Likud hardliner hand-in-hand with an Arab nationalist. Does the Israeli Knesset, at the bottom of the ladder in terms of public trust and castrated by the executive branch, still have a collective survival instinct? Probably not. Interests have met, however. For those to the left of Netanyahu, the partisan motivation is clear. Miri Regev is positioning herself as a populist leader of the Likud’s internal opposition to Netanyahu. Israel Hayom has not been kind to her. The Haaretz report on the bill adds something Maariv neglected to mention

Yisrael Hayom’s popularity is seen mainly as a threat to Maariv; Nimrodi has been meeting MKs in recent weeks to discuss the matter. A Nimrodi associate, attorney Ram Caspi, took part in drafting the bill.

Incest is an apt description for the relationship some Israeli MKs have with local captains of industry and financiers.

No matter. Tourniquet comes first, bandages later. In any case, it too early to celebrate. There is a lot of horse-trading ahead before before the bill even makes it to the Knesset floor.  

MKs mobilize for newspapers owned only by Israelis

Arik Bender, Maariv, December 9 2009

A large group of Knesset Members is seeking, through new legislation, to restrict control of the Israeli media by people who live abroad. The bill calls to ban people who are either not citizens or residents of Israel to receive a license to own a newspaper.

The bill provides a clear definition of who may own a media outlet in Israel. The bill reads, in part, “No license shall be granted unless the applicant is a citizen and resident of Israel and/or a corporation registered in Israel, and the ability to direct its activity and at least 51 percent of all means of direct or indirect control over it are in the hands of either Israeli citizens or residents of Israel.”

“The goal of the bill is to set the world of Israeli journalism in order,” said MK Hasson (Kadima). “We want to change the situation in which a person who is not a resident of Israel and the center of whose life is not in Israel can own a newspaper by means of his money and use it as a kind of mouthpiece in order to represent clear interests, while most of the readers either don’t know or don’t realize the hidden interests of the publisher, who often does this for free. Today it’s Sheldon Adelson, a foreign citizen who owns Israel Hayom. Tomorrow, a Saudi businessman will establish a newspaper and wrest control over public discourse here and influence Israel’s public opinion without our knowing a thing about either the interests that he represents or his goals.”

MK Daniel Ben Simon (Labor) said that he has no problem with newspapers being given out for free but, rather, with the identity of the person behind the action. “I don’t know what his motives are, but he’s touching Israeli democracy’s holy of holies—he’s molding the face of Israeli society,” he explained. “Personally, I feel badly that a man who made most of his money in casinos or by means of casinos, who doesn’t know a word of Hebrew and doesn’t live here, should hold such a key.”

MK Eitan Kabel (Labor) joined this position. “The importance of this bill is first and foremost that the need to ensure that the Israeli media should be led by Israelis who have knowledge and awareness of what’s happening in the country,” he said. “The media isn’t just a business.” In addition, MK Miri Regev (Likud), who supports the bill, said that members of all Knesset factions support the bill. “I see it as a fundamental principle, not a personal one,” she said. “It’s intended to preserve pluralistic discourse in the media and in the public.”

The chairman of the United Torah Judaism faction, MK Eliezer Menahem Mozes, said that this is a broad assertion. “Just as I oppose the idea that Israeli citizens should vote abroad or that foreign citizens, even if they’re Jews, should vote in Israel,” he said, “I am against the notion that the foremost element that influences public opinion in Israel, the media, should be under the control of a foreign citizen who will try to dictate our public opinion.”

MK Dov Hanin (Hadash) said that this stems from the media’s influence on Israeli life. “There is a problem with the idea that people who are not part of this society should have the power to affect society’s agenda in a dramatic way,” he said. “The media is a neutral tool, and therefore we think that the owners of the media ought to be Israeli citizens.”

MK Ahmed Tibi (United Arab List/Arab Movement for Renewal) said that journalism must be preserved, and that its owners should be compelled to be residents. “The relationship between big business and government is problematic,” he said, “particularly if it is motivated by foreign funds and ulterior motives.”

Link

Link

Pollard proposes Killing Palestinian Prisoners until Shalit freed

Haaretz, 2009.12.02

Convicted Israeli spy [Jewish-American Traitor] Jonathan Pollard made clear that he strongly opposed the prisoner exchange deal to free Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit, reported the Jerusalem Post on Wednesday.

Pollard has been in an American jail for over 20 years for spying for Israel while serving as a U.S. Navy intelligence analyst.

Pollard met with Likud activists Moshe Feiglin and Shmuel Sackett at his prison in North Carolina.

Instead of talking about freeing Palestinian prisoners, Pollard said, “Netanyahu should take the list of prisoners Hamas requested and kill one of them every day until they release Gilad from prison.”

In a letter sent to the Jerusalem post and published last week, Pollard wrote, “Why is the life of one Israeli captive deemed so precious that Israel’s leaders are willing to dispense with all logic and morality in order to redeem him?”

“As long as Israeli leaders demonstrate a unanimous will to exploit the value of rescuing one captive because it suits their political ends, while simultaneously ignoring another captive, there can be no national honor, nor national self-respect,” the letter said.

An “Israeli spy”? Of course he did spy for Israel. But also for Iran and the Soviets and anybody else who’d pay him.

Ironically, if he was just described as “a spy motivated by cash” he’d get less sympathy from Americans than calling him “an Israeli spy”.

His goal here is to get Israelis to put pressure on Satanyahoo etc to put pressure on their bitch Obama.

They should let Pollard “return” to his “homeland”. It would be on every news show for weeks and talked about from coast to coast. Then Americans would then realize who’s in charge.

I’m sure the Israelis could blackmail some politician(s) or bureaucrat(s) into releasing Pollard, but don’t want him freed, because of the bad press it would cause for Israel. Don’t be fooled. The Israelis don’t want him freed. They wish he’d just shut up and die so they can use him for propaganda in Israel, but stop giving Americans the idea that Jews should be treated with suspicion. The Zionsts leaders just go through the motions, pretending to care about Pollard,  to inspire Jews into seeing themselves as “yet again betrayed [sic] by the goyim!”

Pollard would happily watch Shalit get slowly tortured to death if he could somehow profit from it.

Another Gilad — Gilad Atzmon — who, I’m sure, cares about Gilad Shalit more than the likes of Pollard or Satanyahoo do — says:

“The ideology that brought carnage on Iraq and Palestine is the same ideology that makes you lose your home tomorrow.”

“As the picture of the current economic disaster becomes ever more clear, it becomes rather obvious, to me at least, that the ideology and the people who are directly responsible for the mass killing of millions of Iraqis and the displacement of many other millions, the people who keep the Palestinians starved behind walls, are unfortunately very much the same people who are responsible for a class genocide of millions of disenfranchised Americans who are now on the brink of total dispossession.”

John Donne

Meditation 17: Devotions upon Emergent Occasions

“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were. Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee…”

Link

Haaretz, here

“… “The Obama administration is an enemy of the Jews and the worst regime there ever was for the State of Israel,” said Yossi Naim, the head of the Beit Aryeh regional council, at the Ra’ana meeting. “I announce to Obama: You won’t be able to stop us.” ….
Directing his comments to Livnat, he said: “I am proud and happy that you said what you said, because you had the public courage to say what most of the public feels ever since Obama came to power.”
Nahman repeatedly referred to the U.S. leader as “Hussein Obama,” omitting his first name….”

Posted by G, Z, or B at 5:20 PM

Link

Haaretz, here

“… “The Obama administration is an enemy of the Jews and the worst regime there ever was for the State of Israel,” said Yossi Naim, the head of the Beit Aryeh regional council, at the Ra’ana meeting. “I announce to Obama: You won’t be able to stop us.” ….
Directing his comments to Livnat, he said: “I am proud and happy that you said what you said, because you had the public courage to say what most of the public feels ever since Obama came to power.”
Nahman repeatedly referred to the U.S. leader as “Hussein Obama,” omitting his first name….”

Posted by G, Z, or B at 5:20 PM

I’ll throw it out there, because I know my brain cannot possibly be the only one thinking this… I cannot help but wonder if the major disconnect between American Jews and Israelis, and also in turn the on-going J Street v. Everyone Else struggle, is in part due to the decay and near death of Israel’s Labor Party.  Labor came in 4th this past election, behind Kadima (really just weeny Likudniks), Likud and Yisrael B’teinu (don’t get me going on these guys).

Conservative politics are dominating in Israel to the point that the country’s once thriving and potent Labor Party is on the verge of extinction.  It’s only natural that a nation full of conservatives would not be a fan of a liberal American president (though I think there are other, less flattering pieces to this equation).  And as long as Israel continues to be dominated by conservatives, or just as bad conservatives in sheep’s clothing (Kadima, that’s you), it will have trouble syncing up with America’s overwhelmingly Democratic Jewish community.

Maybe this really is as simple as oil and water – though in this case its all Kashrut…

O escritor e diretor da Campanha Palestina pede o fim de toda a ajuda ao Estado de Israel e acusa: “A liderança sionista colaborou com os piores perseguidores dos judeus durante o século XIX e o século XX, incluindo os nazistas”

Revista Teoria & Debate (Fundação Perseu Abramo) nº 5 – janeiro/fevereiro/março de 1989

Stylianos Tsirakis*

Ralph Schoenman foi diretor-executivo da Fundação pela Paz Bertrand Russel, papel através do qual conduziu negociações com inúmeros chefes de Estado. Com seu trabalho assegurou a libertação de prisioneiros políticos em muitos países e fundou o Tribunal Internacional dos Crimes de Guerra dos Estados Unidos na Indochina, organização da qual foi secretário-geral. Velho militante na vida política, fundou o Comitê dos 100, que organizou a desobediência civil massiva contra as armas nucleares e as bases americanas na Grã-Bretanha. Foi também fundador e diretor da Campanha de Solidariedade ao Vietnã e diretor do Comitê “Quem Matou Kennedy?”.

Tem sido líder do Comitê por Liberdade Artística e Intelectual no Irã e co-diretor do Comitê em Defesa dos Povos Palestino e Libanês e do Movimento de Solidariedade de Trabalhadores e Artistas Americanos. Atualmente é diretor executivo da Campanha Palestina, que clama pelo fim de toda ajuda a Israel e por uma Palestina laica e democrática.

T&D – Em seu livro The Hidden History of Zionism (A História Oculta do Sionismo), você descreve quatro mitos sobre a história do sionismo. Nós gostaríamos que você explicasse um pouco seu livro.

Schoenman – O meu trabalho na Fundação Bertrand Russel foi importante por me dar a chance de documentar fatos da formação do Estado sionista de Israel. Em cursos e palestras que proferi em mais de uma centena de universidades americanas e européias, pude constatar que as pessoas não sabiam, não tinham conhecimento da história do movimento sionista, dos seus objetivos e de vários fatos. Nessas ocasiões deparei com concepções equivocadas sobre a natureza do Estado de Israel e foi isso que impulsionou o meu trabalho de escrever o livro, The Hidden History of Zionism, no qual eu abordo o que chamo de os quatro mitos que têm moldado a consciência nos estados Unidos e na Europa sobre o sionismo e o Estado de Israel.

T & D - Quais são esses quatro mitos?

Schoenman – O primeiro mito é o da “terra sem povo para um povo sem terra“. Os primeiros teóricos sionistas, como Theodor Herzl e outros, apresentaram para o mundo a Palestina como uma terra vazia, visitada ocasionalmente por beduínos nômades; simplesmente, uma terra vazia, esperando para ser tomada, ocupada. E os judeus eram um povo sem terra, que se originaram historicamente na Palestina; portanto, os judeus deveriam ocupar essa terra. Desde o começo, os primeiros núcleos de colonos, promovidos pelo movimento sionista, foram caracterizados pela remoção, pela expulsão armada da população palestina nativa do local onde essa população vivia e onde essa população trabalhava.

T & D - Quais os outros três mitos?

Schoenman – O segundo mito que o livro pretende discutir é o mito da democracia israelense. A propaganda sionista, desde o início da formação do Estado de Israel, tem insistido em caracterizar Israel como um Estado democrático no estilo ocidental, cercado por países árabes feudais, atrasados e autoritários. Apresentam então Israel como um bastião dos direitos democráticos no Oriente Médio. Nada poderia estar mais longe da verdade.

Entre a divisão da Palestina e a formação do Estado de Israel, num período de seis meses, brigadas armadas israelenses ocuparam 75% da terra palestina e expulsaram mais de 800 mil palestinos, de um total de 950 mil. Eles os expulsaram através de sucessivos massacres. Várias cidades foram arrasadas, forçando assim a população palestina a refugiar-se nos países vizinhos, em campos de concentração e de refugiados. Naquele tempo, no período da formação do Estado de Israel, havia 475 cidades e vilas palestinas, que caíram sob o controle israelita. Dessas 475 cidades e vilas, 385 foram simplesmente arrasadas, deixadas em escombros, no chão, apagadas do mapa. Nas 90 cidades e vilas remanescentes, os judeus confiscaram toda a terra, sem nenhuma indenização.

Hoje, o Estado de Israel e seus organismos governamentais, tais como o da Organização da Terra, controlam cerca de 95% da terra palestina. Pela legislação existente em Israel, é necessário provar, por critérios religiosos ortodoxos judeus, a ascendência judaica por linhagem materna até a quarta geração, para poder possuir terra, trabalhar na terra ou mesmo sublocar terra. Como eu digo sempre, nas palestras em que apresento meus pontos de vista, em qualquer país do mundo (seja Brasil, EUA, onde for), se fosse necessário preencher requisitos parecidos com esses, ninguém duvidaria do caráter racista de tal Estado; seria notória a existência de um regime fascista.

A Suprema Corte em Israel tem ratificado que Israel é o Estado do povo judeu e que, para participar da vida política israelense, organizar um partido político, por exemplo, ou ter uma organização política, ou mesmo um clube público, é necessário afirmar que se aceita o caráter exclusivamente judeu do Estado de Israel. É um Estado colonial racista, no qual os direitos são limitados à população colonizadora, na base de critérios raciais.

O terceiro mito do qual falo em meu livro é aquele criado para justificativa da política de Israel, que se diz baseada em critérios de segurança nacional. A verdade é que Israel é a quarta potência militar do mundo. Desde 1948, os EUA deram a Israel US$ 92 bilhões em ajuda direta. A magnitude dessa soma pode ser avaliada quando observamos que a população israelense variou entre 2 a 3 milhões nesse período. Se o governo americano dá algum dinheiro para países como Taiwan, Brasil, Argentina, e a aplicação desse dinheiro tiver alguma relação com fins militares, a condição é que as compras desse material têm que ser feitas dos EUA. Mas há uma exceção: as compras de material bélico podem ser feitas também de Israel. Israel é tratado pelos EUA como parte de seu território, em todos os assuntos comerciais.

O que motivaria uma potência imperialista a subsidiar tanto um Estado colonial? A verdade é que Israel não pode mesmo existir sem a ajuda americana, sem os US$ 10 bilhões anuais. Israel é, portanto, a extensão do imperialismo na região do Oriente médio. Israel é o instrumento através do qual a revolução árabe é mantida sob controle. É, portanto, o instrumento através do qual as ricas reservas do Oriente Médio são mantidas sob o controle do imperialismo americano. É também um meio através do qual os regimes sanguinários dos países árabes são mantidos no governo, graças ao clima de tensão gerado por uma possível invasão israelense.

O quarto mito a que me refiro no livro, que tem influenciado a opinião pública mundial, refere-se à origem do sionismo, à origem do Estado de Israel. O sionismo tem sido apresentado como o legado moral do holocausto, das vítimas do holocausto. O movimento sionista tem como que se “alimentado” da mortandade coletiva dos 6 milhões de vítimas da exterminação nazista na Europa. Esta é uma terrível e selvagem ironia. A verdade é bem o oposto disso. A liderança sionista colaborou com os piores perseguidores dos judeus durante o século XIX e o século XX, incluindo os nazistas. Quando alguém tenta explicar isso para as pessoas, elas geralmente ficam chocadas, e perguntam: o que poderia motivar tal colaboração? Os judeus foram perseguidos e oprimidos por séculos na Europa e, como todo povo oprimido, foram empurrados, impelidos a desafiar o establishment, o statu quo. Os judeus eram críticos, eram dissidentes. Eles foram impelidos a questionar a ordem que os perseguia. Então, o melhor das mentes da inteligência judia foi impelido para movimentos que lutavam por mudanças sociais, ameaçando os governos estabelecidos. Os sionistas exploraram esse fato a ponto de dizer para vários governos reacionários, como o dos mares na Rússia, que o movimento sionista iria ajudá-los a remover esses judeus de seus países. O movimento sionista fez o mesmo apelo ao kaiser na Alemanha, obtendo dele dinheiro e armas. Eles se reivindicavam como a melhor garantia dos interesses imperialistas no Oriente Médio, inclusive para os fascistas e os nazistas.

T & D - Como se deu essa colaboração dos sionistas com os nazistas?

Schoenman – Em 1941, o partido político de Itzhak Shamir (conhecido hoje como Likud) concluiu um pacto militar com o 3º Reich alemão. O acordo consistia em lutar ao lado dos nazistas e fundar um Estado autoritário colonial, sob a direção do 3º Reich. Outro aspecto da colaboração entre os sionistas e governos e Estados perseguidores dos judeus é o fato de que o movimento sionista lutou ativamente para mudar as leis de imigração nos EUA, na Inglaterra e em outros países, tornando mais difícil a emigração de judeus perseguidos na Europa para esses países. Os sionistas sabiam que, podendo, os judeus perseguidos na Europa tentariam emigrar para os EUA, para a Grã- Bretanha, para o Canadá. Eles não eram sionistas, não tinham interesse em emigrar para uma terra remota como a Palestina. Em 1944, o movimento sionista refez um novo acordo com Adolf Eichmann. David Ben Gurion, do movimento sionista, mandou um enviado, de nome Rudolph Kastner, para se encontrar com Eichmann na Hungria e concluir um acordo pelo qual os sionistas concordaram em manter silêncio sobre os planos de exterminação de 800 mil judeus húngaros e mesmo evitar resistências, em troca de ter 600 líderes sionistas libertados do controle nazista e enviados para a Palestina. Portanto, o mito de que o sionismo e o Estado de Israel são o legado moral do holocausto tem um particular aspecto irônico, porque o que o movimento sionista fez quando os judeus na Europa tinham a sua existência ameaçada foi fazer acordos, e colaborar com os nazistas.

*Stylianos Tsirakis é arquiteto.

http://www.cefetsp.br/edu/eso/entrevistaralph.html

Il dialogo con Hamas? Possibile. Ma solo a certe condizioni. E’ l’opinione del 57% degli israeliani coinvolti nel sondaggio del quotidiano Haaretz. L’idea di trattare con l’organizzazione terroristica che tiene in ostaggio il soldato-simbolo Gilad Shalit è venuta la scorsa settimana all’esponente di Kadima, Shaul Mofaz. Ed è proprio all’interno dei simpatizzanti del partito guidato da Tzipi Livni che l’adesione all’idea di parlare col “nemico” è maggiore: 72%.

Quanto al gradimento del governo guidato da Bibi Netanyahu (Likud), uno dei ministri meno apprezzati è proprio quello più esposto alle trattative con la controparte palestinese: Avigdor “Yvette” Lieberman, leader del partito ultranazionalista Israel Beitenu.

link

October 17, 2009

by Adam Hanieh – jews-for-allah.org – 16 October 2009

The official ideology of Israel, Zionism, has always portrayed itself as a liberation movement for all Jews. But although Zionism claims to offer a home for all Jews, that home has never been offered equally.

The question of Arab Jews strikes at the heart of the Zionist contradiction — an attempt to build an anti- Arab, exclusively Jewish state on Arab lands.

From the early days of the Zionist project, large numbers of Jews from neighbouring Arab countries were brought to Palestine. Ostensibly they were “returning home”, but in reality they came as cheap labour for their European counterparts (Ashkenazi Jews).

These Arab Jews were given the name Mizrahim (the eastern ones).

Official Israeli history presents the emigration of Mizrahi as a result of anti-Semitism within the countries where they lived or a religious devotion to the land of Palestine. This account forgets the economic interests of the Ashkenazi Zionists and the long and largely untroubled relationship between Mizrahi Jews and the other Arabs with whom they lived.

Mizrahim had lived in North Africa and the Middle East for millennia, and the vast majority were opposed to creating a Jewish state in Palestine. The Iraqi Jewish leadership, for example, cooperated with the Iraqi government to stop Zionist activity in Iraq; the chief rabbi published an open letter denouncing Zionism.

In 1920, Palestinian Jews signed anti-Zionist petitions denouncing Ashkenazi rule.

It is now well documented that Zionist underground cells planted bombs in Jewish centres to create hysteria amongst Iraqi Jews, hoping to encourage a mass exodus to Israel. On January 14, 1951, a bomb was thrown into an Iraqi synagogue, killing four people.

Of course these acts of terror by the Zionist movement did not happen in isolation from the corrupt Arab governments of the time, most of which were supported by the British, who had overtly backed the Zionist movement with the Balfour declaration of 1917.

Exploitation

The Mizrahim who arrived in Israel landed in corrugated iron transit camps where Israeli officials attempted to strip them of their “Arabness” by getting rid of their “unpronounceable” Arab names and replacing them with good “Jewish” names.

Most ended up in agricultural work, 10-12 hours a day in conditions of disease and squalor. Their high death rate was explained by one Zionist official as a “common and natural thing”.

One particularly damning example of the European approach to Mizrahim was the infamous “kidnapped children of Yemen” affair. Doctors, social workers and nurses worked together to kidnap 600 Yemeni-Jewish babies, telling their parents they had died and giving them to childless Ashkenazi couples.

A massive protest rally was held in 1986 to demand the truth, but it was ignored by the Israeli media. A few months later, Israeli television produced a documentary which blamed a bureaucratic system for spreading rumours and perpetuated the myth of Mizrahim as careless parents.

Today Mizrahim constitute around 50% of the Israeli population. Palestinian Arabs make up another 20%, so the total non-European population is about 70%. This rises to 90% with the inclusion of Palestinians from the occupied territories, making clear the colonial nature of Israel.

Mizrahim and Palestinian Arabs make up the vast majority of the Israeli working class, concentrated in lower paid sectors and largely ignored by the official trade union movement, the Histadrut.

Early protests

Such experiences have naturally led to protest. In 1959 a widespread rebellion began in a neighbourhood of Haifa called Wadi-Salib. It was crushed by the Israeli military.

A significant stage of the Mizrahi movement arose in the ’70s with the Black Panther movement. The Panthers took a revolutionary outlook from the black struggle in the US and Marxist movements in Latin America. They called for the destruction of the regime and a state that did not discriminate on the basis of religion, origin or nationality.

In May 1971 a demonstration of tens of thousands was organised by the Panthers against police repression. Some 170 activists were arrested and 35 were hospitalised through clashes with the police.

The Panthers were the first Mizrahim to make links with the Palestinian movement, even conducting talks with the then outlawed PLO.

Another Mizrahi movement known as the Tents movement developed. These activists protested against the squalid housing conditions of Mizrahim by squatting in vacant apartments in wealthy Ashkenazi suburbs and erecting large tent camps.

They drew links between the billions spent in the occupied territories to build settlements and the underprivileged neighbourhoods in which Mizrahim were forced to live.

The Zionist left in Israel, which consists mostly of western educated Ashkenazi, likes to portray Mizrahim as right wing, uncritical and easily swayed by populist demagogues.

The leaders of Peace Now, whose membership is almost exclusively Ashkenazi, scapegoat Mizrahim for “supporting the occupation”, “turning Israel into an anti-democratic state” and being “obstacles to peace”. These attitudes obscure important points.

Firstly, the policies of occupation and war have been designed and implemented by Ashkenazi, who have until recently dominated Israeli politics.

Secondly, the leaders of all the right-wing parties are Ashkenazim. It is true that a relatively large proportion of Mizrahim vote for Likud, but this has less to do with Likud’s policies towards Palestinians and more to do with the social devastation caused by years of rule by the Labour Party, the traditional party of Ashkenazi Zionism.

Thirdly, significant acts of solidarity with Palestinians initiated by Mizrahi have been erased from the history books.

Mizrahi and Likud

In the 1981 elections, Likud came to victory because of its image as the party of Mizrahim which would end Labour Party rule.

The leader of Likud, ex-paramilitary thug and Ashkenazi Zionist Menachem Begin, cultivated this image through cooption of many of the leaders of the Black Panthers and Tents movement.

Begin’s second in command was David Levi, a Mizrahi who knew how to use the Panthers’ rhetoric, but emptied of content. Levi ever since has used Mizrahi protests while preventing them from going too far.

During the Likud period in power, 1977-92, the social gap between Ashkenazi and Mizrahi did not narrow. Today David Levi continues as leader of his own party, Gesher, in the coalition government of Benyamin Netanyahu.

During the mid-’80s another reflection of Mizrahi discontent arose with the creation of the Shas party. Shas arose as a rebellion by ultra-orthodox Mizrahim who were studying in the Ashkenazi rabbinical schools.

Ultra-orthodox society is openly racist against Mizrahim, and Shas wanted to change this through establishing its own party and education system. Shas now wields important political power and currently has 10 seats in parliament.

It represents a false attempt to solve Mizrahi oppression by focusing solely on religion. However, it does reflect Mizrahi discontent with both Labour and Likud politics; one estimate puts four out of 10 Shas seats as due to the support of non-orthodox Mizrahi.

A new generation

Recently some developments in Mizrahi politics identify the root cause of Mizrahi oppression as the Zionist state and stress the need to build links with Palestinians.

One section of this movement is the Democratic Rainbow Movement, which is beginning a struggle over public lands.

Some 93% of Israeli territory is classified as state land, most of which was stolen from Palestinians who were expelled in 1948. Since the early ’90s, Labour and Likud have been attempting to privatise this land and public housing.

Most Mizrahi, who tend to live in the lowest standard public housing, will have no chance of owning their own apartments. However, the Kibbutz and Moshav communities (dominated by Ashkenazi) are being provided with free apartments under the legislation.

In the past, Mizrahim were often forced to live in development towns and settlements near the Israeli border or often within the occupied territories. As Israeli control has expanded, these areas have become prime real estate, leading to the eviction of Mizrahi and an influx of Ashkenazi.

This is particularly true of Jerusalem, where Israeli yuppies are now moving into settlements once populated by Mizrahi.

The Mizrahi movement inevitably comes up against the question of Palestinian rights. Rather than seeing their struggle as one for a “bigger slice of the Zionist pie” many Mizrahi believe the struggle must be a joint one.

Another Mizrahi movement is HILA, the Public Committee for Education in the Underprivileged Neighbourhoods. HILA works with activist parents in an attempt to reveal the distortions about Mizrahi history taught in Israeli schools.

Other groups have been established on universities and high schools that bring together Palestinian and Mizrahi youth. One of these groups, Tzah, organised a protest in April against a racist textbook used in the Hebrew University.

A founder of Tzah and a current leader of Hila, Shiko Behar, has written extensively on the real Mizrahi history, including opposition to Zionism and in support of Palestinian rights.

These activists also reject the attempt by Likud and Shas to speak for the Mizrahim. As one Mizrahi activist told Green Left, “We need to liberate Mizrahi and Arab-Jewish identity from the Zionist framework — and that means the framework of Likud and Shas as well”.

Adam Hanieh is a Palestinian-Australian who has lived in the West Bank town of Ramallah for several years. He is a researcher and human rights worker in Ramallah, the West Bank. He is the research and international advocacy coordinator for defense for Children International/Palestine Section, a Palestinian child rights nongovernment organization based in Ramallah since 1992. He is also a member of the Palestinian human rights organisation Addameer <http://www.addameer.org/> (”conscience”)

Hanieh is the former Birzeit University webmaster (1998-2000) and is currently (2002) working as a consultant for the United Nations Development Program. Hanieh is currently completing a Masters Degree in Regional Studies at Al Quds University, Jerusalem.

References:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1D3GGLA_enUS338US338&q=Mizrahim&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g-p1g-sx9
http://127.0.0.1:4664/search?q=Mizrahim&flags=1048576&s=TnnPAENuQux9Xb9E8ojY7A-5kOU

link

October 17, 2009

by Adam Hanieh – jews-for-allah.org – 16 October 2009

The official ideology of Israel, Zionism, has always portrayed itself as a liberation movement for all Jews. But although Zionism claims to offer a home for all Jews, that home has never been offered equally.

The question of Arab Jews strikes at the heart of the Zionist contradiction — an attempt to build an anti- Arab, exclusively Jewish state on Arab lands.

From the early days of the Zionist project, large numbers of Jews from neighbouring Arab countries were brought to Palestine. Ostensibly they were “returning home”, but in reality they came as cheap labour for their European counterparts (Ashkenazi Jews).

These Arab Jews were given the name Mizrahim (the eastern ones).

Official Israeli history presents the emigration of Mizrahi as a result of anti-Semitism within the countries where they lived or a religious devotion to the land of Palestine. This account forgets the economic interests of the Ashkenazi Zionists and the long and largely untroubled relationship between Mizrahi Jews and the other Arabs with whom they lived.

Mizrahim had lived in North Africa and the Middle East for millennia, and the vast majority were opposed to creating a Jewish state in Palestine. The Iraqi Jewish leadership, for example, cooperated with the Iraqi government to stop Zionist activity in Iraq; the chief rabbi published an open letter denouncing Zionism.

In 1920, Palestinian Jews signed anti-Zionist petitions denouncing Ashkenazi rule.

It is now well documented that Zionist underground cells planted bombs in Jewish centres to create hysteria amongst Iraqi Jews, hoping to encourage a mass exodus to Israel. On January 14, 1951, a bomb was thrown into an Iraqi synagogue, killing four people.

Of course these acts of terror by the Zionist movement did not happen in isolation from the corrupt Arab governments of the time, most of which were supported by the British, who had overtly backed the Zionist movement with the Balfour declaration of 1917.

Exploitation

The Mizrahim who arrived in Israel landed in corrugated iron transit camps where Israeli officials attempted to strip them of their “Arabness” by getting rid of their “unpronounceable” Arab names and replacing them with good “Jewish” names.

Most ended up in agricultural work, 10-12 hours a day in conditions of disease and squalor. Their high death rate was explained by one Zionist official as a “common and natural thing”.

One particularly damning example of the European approach to Mizrahim was the infamous “kidnapped children of Yemen” affair. Doctors, social workers and nurses worked together to kidnap 600 Yemeni-Jewish babies, telling their parents they had died and giving them to childless Ashkenazi couples.

A massive protest rally was held in 1986 to demand the truth, but it was ignored by the Israeli media. A few months later, Israeli television produced a documentary which blamed a bureaucratic system for spreading rumours and perpetuated the myth of Mizrahim as careless parents.

Today Mizrahim constitute around 50% of the Israeli population. Palestinian Arabs make up another 20%, so the total non-European population is about 70%. This rises to 90% with the inclusion of Palestinians from the occupied territories, making clear the colonial nature of Israel.

Mizrahim and Palestinian Arabs make up the vast majority of the Israeli working class, concentrated in lower paid sectors and largely ignored by the official trade union movement, the Histadrut.

Early protests

Such experiences have naturally led to protest. In 1959 a widespread rebellion began in a neighbourhood of Haifa called Wadi-Salib. It was crushed by the Israeli military.

A significant stage of the Mizrahi movement arose in the ’70s with the Black Panther movement. The Panthers took a revolutionary outlook from the black struggle in the US and Marxist movements in Latin America. They called for the destruction of the regime and a state that did not discriminate on the basis of religion, origin or nationality.

In May 1971 a demonstration of tens of thousands was organised by the Panthers against police repression. Some 170 activists were arrested and 35 were hospitalised through clashes with the police.

The Panthers were the first Mizrahim to make links with the Palestinian movement, even conducting talks with the then outlawed PLO.

Another Mizrahi movement known as the Tents movement developed. These activists protested against the squalid housing conditions of Mizrahim by squatting in vacant apartments in wealthy Ashkenazi suburbs and erecting large tent camps.

They drew links between the billions spent in the occupied territories to build settlements and the underprivileged neighbourhoods in which Mizrahim were forced to live.

The Zionist left in Israel, which consists mostly of western educated Ashkenazi, likes to portray Mizrahim as right wing, uncritical and easily swayed by populist demagogues.

The leaders of Peace Now, whose membership is almost exclusively Ashkenazi, scapegoat Mizrahim for “supporting the occupation”, “turning Israel into an anti-democratic state” and being “obstacles to peace”. These attitudes obscure important points.

Firstly, the policies of occupation and war have been designed and implemented by Ashkenazi, who have until recently dominated Israeli politics.

Secondly, the leaders of all the right-wing parties are Ashkenazim. It is true that a relatively large proportion of Mizrahim vote for Likud, but this has less to do with Likud’s policies towards Palestinians and more to do with the social devastation caused by years of rule by the Labour Party, the traditional party of Ashkenazi Zionism.

Thirdly, significant acts of solidarity with Palestinians initiated by Mizrahi have been erased from the history books.

Mizrahi and Likud

In the 1981 elections, Likud came to victory because of its image as the party of Mizrahim which would end Labour Party rule.

The leader of Likud, ex-paramilitary thug and Ashkenazi Zionist Menachem Begin, cultivated this image through cooption of many of the leaders of the Black Panthers and Tents movement.

Begin’s second in command was David Levi, a Mizrahi who knew how to use the Panthers’ rhetoric, but emptied of content. Levi ever since has used Mizrahi protests while preventing them from going too far.

During the Likud period in power, 1977-92, the social gap between Ashkenazi and Mizrahi did not narrow. Today David Levi continues as leader of his own party, Gesher, in the coalition government of Benyamin Netanyahu.

During the mid-’80s another reflection of Mizrahi discontent arose with the creation of the Shas party. Shas arose as a rebellion by ultra-orthodox Mizrahim who were studying in the Ashkenazi rabbinical schools.

Ultra-orthodox society is openly racist against Mizrahim, and Shas wanted to change this through establishing its own party and education system. Shas now wields important political power and currently has 10 seats in parliament.

It represents a false attempt to solve Mizrahi oppression by focusing solely on religion. However, it does reflect Mizrahi discontent with both Labour and Likud politics; one estimate puts four out of 10 Shas seats as due to the support of non-orthodox Mizrahi.

A new generation

Recently some developments in Mizrahi politics identify the root cause of Mizrahi oppression as the Zionist state and stress the need to build links with Palestinians.

One section of this movement is the Democratic Rainbow Movement, which is beginning a struggle over public lands.

Some 93% of Israeli territory is classified as state land, most of which was stolen from Palestinians who were expelled in 1948. Since the early ’90s, Labour and Likud have been attempting to privatise this land and public housing.

Most Mizrahi, who tend to live in the lowest standard public housing, will have no chance of owning their own apartments. However, the Kibbutz and Moshav communities (dominated by Ashkenazi) are being provided with free apartments under the legislation.

In the past, Mizrahim were often forced to live in development towns and settlements near the Israeli border or often within the occupied territories. As Israeli control has expanded, these areas have become prime real estate, leading to the eviction of Mizrahi and an influx of Ashkenazi.

This is particularly true of Jerusalem, where Israeli yuppies are now moving into settlements once populated by Mizrahi.

The Mizrahi movement inevitably comes up against the question of Palestinian rights. Rather than seeing their struggle as one for a “bigger slice of the Zionist pie” many Mizrahi believe the struggle must be a joint one.

Another Mizrahi movement is HILA, the Public Committee for Education in the Underprivileged Neighbourhoods. HILA works with activist parents in an attempt to reveal the distortions about Mizrahi history taught in Israeli schools.

Other groups have been established on universities and high schools that bring together Palestinian and Mizrahi youth. One of these groups, Tzah, organised a protest in April against a racist textbook used in the Hebrew University.

A founder of Tzah and a current leader of Hila, Shiko Behar, has written extensively on the real Mizrahi history, including opposition to Zionism and in support of Palestinian rights.

These activists also reject the attempt by Likud and Shas to speak for the Mizrahim. As one Mizrahi activist told Green Left, “We need to liberate Mizrahi and Arab-Jewish identity from the Zionist framework — and that means the framework of Likud and Shas as well”.

Adam Hanieh is a Palestinian-Australian who has lived in the West Bank town of Ramallah for several years. He is a researcher and human rights worker in Ramallah, the West Bank. He is the research and international advocacy coordinator for defense for Children International/Palestine Section, a Palestinian child rights nongovernment organization based in Ramallah since 1992. He is also a member of the Palestinian human rights organisation Addameer <http://www.addameer.org/> (”conscience”)

Hanieh is the former Birzeit University webmaster (1998-2000) and is currently (2002) working as a consultant for the United Nations Development Program. Hanieh is currently completing a Masters Degree in Regional Studies at Al Quds University, Jerusalem.

References:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1D3GGLA_enUS338US338&q=Mizrahim&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g-p1g-sx9
http://127.0.0.1:4664/search?q=Mizrahim&flags=1048576&s=TnnPAENuQux9Xb9E8ojY7A-5kOU

If you have read this blog, you know that all of us, rabbis and Maharat, think out of the box and sometimes unpredictably. You may have seen my views of the One State solution, one democratic, Jewish and Palestinian State allowing all self declared Jews to return and Palestinians to return. You may have also seen my desire for separation of church and state in the Jewish state of the future – in Israel. Feel free to dismiss me as naïve, foolish, crazy, irresponsible, etc. However, the last laugh is on those who mock me: I can say will full confidence that I am in the tradition of Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the founder of Revisionist Zionism. And… as a follower of Jabotinsky, I feel at home in the party of Menecham Begin, his heir, Herut and Likud. Yes, I see myself as part of Likud.

Huh? A One Stater in Likud? Well, let’s look briefly at the principles of Revisionist Zionism:
1) Jews returning in the millions to the homeland. Jabotinsky hoped European Jews in the 1930’s would fill up both sides of the Jordan with Jews; in the 21st century, we have to look to Africa and Asia – and still not give up hope in America – to bring in those huge numbers so that Jews remain a majority culture in our land.
2) The right of Jews to live in their homeland – even more important the getting the State. Herut opposed partition in 1947, giving up our rights to our land, as we should oppose partition in 2009. In the 21st century, our priority should not be demographics or a homogeneous state; no, our priority must remain a solution where Jews can live in Tel Aviv or Hebron, or Gaza or Shechem or Modiin. Everywhere! Palestinians can by homes or start communities in these places as well. Anyone who has any suggestion that gives up Jews returning to Gush Katif should be rejected as compromising the essential rights and dreams of the Jewish people.
3) Liberalism in terms of freedom of the individual: open and free markets, capitalism rather than socialism.
4) Being strong and demonstrating strength: Any solution in the 21st century needs to involve the army – the IDF – not tolerating any pocket of terrorism or fiefdom outside the control of the One State – no Gazas controlled by rogue, terrorist regimes.
5) When you look at the writings of Ze’ev Jabotinsky, he has different attitudes towards the indigenous Arabs. Everywhere he wants them to know that the Jews are staying. However, in some places he writes that once the Jews are established in their land, they can allow the Arabs to be full participants – including voting – in a liberal democracy. Yes, Jabotinsky understood that if the Jews are strong and confident, they have nothing to fear from Arabs/Palestinians getting the vote.
6) It is clear that while Jabotinsky wanted a Jewish state – designated for the Jews and filled with Jewish culture – he did not want a state with rabbinic control. He had European democracies in mind, where the look and feel is Christian, but the power resides in the government of the people, not the church leaders.
I am planning to move to Israel because I believe that God wants us to live in the Holy Land and God wants us to build a moral and ethical state where Judaism can flourish and have an impact. With the vision of Jabotinsky I hope we can all gain the strength to build communities anywhere in the land and that that land should be a full democracy which will allow Judaism to flourish in all its diversity and creativity, taking the best from cultures dwelling alongside of us, including Palestinian, Arab culture. Likud – here I come!

Rabbi Asher Lopatin

There is news circulating that more nations are supporting the idea of sanctions against the Iranian government for their lack of openness regarding their nuclear program which is not supporting Iran’s claim that their nuclear program is for the purpose of developing an alternative energy source and reinforces Israel’s and other members of the international community’s reason to be very concerned about the direction Iran is going in. The latest country to indicate they may support sanctions is Russia. President Dmitri Medvedev, made it know to the United States while attending the United Nations Summit this week.

While sanctions may work to starve Iran’s nuclear program of funding and slow their progress, it may isolate the Iranian people  who already are demonstrating against the recent elections and help Iran’s propaganda and psychological warfare operation who is pushing the same image of the West as the late Ayatollah Khomeini who once said; “America is the “Great Satan”. Sanctions could help Iran put a tighter grip on the people by controlling humanitarian aid…  One  concern Secretary of Defense Robert Gates expressed back in April and May of this year during a Senate Arms Services Committee meeting is that any military actions could cause Iran’s nuclear weapons program to go underground which would make it difficult to confirm how much progress has been made in weaponizing uranium. The same could be true if we sanction Iran and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is still in the position of leadership and still has his support network intact…It is my own opinion that the best option is to work to change Iran from within and let those who want democracy thrive and enable them by whatever means necessary.

Først vil jeg takke Leifern for raske svar i denne diskusjonen. Det jeg derimot ikke helt forstår er hvorfor han blir så opprørt når jeg skriver at han forsvarer israels bosetningspolitikk med innlegget sitt. @arnakim spurte jo nettopp israelvennene om hvorfor Israel har bosetninger, og Leifern fulgte opp med å argumentere for den Israelske siden. Hva skal man tolke dette som? At Leifern egentlig er rykende uenig i argumentene han legger fram som svar på dette? Isåfall burde jo dette absolutt vært presisert, da det ikke er noe overhodet som tyder på det utifra sammenhengen.

Så, til saken:

1. Palestinerne har allerede selvstyremyndigheter, men her er det snakk om statsdannelser.  Selvstyre og statsstyre er to forskjellige ting. Når det gjelder Likud, gjør de riktignok ikke noe for å bekjempe palestinsk PA (selvstyremyndighetene), men de er altså totalt imot en tostatsløsning, og det var poenget her. Likuds politiske charter kan man lese her. Likud er da heller ikke av “de mest radikale på høyresiden” i Israelsk politikk. Likud er Israels nest største parti (ett sete mindre enn Kadima), og står visstnok på en sentrum-høyre posisjon. Yisrael Beiteinu som også sitter i regjering, er derimot mer ytterliggående høyreekstreme, og deres leder Avigdor Lieberman er blant annet kjent for å ha truet israelske politikere som har møtt Hamas-representanter med døden. Til de få arabiske representantene i Knesset som kritiserer Israelsk politikk, sier han: “a new administration will be established and then we will take care of you”. Gruppene og partiene på ytre høyre kan delvis knyttes oppimot gammelt tankegods fra det tidligere rasistiske araberhatende Kach-partiet, som ble gjort ulovlig i Israel pga. rasisme og terrorisme mot palestinske sivile.
2. Leifern har rett i at ytre høyre i Israel er opptatt av å bli kvitt den palestinske andelen av befolkningen. Det er en skummel form for etnisk politikk som mest av alt minner om etnisk rensking, om enn mindre voldelig enn når vi vanligvis bruker dette begrepet.
3. Så tar Leifern opp sitatet fra Ben-Gurion. Bare for å klargjøre dette, så er det et sitat fra Palestine Post (som nå heter Jerusalem Post) i 1937. I denne artikkelen går Ben-Gurion inn for delingsplanen, men motvillig, fordi han ser på hele Palestina som jødisk territorie. Dette var før UNSCOP, men det var prinsipper han brakte videre til disse forhandlingene. En stund etter artikkelen i Palestine Post, sa han til den Sionistiske Kongressens 20ende samling:

   “No Jew is entitled to give up the right of the Jewish nation to the land. It is not in the authority of any Jew or of any Jewish body; it is not even in the authority of the entire nation alive today to give up any part of the land… Even if, at any point, Jews choose to decline it, they have no right to deprive future generations of it. Our right to the entire land exists and stands forever.”

   Jeg kunne skrevet mye mer om Ben-Gurions holdepunkt ovenfor palestinerne og deres rett på området (både på godt og vondt), da jeg blant annet har lest igjennom transkriptet av Ben-Gurions samtaler i FNs Generalforsamling i forkant av delingen. Men det ville vært å trekke denne tråden litt vél langt…

4. Så til bruken av sitatene. Leifern sier om dette at “Nyhistorikerne har brukt det som et slags bevisførsel for sionismens ondsinnede hensikter”, for så å påpeke at det er flere tankerekker som står bak sionismen. Dette er riktig. Og dette handler heller ikke om å stille den israelske befolkningen ansvarlig for alt Ben-Gurion måtte ha sagt. Det dette handler om er å forstå den politiske prosessen som lå bak opprettelsen av staten Israel, og de senere ekspansjonene og bosettingspolitikken! Det var jo sionistbevegelsen som alene representerte de israelske jødenes stilling, og det var de regjerende posisjonene i denne bevegelsen som kan knyttes oppimot hvilken politikk som har blitt ført ovenfor palestinerne. Igjen, på godt og vondt.
5. Jeg vet ikke hvor Leifern har det fra at jeg tror jøder er en egen rase. Det kan jeg overhodet ikke huske å ha skrevet. Jeg skrev om jøder som “folkegruppe”, men innrømmer lett at også det er en tvilsom betegnelse. Jøder er først og fremst en religiøs gruppe. Etnisk sett består “jøder” av flere ulike etnisiteter, alt fra ashkenazi-jøder til sephardi-jøder til jøder fra Irak, fra Nord-Afrika, Europa, Khazaria osv. Myten om at “jødene” som helhet stammer fra det historiske riket Israel er altså kun en myte. Men som jeg nevnte i mitt innlegg, er det enkelte jøder som har genetiske bånd til Canaan-perioden, og felles opphav med palestinerne! Og nettopp derfor er det så tåpelig med alt dette fokuset på jøder vs. palestinere.
6. Ja, det er forskjell på “noen” og “alle”, det er riktig. Men når du tar fram dette og prioriterer det som et argument for bosetningene, må det sies at de fleste bosetningene ligger på palestinsk land. Enten det er privat land, eller fellesjord tilhørende en landsby, slik som ble praktisert under det ottomanske riket.
7. Jeg står på mitt for at Israel ikke er en legitim statsdannelse, da den ikke bygger på en befolknings tilhørighet til området, men en ønsket og innbilt tilhørighet. Kanskje vil ikke israelerne høre dette, men det blir ikke mindre riktig av den grunn.