Trap of Recognizing Israel
well put together. But I would like to suggest that it does not withstand analysis.
It's fundamental flaw, as in so many arguments of the type, is in the premise:
If you accept the premise that recognizing Israel's right to exist necessarily
means the subjugation of Palestinians, then you can approve the Hamas position.
But it means no such thing. There can be two states living in peace and with
a degree of prosperity – if both the Palestinians and the Jews and the rest
of the world work for it. You would be more constructive to promote that result
than to blame the Jews alone. The blame game doesn't solve problems.
And you have to
agree: prettying up Mr. Ahmadinejad's threat is rather difficult in light of
the Holocaust conference he just sponsored.
If you seek peace,
reducing inflammatory rhetoric on both sides would be helpful. Failure to do
so makes peacemaking harder.
be precise. I don't blame the Jews for anything; I blame Israel. The problem
with your argument is that you assume Israel wants peace and a Palestinian state
alongside it. But what if you are wrong and Israel wants regional hegemony and
the destruction of the Palestinians as a nation, as all the evidence suggests?
My reasons for taking this view are set out at length in my book. Unfortunately,
with the inevitable limitations imposed even by a lengthy article, I can only
sketch out the basic themes of the argument. But the important point to note
is that no serious peacemaking has ever been conducted by Israel, and cannot
be as long as it continues to be an ethnic state demanding privileges for Jews.
Cook's article entitled "The Trap of Recognizing Israel" is nothing but anti-Semitic
propaganda. According to Cook, Israel is the only country in the world that
does not have the right to exist. Apparently, Pakistan can exist as a Muslim
State, India can exist as a Hindu State, France can exist as a French state,
but Israel can't exist because of its Jewish character. If that is not anti-Semitism,
it is hard to imagine what is.
Why can't Israel
exist as a Jewish State? The Arabs have dozens of States, but the Jews can't
have even one? It is especially absurd that the Jewish nation should be challenged
given that Jewish statehood preceded the emergence of most modern nation-states
by thousands of years.
There is nothing
wrong with Israel existing as a Jewish State. It is not unusual that one community
should be the majority within a nation and seek to maintain that status. In
fact, this is true in nearly every country in the world. In addition, societies
usually reflect the cultural identity of the majority. Bashing Israel alone
for these aspects is an obvious example of bigotry.
of Israel's existence is not in question, in doubt, or open for debate. It is
as legitimate as any other nation. Recognizing Israel is not a "trap"; it is
an essential component of the peace process. As long as the Palestinians and
their Hamas government refuse to recognize Israel and stay committed to its
violent destruction, there can be no peace. The Palestinian government must
immediately and unconditionally agree to recognize Israel, now and forever,
before any progress can be made.
publication of an article advocating the destruction of a sovereign nation makes
a complete mockery of its supposed "antiwar" goals.
~ Corey Suydam
almost wonder whether Corey bothered to read my article, or just the headline.
The problem, as I stated, is that certain states do not have the right to exist.
All of us can cite a few examples. Does Corey think Nazi Germany had a right
to exist, or apartheid South Africa? It is worth remembering that at the time
many people did think so, but almost no one does today. Israel need not be a
replica of either Nazi Germany or apartheid South Africa to be characterized
similarly as an illegitimate state. It has precisely the same racist ideology
at the very heart of its identity.
As I have argued endlessly in my articles, and more systematically in my recent
book Blood and Religion, Israel is a racist state. Like Nazi Germany, it defines
itself in ethnic terms ("Jewish" rather than "Aryan"); it refuses to demarcate
its borders and is waging aggressive wars against its neighbors; it oppresses
sections of the population it rules over; and it carries out policies of ethnic
cleansing. And like apartheid South Africa before it, Israel is separating from
and ghettoizing its subject population in the interests of racial purity.
But Corey and others are not prepared to draw the same conclusions they would
in the case of either Nazi Germany or apartheid South Africa. That is because
they adopt one of two positions when they defend Israel as a Jewish state:
1. either they
want Israel to be such a state because they are Zionists and happy with the
idea of a racist state for Jews;
2. or they genuinely fear what the consequences of reforming Israel would be
for its Jewish population, with which they identify.
It is pointless to argue against the racists who take position 1, but it is
worth trying to challenge the view of those who adopt position 2. The reform
of Israel as a racist state does not entail the destruction of the Jewish population
who live inside it; it simply means the racist regime has to be replaced with
a non-racist one. Destroying Nazi Germany did not mean killing Germans, and
wiping apartheid South Africa off the map did not require the eradication of
whites. The same is true of Israel as a Jewish state.
The fact that apologists like Corey identify more with the concerns and interests
of Jews than they do with those of Palestinians is unfortunately the legacy
of a popular racism that has always been common in our colonial Western societies.
Might Be Shooting at Both Sides?
we know it is in the major oil companies' interests to have high-priced oil.
We know George Bush is looking for any reason to set up permanent bases in Iraq.
We know two BRITISH SOLDIERS were found in Basra dressed as Arabs and in possession
of explosives. We know the occupation forces would be up against it if the Shias
and Sunnis united against them as nearly happened in the first U.S. slaughter
at Fallujah where Sadr publicly stood on the side of the Sunni Iraqis. A lot
has happened since then to kill off that sentiment. Who blew up the mosque?
I think we know
who the prime suspects are. Don't we, George?
~ Brendon Porter
U.S. itself is one of the principal parties interested in continuing the violence.
It plays to U.S. interest to let the warring parties self-destruct while the
U.S. secures the prizes of war, oil, etc., for itself. The U.S. could easily
be covertly manning and abetting the chaos. The dismantling of Iraq is a principal
~ George J. Palmer
this idea is in fact often expressed by many Arabs. Personally I think it is
too smart by half. Some neocons during the early occupation may have thought
this way, but not most of our government. America's whole past policy has been
that of dealing with any dictator who can deliver oil; occupying the areas ourselves
would mean unending chaos and disruptions of shipments, as we now see happening.
Civil War Exacerbated
1992 and 1995, Ahmad Shah Massoud smuggled arms to Somalia aboard the national
carrier, Ariana Airlines. For this, Massoud was paid ten million dollars by
Osama bin Laden. Lest we forget, Massoud was the darling of the Western press
and of both the Clinton and Bush administrations.
~ Bruce G. Richardson,
author: Afghanistan, Ending the Reign of Soviet Terror
they are probably still being used in the fight!
Thanks for the
Urge to 'Surge'
According to Tom
Ricks, author of Fiasco,
"the urge to surge" is not about rescuing a clearly lost cause in Iraq but about
the White House preparing the 2008 election battlefield to share equally with
Congress in the responsibility for who lost Iraq. If Congress declines the urge
to surge, the White House will attempt to blame them for snatching defeat from
the jaws of the White House's surge to victory. But if the new Congress surges,
the matter of political accountability will be muddied and effectively neutralized
for the 2008 campaigns.
Rove's finger prints are all over this damage control effort to salvage the
political viability of diehard pro–Iraq war candidates for the 2008 elections.
The surge proposal offers the new Congress a Plutonium 210 flavored Kool-Aid
they would be ill-advised to partake. What the electorate wants from Congress
is Iraq in the nation's rear view mirror getting smaller faster. Congress needs
to surge the troops coming out of Iraq and to double down on the critical need
to begin restoring our much abused and depleted force structure to full readiness.
~ PT Garrett