In light of recent developments in the debate over the rights of Palestine and the future of Israel — spurred on the President’s speech on the Arab Spring and Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to a joint session of Congress — I have a few things I would like to be considered.
Steven Begakis’ piece in Friday’s Nexus raised quite a few concerns in my mind. First of all, he claimed that the majority of Americans are pro-Israel. He appears to have arrived at this conclusion after witnessing the cold reception that Obama received after reiterating his stance on the conflict at the American Israeli Political Affairs Committee’s annual Policy Conference, and the subsequent standing ovations that greeted Netanyahu’s remarks. I really do not think that the people who would attend an AIPAC event are the best population to survey if you want to find out what the people of the United States think.
This brings me to my next point, which is the problem of AIPAC itself. This organization is a perfect example of how corrupt American “democracy” has become. Just as oil companies are able to spend millions of dollars each year to secure their substantial subsidies and to attack organizations like the EPA, so too does the Israel lobby buy off our members of congress with generous contributions that get them elected. If you think your representatives defend your interests, you are mistaken. They want to keep their jobs, and a pretty damn good way to do that is to kiss the ass of whatever lobbying organization will support your campaign, including AIPAC. Now, do not call me an anti-Semite quite yet. My problem is with the lobbying structure of Washington, not with AIPAC.
Speaking of anti-Semitism, the fact that just about any individual who questions the “rights” of Israel or sympathizes with the Palestinian cause is considered to be an anti-Semite right up there with Erwin Rommel is part of what is wrong with Begakis’ dialogue and with the conservative approach to U.S.-Israeli relations. Just because I identify with the six million Palestinian refugees who live in the occupied territories or throughout the Diaspora does not mean that I hate Jews. Frankly, that assumption offends me in a profound way.
Moving to the so-called “right” of Israel to exist, I would like to point out that this notion is a falsehood. Prepare for a history lesson. Theodore Herzl, largely accredited to be the founder of the Zionist movement, did not once refer to the “right” of a Jewish state to exist in Israel or anywhere else. There is no mention of this in his text The State of the Jews, nor in Old-New Land. Neither does the original Zionist conference of 1897, the Basel Program, nor the Balfour Declaration of 1917, nor the Mandate for Palestine of 1922 nor even the U.N. Partition Plan of 1947 cite the explicit right of a Jewish state to exist. Not once.
Furthermore, what other state on this Earth has a right to exist? Do not the people who constitute democratic governments ultimately grant those governments legitimacy? States have no rights. People do. The only text that promises the Jewish people the land of Palestine is the Bible, and if that is now a legitimate political text then please excuse me while I slam my head against the nearest wall.
Steven, please do not take this the wrong way. I am anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic, and I am as much anti-Israel as I am anti-Palestine. While I was writing an article for this paper last week, I had a conversation with a member of Students for Justice in Palestine. His name is Nadim Houssain. He said some things that gave me a new perspective on this conflict; a conflict in which I have no personal stake other than the fact that I am a human being and wherever there are human beings suffering — as there are in Palestine — I suffer as well. He told me that he believes in a one-state solution. One secular state to govern the people of Palestine, be they Jewish, Muslim or Christian. One democratic government in which all peoples are represented and the rights of all are upheld.
While I do not believe that Israelis have a right to a Jewish state, they have a right to live where they want to and to be near their holy land. The Palestinians have that same right, though. And let us not forget that it is they who were colonized in the first place.
“The only text that promises the Jewish people the land of Palestine is the Bible, and if that is now a legitimate political text then please excuse me while I slam my head against the nearest wall.”
THANK YOU. now excuse me while i continue my 24/7 head slamming.
great article. michael, you engage in thoughtful, well-researched, and unbiased critical thinking. i only wish that everyone else who claims so passionately what their stance on this issue is can look at the big picture like you do.
There’s a few issues here that I feel the need to address. While agree that the lobbying structure in Washington could use a serious makeover, it does give political movements that have widespread support the chance to affect policy. In the case of AIPAC, it is able to have such a large influence because there are a lot people in America that support what they do. Many of these people express their support by contributing to AIPAC, which in turn contributes to politicians’ election campaigns. Nothing in the lobbying structure of Washington is preventing the BDS movement for example from… Read more »
I have to correct myself, AIPAC doesn’t make campaign contributions as an organization but they do encourage individuals to make them.
AIPAC: You are misunderstanding where the support for lobbying groups and political action committees comes from. While there is some grassroots support involved in groups like AIPAC, I would bet that if you check the records most of the funding comes from a small number of thoroughly monied individuals who are thus able to influence policy and distort reality in a way that favors their position. Furthermore, the reason that you do not see as much opposition to imperialistic endeavors like US-Israeli relations or the proliferation of American oil interests or the “War on Terror” is because of the structure… Read more »
In regards to AIPAC: it’s not just about the money, they mobilize lots of voters too. Again, if there was a strong anti-Israel movement in the U.S. they would be able to mobilize voters against pro-Israel politicians. Those politicians would then have to reconsider their own positions. You don’t have the resources to compete because you don’t have the same amount of support, it’s as simple as that. Second (and this is a mistake way too many people make), you missed the 2000 years of Jews living as a powerless minority part. It’s hardly just the Holocaust, that was only… Read more »
While I recognize the plight of the Jewish people, as I do any group that has been persecuted, I still do not agree that their suffering is any greater than that of anyone else. I do not say that so as to detract from the authenticity of their struggle, rather to keep from negating the struggles of others. So, it appears that we will have to agree to disagree on how that plays into this debate, which is fine (three cheers for respectful discourse!) I will say this in regards to Zionism, however. I would be careful in characterizing most… Read more »
Just wanted to address one point you made. You can debate why Hamas and Fatah exist and why they are in power but the sad fact of the matter is that they do exist and it’s not at all clear how to get rid of them. I’m sure the Israeli government would like to take back many of things it has done in the past to bring us to this point but they and we have to deal with the reality of the current situation. Criticizing and apologizing for past policies isn’t going to make Hamas and Fatah go away.… Read more »
I like to think of it like the war on drugs. Unless you give people something else to live for, they’re going to continue to resort to crack cocaine. Same goes for groups like Hamas, or Al Qaeda. If you give someone a better option, of course they aren’t going to blow themselves up, but if not, from their perspective there is little choice. I do agree that only time will tell. Hopefully, the next generation(s) will be fed up with violence and make some sort of compromise. Hopefully.