Israel to World: "Suck It."

'stop hitting yourself' can just as easily be used to describe israel when it comes to PR / world politics, though.

been reading a lot of flip facebook updates and the like about this. have to say the sloganeering responses on every side of this issue make me sort of sick.

one said some fashionable thing like "to associate judaism and zionism is anti-semitic." uh, like try associating zionism with some other world religion then? see how that works.

i agree w/ nabisco on this one btw.

needless to say other regional gov'ts being totally hypocritical about this but that's been their MO for 62 years.

actually, to nuance that very slightly, iran under the shah was actually one of the first countries to recognize israel in 1948. sort of wild, isn't it?

turkey taking up the cause of palestinians is a bit of irony that goes back way longer than that

the word 'zionism' is basically useless in 2010.

the word 'zionism' is basically useless in 2010.

― iatee, Tuesday, June 1, 2010 9:57 PM (52 seconds ago) Bookmark

otm. i don't remember it being used in the 1990s, and it seems to be a way to take everything back to first principles every time.

I disagree. I dunno if equating Judaism with zionism is anti-semitic (obviously they're related), but they are not interchangeable concepts, and it is possible to be a Jew without being a zionist.

not EQUATING dude, ASSOCIATING. important difference.

also: thanks for presuming i am an idiot!

sorry no presumption intended I agree with you fwiw

when u presume u make a pres out of u and me

and yes although it's not smart to equate zionism and judaism (believe me, this is NOT a mistake i would make), it's not necessarily "anti-semitic" either.

also hate the way the word "zionism" provokes kneejerk reactions among leftists (jewish and non), like the word "fascism" does in the general population. i mean, jesus, a lot of crimes have been committed in the name of zionism but that's true of, i dunno, socialism as well. does the idea of a jewish state--even if you ultimately disagree w/ it--seem so far beyond the pale that the word "zionism" should provoke an instant chill?

anyway, sorry, this is a distraction.

my post wasn't clear - what I was disagreeing with was the term zionism falling out of use/favor. which was a separate point from my second sentence. sorry.

fwiw I can't recall a time in my life when the term zionism was not common linguistic currency among Jews

xp

maybe it's the narcissism of small differences but knee-jerk would-be-revolutionary leftist intellectuals really irritate me. and there's a LOT of them in my field.

What they could have done--let the ships in. Show the world how caring, etc. Israel is. Don't give the Free Gaza movement the PR victory; take it from them by escorting the ships in, providing Israeli "volunteers" to help unload. Have plenty of international media there for the show.

hahahaha what israel is this guy talking about

The use of the word "Zionism" tends to accompany a with-us-or-against-us mentality for both sides, I think. I particularly dislike it because it implies that one is either anti-Palestinian (Zionist) or against the existence of a Jewish state in Israel. Whereas, while I don't like to call myself a Zionist, I tend to think that a one-state solution is pie in the sky and I don't think that destroying a 62-year-old state at this point is a good option either.

I don't know if I qualify as one of those or not lol

I have a problem with ethnocentric states in principle, that this one happens to be for my particular ethnicity just makes it all the more depressing/frustrating

so many x-posts

"see what the hulk should've done here is reasoned with his opponents"

NO HULK ANGRY SMASH

zionism as we know it is a 19th-century concept. it's really fascinating, actually. there are both dubious and admirable figures associated w/ it, and a lot of complexity. but a lot of the aforementioned leftist intellectuals seem to like to bolster their cred by taking the arab states' former line on zionism, namely that's "a form of racism."

btw most of those intellectuals are jews fwiw.

can somebody please give me a reason why anyone should be using the word 'zionist'? there are many better ways to categorize the many, many political opinions that are associated w/ jewish and israeli people around the world. but I guess 'zionist' allows you to paint them all with one broad, ahistorical brush.

xp

I have a problem with ethnocentric states in principle

well, you know, fine, but most states did not come about in accordance with high principles, and it's kind of interesting how this one in particular gets its legitimacy challenged on the reg when others don't

what basis *should* states be founded on?

'zionist' seems to mostly be a way of distinguishing the good jews xp

Not to get into semantic games, but it's really a religious state more than an ethnic state (Russian Jews, Ethiopian Jews and Moroccan Jews being about as ethnically different as any other three groups).

The world is full of ethnocentric and/or religio-centric states. I mean pretty much all the Arab states are implicitly Arab-centric. In fact the formation of a Jewish state was particularly upsetting as it coincided with burgeoning Arab nationalism in the region as the British Empire receded.

well any state that's designed to privilege one ethnic group over another is going to end up being racist in practice as well as principle imho. there are plenty of examples of this. but my issues with zionism are also historical and political - in that the creation of Israel was a last gasp of colonialism AND collective guilt, with a fairly tenuous historical rationale attached to it (I don't see why the Jews' claim on the territory is any more legitimate than any other of the numerous groups that have occupied that particular strip of land over the last few thousand years). Just the whole entitlement involved in the creation of the state - "this is ours cuz God said so. Also so did these foreign powers who are sorry for treating us like shit for the last 2,000 years, lol now get out" - is just gross.

but I'm sure you've heard all this haha

x-posts

afaict common usage of Zionist is meant to denote someone (usually Jewish) who believes in the fundamental right of Jews to have their own state in Israel. if you go back farther into the history of the term/movement it gets a bit more convoluted, but that's the short-hand.

btw, I know some jews use the word 'zionist' too, but very similar to the word 'liberal' it has lost any real meaning and is just a vague pejorative that probably isn't using outside of a historical context

xp

The world is full of ethnocentric and/or religio-centric states. I mean pretty much all the Arab states

yeah real models for success aren't they

TONS OF X-POSTS

iatee -- "zionism" refers to the desire for an independent jewish state. that state now exists in the form of israel. so, a smattering of people who are somehow zionists but not supporters of israel (they exist!), zionism has become synonymous with support for the continued existence of israel as a state devoted to maintaining a homeland for the jewish people. i agree that at this point in history it's not a very useful term in a realpolitik context (as opposed to the context of political philosophy).

israel sort of defies the relgious/ethnic distinction. maybe it's best to say it's psuedo-religious. israel is NOT a theocracy or a state founded in any substantive respect on religious principles. some of its key founders, like moshe dayan, were completely secular. only some zionists actually think or argue that israel has a god-given right to exist. some think they have a moral right.

the bottom line is that the jewish people are sort of unique. i don't mean that in a value way like "the jews are like a precious snowflake." no, just that they really are unique in terms of the history of peoples on earth.

anyhoo.

the worst offenders re. identifying zionism and jews are of course many of the palestinians. in a way this is historically understandable, if indefensible at this point in time. but i think it's to the point where it's just reflexive. i think a lot of palestinians growing up in gaza or refugee camps will just think of "zionists" and "jews" as synonyms. hence the disconcerting chants of "kill the jews!" or "get rid of the jews!" etc.

i have really mixed feelings about all this. on the one hand, it's important to disentangle the somewhat distinct histories of anti-semitism in e.g. europe and post-48 anti-semitism in the arab/moslem world. AIPAC and other pro-israel organizations get a lot of mileage from identifying those two things, as if palestinian militants were the 2nd coming of hitler. at the same time, i'm not going to excuse or explain away a lot of the really virulent racial hatred on either side..

SHOULD BE "iatee -- "zionism" refers to the desire for an independent jewish state. that state now exists in the form of israel. so, a smattering of people who are somehow zionists but not supporters of israel ASIDE"

that probably isn't using = that probably isn't *worth* using

what basis *should* states be founded on?

well you could treat everybody equally under the law, for starters, at least in principle. (seems to me the more problematic question is "how do you draw borders" rather than "what principles should we use" when it comes to creating a state)

xp

yes, thats the question im asking

q: does the intl waters thing ~matter~ in any of this for you guys, like ethically? @Ismael: if it is unlawful to forcibly board someones vessel in intl waters (piracy!), then the occupants of that vessel ought to be able to respond in kind (under the "law," if such a thing can be said to exist on the high seas).

point being: a violent response by the flotilla to Israeli aggression might be horribly ill-advised, but not like illegitimate. whereas the Israeli boarding actually is kinda unlawful.

basically: seems like these stop hitting yrself arguments hinge on the fact that Israel was perfectly entitled to board/respond, in the way that the police are entitled to arrest you if they catch you mugging someone. but they ~weren't~.

so then you have to consider: were the ppl in the flotilla entitled to have weapons (yes), and to respond to aggression while in intl waters? yes. should they have had weapons and responded violently? no, imo, but there it is. did the Israeli troops have the right to defend themselves? yes. was their response disproportionate to the perceived threat? yes, imo.

should Israel be criticized for a) creating the incident and b) mishandling it in the grossest way? absolutely. I mean ffs if yr gonna board terrible dangerous aid ships, wait until they're actually in ur fucking ZONE before shooting everyone

what basis *should* states be founded on?

well you could treat everybody equally under the law, for starters, at least in principle. (seems to me the more problematic question is "how do you draw borders" rather than "what principles should we use" when it comes to creating a state)

xp

― in my day we had to walk 10 miles in the snow for VU bootleg (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, June 1, 2010 4:18 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

i agree in principle but the issue of borders and rights are not extricable! one question being, who gets to decide whether they're a part of this country or the other one!

well you could treat everybody equally under the law, for starters, at least in principle.

israel does this, iirc?

but states get formed in a whole bunch of fucked up ways, usually by violence, sometimes by colonial partition, whatever. it's terrible and fucked up but that's human history, and while that doesn't remotely "justify" all the violence done to all the victims down the centuries, it's something to keep in mind.

so it may offend principle that israel is what it is, but in 2010, are we really still talking about whether it "ought" to exist? partition was an incredible disaster for india/pakistan, neither of which have much meaning as "nation-states" outside of the colonial context, but that's what we/they have now.

q: does the intl waters thing ~matter~ in any of this for you guys, like ethically?

according to israel and its boosters it was legit under the laws relating to blockade anyway?

im not a maritime lawyer as you can guess

You won't be surprised to hear Dershowitz thinks the same.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/israels-actions-were-enti_b_596285.html

hey I think we all agree that creating states is a messy and unpleasant business. Given the last 60+ years I think it's pretty clear that undertaking that particular endeavor in the case of Israel was a BAD IDEA. It can't be easily undone so I agree that arguing about whether Israel "ought" to exist is increasingly beside the point - because it exists now, and it's going to exist in some form for a long time to come. What can be undone is Israel's identity as an ethnocentric (yes I'm gonna keep using that term for the sake of convenience) state - the one-state solution.

I don't think everybody is treated equally under Israeli law...? Jewish right of return, Jewish National Fund, fucked up marriage laws etc.

x-posts

israel does this, iirc?

lol wuuuuuuut

shakey's otm

Amateurist, you know more about this than I do, so I'm asking: is it possible that part of the problem is that the broad part of Zionism -- the idea of a home state -- is a lot closer to settled, so a lot of uses of the word now cluster around things that are more extreme? Like in terms of people's ideologies, these days we pretty often hear "Zionism" brought up in, say, discussions of settlers who feel they have a moral right to land beyond existing lines. I.e., we keep attaching Zionism to hot disputes about expansion and land, and not to less-controversial things like the existence of the state itself.

Was gonna say. I definitely think there should be an Israel, but I use Zionist to describe someone who thinks settlement rights take precedence above all other claims, especially those of Muslims. You can be a Zionist w/o being Jewish - look at neocons.

christian zionism isn't incompatible with anti-semitism, even. oh, it's all so confusing

I don't think everybody is treated equally under Israeli law...? Jewish right of return, Jewish National Fund, fucked up marriage laws etc.

yeah i don't think there is total and absolute equality and that's bad, but it doesn't deserve a lol whut answer. though imperfect, a little like the US through almost its entire history (is there legal equality in arizona?). israel isn't an apartheid state. i get the one state solution as an ideal, kind of, but there's no logical/historical basis for the borders of said single state that makes it more just than a two-state solution. do kind of wonder what the nature of the one-state state would be, too.

Maybe we need Third Wave Zionism.

Many xposts @gbx - not sure how much help I can be as Law of the Sea isn't really my thing, and I'm unaware of (i) where the incident actually took place (it does appear from the maps to be a long way from the coast) and (ii) what the legal basis is for the blockade of Gaza at all (I assume that Israel claims jurisdiction over Gazan waters in some occupation-type way). Also, my book's a little bit old. However, I'm guessing I'm probably the best-qualified here to have a stab:

* PIRACY/SELF-DEFENCE

- the boarding certainly wasn't piracy, because piracy is a private vessel attacking other vessels for private ends. This was a state act. The vessel was a private boat, however, not a warship - so any right of self-defence should be understood in the normal personal way, rather than thinking about one country fighting off an attack by another. Did the commandos pose a threat to the people on the boat such as would justify their attacking them? We don't know, frankly, and I haven't watched the videos to find out. In any case it's difficult to know how to analyse that, because we don't know what law they'd be defending themselves under - it's probably Turkish law because it's a Turkish boat, but it might be Israeli law depending on where it was. In any case, the question should be something like: at the time of boarding, were the people on the boat in physical danger such as would justify attacking the boarding soldiers with metal bars as a means of making that danger stop?

* JURISDICTION

- generally speaking, the high seas are free and a state needs jurisdiction in order to board a vessel. It could get this in a very few ways, e.g.
: the vessel flies its flag (I think Turkey in this case)
: the vessel is committing an offence over which the state has jurisdiction (e.g. piracy or the slave trade, but also a few relatively trivial things like illegal broadcasting)

- the territorial sea is the strip of sea along the coast, usually up to twelve miles (don't know much Israel claims) over which the state does exercise jurisdiction. Generally speaking, a merchant ship (I think this means all non-warships) has right of innocent passage through the territorial sea of any state - but it ceases to be innocent passage if it partakes in certain activities, breach of customs being one of those, in which case it's no longer innocent. The state can board to investigate e.g. a crime disturbing peace and good order, which I presume Israel considers blockade-busting to be.

NON-CONCLUSION

So (with all the above caveats) if this was in Israel's waters, Israel would probably have the right to board and interdict the vessel. If it was on the high seas, they probably wouldn't - however, I have some difficulty in believing that e.g. the US wouldn't intercept a drugs boat that's lying thirteen miles off Miami, so perhaps there's some obvious principle that I'm not aware of.

Israel isn't an apartheid state.

It discriminates between its citizens according to their race and religion - and awards different privileges and imposes different obligations in light of such discrimination, and by force of law. So yes, it is an apartheid state now.

I thought of something else: Israel could also assert self-defence to intercept the vessel if it believed it was carrying a threat e.g. previous interceptions of arms shipments. This would be a state-type self-defence and so not exactly like the one I set out for the people on the boat, though they're pretty similar concepts. One hears of other countries intercepting and diverting ships from time to time for terrorism-related reasons or whatever - this is presumably the rationale in those cases too.

It discriminates between its citizens according to their race and religion - and awards different privileges and imposes different obligations in light of such discrimination, and by force of law. So yes, it is an apartheid state now.

― sonofstan, Tuesday, June 1, 2010 11:15 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

said it was imperfect, and therefore open to criticism by the US in particular with its long history of racial equality, but i guess im objecting to the implied south african comparison which is, how you say, disproportionate.