UK Jewish MP: Israel acting like Nazis in Gaza

[dub]

rue... the reason why his background brings weight to what he says is because the situation in the region is all about nationalism. sometimes nationalism blinds people to the truth and to injustice. this type of nationalism has been seen everywhere, where people who have tried to justify or have looked the other way when their government or someone from their tribe has committed atrocities. examples of this have happened throughout history and continues to happen now.

you had majority of germans back in the first early 1900's who backed their government's so-called logic for doing what they did which left many jews, gypsies, homosexuals, political people and others either killed or displaced from their homes. there were, however, some germans who looked beyond the nationalism and saw the "other people" as equals.

more recently, you had the serbs overwhelmingly supporting their leaders during the ethnic cleansing. of course, just like the palestinian/israel conflict, that war was not black and white or good vs bad. however, there were things done that were clearly wrong. this is just like the situation now. there are actions done which are absolute.

anyone who tries to argue that exterminating the jews was a good idea, is wrong.

anyone who tries to argue that blowing yourself up in a civilian bus is a good idea, is wrong.

anyone who tries to argue that women should not have the same right as men is a good idea, is wrong.

anyone who tries to argue that attacking villages and towns knowing that there will be heavy civilian casualty is a good idea, is wrong.

anyone who tries to argue that rounding up all the men in the villages and then shooting them in the head is a good idea, is wrong.

anyone who tries to argue that annexing another person's land is a good idea, is wrong.

anyone who tries to argue that dropping an atomic bomb that would kill hundreds of thousands civilians is a good idea, is wrong.

there are absolutes in our society. absolutes that we've created for ourselves. we've created set rules and standards (like the geneva rules, in which many of them came about due to world war 2) for ourselves and if you go against them, you are wrong.

when you are drunk and blinded by nationalism like many people have in the past and present, it's easier for you to see yourself as a victim. you rally around those who say they will defend you and tend to try to find logic in actions that are simply wrong.

the reason the jewish MP's words, uri avnery's words, noam chomsky's words, ayaan hirsi ali's words, have so much weight and strength is because they've managed to set themselves free from nationalism and can acknowledge a wrong act no matter who is doing them. so when one of these people which society has categorized and grouped speaks out against unfair treatment of people done by their own group who they're very familiar with, then their words certainly have more weight.

(its spelled with a capital J and here's a hint, you may wish to use the word "Jewish", Jew is one of those words that we Jewish people question now since it has been too often used in a derogatory context)

i will tell you right now that i'm not typing "jew" with a small j in a derogatory way. i usually type everything in small letters.

[Argus]

Israel is still occupying Palestine.

They're not occupying the Gaza strip. They are occupying the West Bank - where, curiously, rockets do not fly across into Israeli towns.

Now if the Palestinians had been smart, they'd have set out to show the Israelis just how well-run and peaceful Gaza could be with the Israelis gone from it. Instead, they chose to show them the reverse - that it was a bad idea to leave, that the Palestinians would, if left to their own devices, attack each other and Israel, and that no trust could be offered to them.

[Rue]

Dub thank you for your well thought out response and honest effort to respond to my point.

I have no problem with your comment about nationalism.

I appreciate your comments starting with the word anyone...

I probably agree with you about your comment on absolutes. I say probably because like you I think we could both think of ethical instances that can become quite confusing but as a general rule I got your point,.

I heard your point about being drunk and blinded by nationalism and self-identification with victimhood and would respond by saying yes in some instances it can blind people but in other instances maybe it does not blind people but they appear blind to you because you do not understand what they feel or how they perceive and express their identity..

That said let me deal with the meat and potatoes of your response to me in which you stated:

"the reason the jewish MP's words, uri avnery's words, noam chomsky's words, ayaan hirsi ali's words, have so much weight and strength is because they've managed to set themselves free from nationalism and can acknowledge a wrong act no matter who is doing them. so when one of these people which society has categorized and grouped speaks out against unfair treatment of people done by their own group who they're very familiar with, then their words certainly have more weight."

While I see the point you are making I will try explain why I think it is defective.

You assume Uri Anvery or Noam Chomsky have seperated themselves from nationalism. Actually they have not. They have in fact simply replaced the nationalism they support and I am suprised you missed that point.

I would actually have zero problem with your arguement if I saw evidence in the words or writings of Avnery or Chomsky that they were not in fact supporting the nationalism of Palestinians but remained neutral to both it and Jewish nationalism or Zionism. They do not. They take sides. In their arguements they create a double standard and one that envisions national rights for Palestinians but not one for Jews and that is why I challenge them.

I also challenge them because if Anvery or Chomsky were not Jews I have no doubt you would not be signalling out their opinions. You do so precisely because you assume because they are Jews who are anti-Zionist this gives special added credibility to them being anti-Zionist however that is not logical.

Think about it. There Jewishness doesn't make what they say any more credible and that is precisely the kind of tokenism or sterotyping or defining people based on their perceived religion or ethnicity I am trying to challenge.

If it was in reverse look what you do. You make assumptions if a Jew supports the right of Israel to exist they are blind to nationalism. That is illogical. They may be no more blind to nationalism then a Jew who is against the existence of a Jewish state may be blind to their own Jewish identity. That is with due respect an assumption you make that is not based on objective corroborated fact just sterotyped subjective generalization.

In addition, while you assume a Jew who believes in the right to universal sufferage is blinded by nationalism I don't see that that double standard being equally applied to Palestinian nationalism or pan-Arab nationalism.

Why is it when a Jew wishes universal sufferage he is blinded by nationalism but when a Muslim enjoys this through Sharia law which institutionalizes its religion in the state apperatus you are silent? Do you hold all the countries in the world with ethnic laws of return to this standard as well?

With due respect your arguement is I believe an example of tokenism and reverse anti-semitism. It assigns an instant standard of credibility to Jews because they are Jews if they anti-Zionist but when they are pro Zionist you engage in the double standard and assume it automatically makes them blind.

May I also say with due respect your assumption Jews are blinded by nationalism if they are Zionist is an illogical stereotype. Not not all fo us Jews who support the existence of the State of Israel are blind to things Israel does that may be problematic.

As well may I also say with due respect you may perceive anti-Zionist Jews as not being blind to nationalism but your cultural bias may prevent you from understanding the psychology of what is going on when certain Jews become blinded by their need to erase their own Jewish identity and deny their Jewishness.

May I suggest the writings of Chomsky reflect a deeply unstable man has shown in his words he loaths the Jewishness in him and has become blinded by his self-hatred.

The words and terms he uses derogate the collective Jewish identity but also very much do the same with his own Jewish identity. You probably can not see that. To be self-loathing is a complex and difficult phenomena to perceive when you are not the identity of the self loather and do not choose to refer to your identity in a derogatory manner that can incite others to hate all Jews or people in the same category as you.

What I am saying is not unique to Jews. Gay people can tell you about gay people who deny and hate themselves for being gay, and on and on with other groups whether they be black, etc.

Just for your curiousity I know of many Jews who are NOT Zionists and against any nationalism of any kind-but they remain neutral when discussing both Israelis and Palestinians and do not use words that insult all Jews or their own Jewish roots and remain consistent to their principles so do not believe either side's zeal to have a national identity makes any sense. It is a far different and more sensitive and delicately balanced course of dialogue then say with the fiery hateful rhetoric of Chomsky.

I hope that explains what I am getting at. If you follow my arguement through its the same one I would make to say please don't stereotype all Muslims based on their religion or perceived ethnicity or do it with blacks, or anyone else.

For example you remember the debate over whether we should have Afrocentric schools? I deeply resented it when blacks in favour of Afrocentric schools were assigned extra credibility simply because they were black but those blacks who did not believe in Afrocentric schools were not given the same standard-more to the point in such a discussion or any discussion and call me a dreamer I would love to get to the point where when we debate our religion or ethnicity our skin colour, ethnic status, gender, gender preference is not thrown about to imply things simply because of that status.

What I am trying to say is please judge what I have to say about Israel not simply because I am a Jew because I will not do the same in reverse simply because you are not a Jew. I might challenge you as I have but I do not challenge your basic point that my being Jewish can cause me to be emotionally bias in favour of Israel and I must guard against that. That is a fair thing to say. All I am asking you to do, is not go further and make assumptions that I am blinded by nationalism as I do not assume all anti-Zionist Jews are blinded to their own identity. Likewise I criticize people when I feel they stereotype all Muslims or Palestinians.

All I am saying is the very reason you assume it makes Jews who are anti-Zionist not blind to nationalism could also could make them blind to their own identity. Would you know the difference? Probably not. I know I struggle with it and Muslims and Palestinians struggle with it and gays struggle with it and all visible minorities or minorities struggle with ti. See how tricky it gets?

I hope I gave you a spirited response and I do appreciate your effort and sensitivity in your response and I do want to acknowledge this point, as a Jew yes, my emotional attachment to the existence of Israel tied to my fears of anhiliation are primal. They are prime instincts related to survival. You are right, the emotional content attached to them can make reasoning difficult. For sure. I struggle with it.

It is very hard for me to see Israel do things I think might be wrong jut as it is hard for me when Jews say things I think are hateful or extremist. I am not so blind I can not see such things just as I know non Jews are not so blind they can not see through their cultural biases.

Can I say I think most of us try our best to see the other side's point of view and be sensitive to one another and it is a challenge for all of us?

Also I would say is it possible to be a Zionist and not be blind? I can only speak for myself. I do not agree with the settlement policy Israel has followed through with on the West Bank at all.

I do not think Israel is perfect and I believe some of its tactics in response to terrorists may have been counter-productive.

In fact in an ideal world I do not believe in any nationalism at all. For me Jewish nationalism is not a choice it is a necessary conequence of dhimmitude and the holocaust and thousands of years of persecution and expulsion that forced Jews to take a final stand if we were to continue existing and continue to exist.

Should all people erase all forms of national identity? Good luck. In an ideal sense yes. Its tribalism. All it does is promote intolerance and I suppose in-breeding. But on a practical level it is unfair to single out Jews and no other group when they wish to express their identity through statehood. That is not fair.

I personally believe in a two state solution and the disbanding of Jewish settlements in the West Bank but I also do not believe for one second Hamas or Hezbollah or 400 other terrorist cells now operative in the Gaza, West Bank, South Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and Morrocco are interested in anything but a Muslim theocracy in Gaza, Israel, the West Bank and Jordan and will not stop their terror until they achieve this goal.

I just hope moderate Palestinians and Israelis can find one another and find away to put down their terrorist weapons to then make the IDF a moot point.

The future would be full of serious legal obstacles but I do not believe it is impossible for both sides to find peace based on mutual recognition and respect.

Edited February 3, 2009 by Rue