January 28, 2005
-
Topic: late night web surfing
my last post led me some important discoveries. My views on life have not changed much, but my views on politics and society have. Limited by resources, I’ve been forced to choose from a limited number of options. Thus…i’ve seen just two camps, the left and the right. Being a lefty (politically and in hand-writing), I’ve had to acknowledge that I don’t know enough to buy 100% into the left, nor should I be so close-minded as to discredit the right’s critique’s of the left.
I’ve been yearning for a middle, a self-reflective ideology that could look at both sides, and keep its values of fighting for justice, equality, etc. And, I rediscovered the views of the Social Democrats, but, now with new meaning. I found several speeches given by SD’s, and the theory behind a mixed socialist-capitalist society, as well as the context of their views, put things a lot more in focus for me.
Without altering facts, they provide an alternative story. Socialism…good in theory, but easily manipulated for evil. Also, socialism is opposed to capitalism, and clearly capitalism has its benefits, although it’s not perfect. So…we gotta mix the two. It’s the way things have been, and it’s a natural middle ground.
What struck me though, especially today, is thinking about the use of violence for a cause. I need to read more about the Cold War…I’ve been shocked to learn that the US overthrew democratically elected governments that were social democracies. But…if the heart of Communism was a revolution to overthrow capitalist democracies, then the US had to fight.
One thing that has bugged me that I haven’t questioned out loud, is left’s criticism of America for violently suppressing other violent “good name” causes. Reading Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States,” I never fully grasped how he painted a bad picture of the American gov’t for arresting violent socialist groups. Was the cause of socialism so just, that America could not protect itself from violence?
Chomsky paints US “national security” as a joke, because it really stands for opposing socialist policies. In the cases where the US did overthrow socialist democracies because their economic interests threatened our own, I believe the US to be immoral. But…to fight against a government that is a true physical threat to our security, is legitimate. Since the spread of Communism was not simply the spread of an economic ideal, but was the spread of an economic ideal tied to a violent revolution to overthrow capitalist democracy, then we have a different picture of the Cold War than the one Chomsky paints.
My roommate also opened my eyes to Chomsky’s anti-Israel stance. He brought up the question, why is there so much focus on Israel, but not on the totalitarian regimes in the Middle East. Reading some words from the Socialist Democracy website showed me how much they appreciate American democracy. This is something I spoke about in my last post, how the left, in its criticisms of American government, tends to see only the bad, and none of the good. Rather than spread some of the good, they are focussed solely on preventing the spread of the bad parts. The result of this, is a focus on people who they feel are exploited by capitalists, but a failure to some degree to focus on people who are exploited by dictators.
Here is where I’ve picked up the split between full-pledged socialists, and social democrats. The latter recognize that America’s capitalist shortcomings do not undermine America’s relatively progressive human rights record at home. The SD’s, therefore, are opposed to non-democratice regimes and the human rights violations they commit.
So, without feeling like I have been wrong about my beliefs on the Iraq war up until now, I can at least be more open to thinking that Saddam had to go. The important thing, however, is consistancy. I think SD’s believe in political freedom first, and economic freedom will follow. America’s foreign policy has put economic freedom (neoliberal policy) at its forefront.
Is war against evil justified? Only as long as that’s your true aim, and this is where other US activities come into play.
The question is, for those of us who oppose war and support peace, what is our view to assist those who suffer at the hands of oppressive rulers?
Comments (17)
A couple of early morning thoughts:
Because we, in this country, have such limited political choices, we argue in extremes even if the differences are small. The US has really never had mainstream full-scale socialists (no one, for example, has seriously advocated nationalizing the auto industry or the aircraft industry – or even the airline industry). Sometimes the Democrats have shown a slight Social Democratic streak (this would include everyone from FDR to Huey Long to Ted Kennedy), sometimes they’ve been to the right of that. But if Americans had any knowledge of the world or history they’d know both that the “Social Democrats” are the dominant government form in the industrialized world (all of Europe and Canada) and that the argument you describe is most prominently played out between German Socialists (SPD) and Russian Socialists in the late 19th Century from the moment the Germans switched from revolution to evolution and from the threat of violence to the electoral system (and thus socialized Germany 120 years ago).
It is an American right-wing argument (as it was a Stalinist-Breshnev argument) that “democracy” could only come with a certain economic system. Our claim is that we cannot be free unless we can make as much money as we want. Stalin would say you cannot be free as long as you are forced to sell your labor to others. Social Democrats have typically embraced FDRs credo that there are 4 essential freedoms: Freedom of Speech, of Religion, Freedom from Want, and from Fear. A german thinks we lack freedom in this country because if you have no right to housing, health care, and food, are you free? But people in lots of different economic systems get to vote.
Finally, we support all Middle Eastern governments. That’s all bad because they are all bad. We support most directly, and lots through our lifestyle choices that fund tyrants (every nation in Western Europe uses less gasoline – not per capita, but in actually liters – than it did in 1980, we use 50% more). Two things apply for me: The people we’ve put in power through regime change in the Middle East, Saddam and the Shah of Iran were the worst, maybe it indicates we’re not very good at this. And I would no more invade Israel to enforce Palestinian rights than I would have invaded Iraq to enforce Shi’a rights. I probably wouldn’t even isolate and disarm Israel as we did Iraq for a decade. But I don’t think they deserve to be the largest recipient of US foreign aid, either. Simply saying we shouldn’t be rewarding Israel for denying the vote to 50% of the adult population doesn’t necessarily make me a crazy radical. One of the best ways to fight evil, after all, is just to stop supporting it.
I always enjoy answering your questions, Dan.
On my site, you asked:
“Why would someone living in America under extreme conditions of poverty, be better off under Comminism, instead of an improved system of capitalism?”
The way Maoist Communism functions (there are other models, but I will discuss only this one) is through a concept called the mass-line, where “human factor” is placed in the central position. Obviously this is quite different from Stalin – if we read his Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR we find not one mention of actual people. It was technology that was going to save the Soviet Union and allow for the building of socialism, not the mobilization of the masses. But essentialy, Marxism is a philosophy for changing the world, an applied philosophy of liberation based in the concrete analysis of concrete conditions. Maoist Communism, then, views a social revolution as progressing dialectically according to the “human factor” – the means of production are socialized, i.e. given to the people. This is done progressively. First through co-operativization of industry and agriculture, these are then transfored in communes with much more autonomy. (I will note here the famines of the Great Leap Forward, and stress that the particularities of the sino-soviet split are the prime reason: Revisionist Soviet sabotage of the Chinese economy. Cf. The Chinese Road to Socialism.) Economic authority is localized and the economic network that is necessary to establish communism is established. Money (the central medium of capitalist exchange) is then eliminated (this was begun during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution) and the contradiction between the forces of production and the relations of production are overcome, qualitatively. What does this mean in practical terms: more equal and rational distribution of resources and, more importantly, self-determination.
What if, through democratic and capitalistic methods, we elected politicians (and I know you’re skeptical of this, but the system is not 100% bad), what if we elected politicians who no longer were neo-liberals, and did not conduct war. What if we had politicians who were pro-worker, who allowed strong unions, and the wages of the working class were raised, and all could afford health care and a quality education?”
An improved system of capitalism cannot do this. Even the finest “Social Democrats” will not get even to the first step – socializing the means of production. As long as their is private industry and agriculture, there will always be wage slavery. In addition, there cannot be “capitalism in one country” any more. For the US to live in affluence, the rest of the world must bleed. Poverty is defined as living on less than $2 per day. This is the way 50% of the population lives under global capitalism. How would this percentage increase if we were to define poverty as $3 of $4? I don’t know of such a statistic, but capitalism is devouring the world, and it always will, no matter how progressive it becomes. The law of equal value makes it clear that an increase in wealth in our country means a decrease elsewhere. Too often this is extorted in accordance with neocolonial policy (by the World Bank, IMF, etc) or stolen in good ‘ol imperialist fashion. And end to neoliberalism would mean an end to US Hegemony, and end to American affluence.
On top of that, there is the issue of the peak in oil production (peak oil). An energy crisis of this magnitude goes beyond the normal contradictions of capitalism. As I said above, the crises of the Capitalist business cycle cannot be overcome by either Keynesianism or Monetarism, but can only be postponed by imperialism. However, even if that weren’t the case, the question of peak oil creates a different issue. Do you think that the fundamentalists and Zionists who are in charge of global energy are particularly interested in the problem of the end of oil, in the face of the approaching end-times, which they welcome. Do you think your average level-headed and selfish (in the Ayn Rand sense) oil tycoon cares if the oil is gone after he dies, so long as he can make bank now? History shows us that these people do not care about the future, that they are myopic, and so are consumers – the majority of whom will always be held by the media machine, the advertising state apparatus, and the culture industy. I hold that only through a planned, nationalized economy can this crisis (and it is a serious crisis) be averted. Imagine the concequences of an end to oil without a planned and managed transition to a more sustainable energy source (wind or hydro-power for example). Do you think the anarchy of “free competition” is capable of making that transition? I don’t, and we are all quickly running out of time. Can society “evolve” to fix this in fifty years? I very much doubt it. Can we make the revolution in fifty years? I think, and hope, that we can.
The war is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, it is an affront to sovereignty. secondly, we can have performed better deeds with the money. How about the genocides in sudan? how about the horrors of north korea? sadly, the power is with whomever that takes it. If the people fail to overthrow a harsh dictator, they are unlikely to work together well if someone else did it for them. Aside from the germans and japanese of world war II. typical of overthrowing developing world nation is the fact we take out one “democratically elected” dictator and replace him with another.
with the genocide in sudan and the millions starving in africa, isn;t that a far greater evil worth throwing money at than iraq? if we are unwilling to be all out interventionists, it is best to stick to ourselves and let individuals donate money to who they choose.
“My roommate also opened my eyes to Chomsky’s anti-Israel stance. He brought up the question, why is there so much focus on Israel, but not on the totalitarian regimes in the Middle East. Reading some words from the Socialist Democracy website showed me how much they appreciate American democracy. This is something I spoke about in my last post, how the left, in its criticisms of American government, tends to see only the bad, and none of the good. Rather than spread some of the good, they are focussed solely on preventing the spread of the bad parts. The result of this, is a focus on people who they feel are exploited by capitalists, but a failure to some degree to focus on people who are exploited by dictators. “
Chomsky is the epitome of the self hating jew. He’s blind to the evils of the arab world because of his hatred of Israel and America. He’s a terrible source of information.
Why is any Jew who opposes Israeli policy “a self-hating Jew.” Is every white person who opposed South African apartheid “a self-hating White”? The Dutch were particularly anti-South African, were they “self-hating Netherlandische”?
Israel is every bit the democracy South Africa was in 1975, or the US south was in 1960. Is that better than a country with zero democracy? Surely, for those in charge.
“Why is any Jew who opposes Israeli policy “a self-hating Jew.” Is every white person who opposed South African apartheid “a self-hating White”? The Dutch were particularly anti-South African, were they “self-hating Netherlandische”?”
Because I have read what Chomsky writes and I see how he is biased in his analysis, and if he was not jewish, i would be convinced he was anti-semitic. Aside from his supposed connections with french neo-nazis (more rumor than anything), I would say he is most definitely self hating jew, because to be THAT slanted, there is no other way.
“Israel is every bit the democracy South Africa was in 1975, or the US south was in 1960. Is that better than a country with zero democracy? Surely, for those in charge.”
Are you going to question my authority on this subject? Get your head out of your ass. Blacks in America and South Africa were not violent mother fuckers blowing people up indsicriminatly, conducting war in neighboring countries under the cover of that nation’s sovereignty, destabilizing any sort of self rule they even have. Don’t even fucking compare the plight of blacks to the backward and incessantly violent palestinian population. Incapable of peace and self rule, until they can bring some stability by policing themselves can ANYTHING be up for discussion. How smart of an idea would it be to free all of America’s prisoners tommorow? They will kill people and raise hell. Not every Palestinian is a criminal, but most support their actions (polling puts it close to 90%) and they live side by side with bomb factories and militant headquarters. They support the hiding of criminals and they support their actions. You are asking for a bloodbath ten fold if Israel loses its ability to police Palestine. Abbas is attempting to police the “palestinians” with their own people and so far he is successful. Arafat was too gleeful watching the slaughter of jews and muslims to do this. If Abbas can help bring peace, Israel can withdraw militarily. If peace continues, self rule will only expand. If peace appears possible in the long term, then Palestine gains the right for their soveriegnty.
So do not give me that crap about apartheid. The situations are not even close. The palestinians just DEMOCRATICALLY elected Abbas. By the way, they also voted Hamas into power. Fucking Apartheid? Its a god damn war! What part of it is not? People like you and Chomsky want to open the floodgates for the Palestinians to slaughter the jews until they reach the mediterranean. They have no respect for sovereignty. They, with their jewish free zones, run an apartheid. You sir, like Chomsky, are guilty of tonypandy.
Ah, now we see the anti-semite. So craigramblings can’t possibly contain his hatred for Palestinians, and can’t possibly see any relative connection between Hamas and the Irgun, between Palestinan terrorists and the South Africans who attacked government installations in the 70s. I know you think the French Resistance was an evil thing too, and what the Czechs did in 1968 was horrible as well (why, they “tolerated” rebels!)
Tell me my hate filled debater. Where will Israel “withdraw” to if Palestinians stop fighting? Show us the line. Is it the Green Line (fair, I suppose, but then what’s with the Berlin Wall?)?, or is it the 1948 Partition? Announce it, if they are serious. Give a date. Ask the US to patrol the border. Tell the settlers to move back “to Israel” or live “in Palestine.”
Sorry, Charlie: Open-ended occupations engender violence. They always have. They always will. Even if the occupier is the United States (be it the Phillipines or Iraq), even if its Israel.
“Ah, now we see the anti-semite. So craigramblings can’t possibly contain his hatred for Palestinians, and can’t possibly see any relative connection between Hamas and the Irgun, between Palestinan terrorists and the South Africans who attacked government installations in the 70s. I know you think the French Resistance was an evil thing too, and what the Czechs did in 1968 was horrible as well (why, they “tolerated” rebels!)”
Hatred for Palestinians? I do not even KNOW any palestinians, how can I possibly even hate “them”? So if that is a basis for your argument, and you fail to substantiate, than the foundation of your argument is weak.
The Palestinians are not any of those people, I see no connection. Were South Africans able to elect people to represent them like the Palestinians? Were the French Resistance cut a deal to have sovereignty over the land they resided in by the Germans? Did the Czechs in 1968 throw away peace and land offerinings and decided to conduct a protracted attack aimlessly against civilians? I tell you who DID all these things! Palestinian terrorists! I will tell you what helps perpetuate these things! People like you and the mass majority of the Palestinian population.
I have no reason to “hate” Palestinians. I hate their cause, that being the aimless killing of Jews and adverting peace at all costs. I hate how they conduct their warfare. I hate their actions. However, being that they are people, not machines, I cannot possibly assume that any sort of people can be like this forever. I have no reason to hate a person for merely being alive. Your claim is baseless.
“Tell me my hate filled debater. Where will Israel “withdraw” to if Palestinians stop fighting? Show us the line. Is it the Green Line (fair, I suppose, but then what’s with the Berlin Wall?)?, or is it the 1948 Partition? Announce it, if they are serious. Give a date. Ask the US to patrol the border. Tell the settlers to move back “to Israel” or live “in Palestine.”
Sorry, Charlie: Open-ended occupations engender violence. They always have. They always will. Even if the occupier is the United States (be it the Phillipines or Iraq), even if its Israel.”
Are you against immigration? I am not. People should be free to live where they choose. That is what Israel is. The majority of the people that moved there are Jewish, because very few other people would have a real reason to move to that hell hole. No one was kicked out, though people left because of an arab invasion. However, unless you are a MASOCHIST, why would you want to open the gates for a group of people hell bent on racially eliminating another group? That is absolutely insane. Let them show they can live peacefully and in time everyone is better off. If you disagree, you are a monster. Sadly, a lot of people are.
I love the debates going on! My comment won’t really add to them, but anyways, yes, utopia! I must say that I am a utopian! I have many thoughts on this, and actually had quite a nice little discussion about that today. I won’t go into the specifics, but I remember your pictures that you posted, and there was one with a little boy, that you asked the question, Is he happier than we are? I think that was the first time that I commented on your site, and it turned out to be a little lengthly. But I remember that very well, that pictures has lasted in my head, and I think that you are completely right. There are so many people that would have looked at the situation and thought,”These poor people what can we do to help?” And while I am not there to see the poverty or the sickness or starvation, sometimes I wonder if really the priorities are screwed up. Are we really just trying to see how we can improve for them, OUR idea of happiness with our computers and televisions? Our ideas of a good education with our cookie cutter, pre-arranged thoughts handed to us? There is so much to be said for health and safety, but so often we are just trying to get others to enjoy our living standards, that are more determined by society than our own true wants and needs. Hmmm. Yes. Utopia. I suppose if I actually lived in one, where I thought that life was perfect and there was nothing left to fight for, then I wouldn’t be truly living. We can always yearn for a better world.
~`Courtney`~
Dan, read Hesse’s Glass Bead Game, it was written for you. Then when you’re done read Plato’s Charmides.
craigsramblings: Yes, Blacks in apartheid South Africa were allowed to elected an “African” legislature, Yes, they were given “self-governing homelands. Yes, the French had a government under German occupation with their own security forces. Yes the Czechs had their own government after the 1968 Soviet invasion (they even had elections). I think, without wanting to sound condescending or insulting, that you need to explore world history a little bit more deeply. I say this without being one bit respectful of terrorism (and I have my own good reasons for that), but I also know that people will fight with whatever they’ve got if they live in unacceptable circumstances. If the Palestinians had tanks and helicopters and jets they’d fight a different style of war, but they don’t.
And sure. People can move wherever they want. But that didn’t work out all that well for America’s Plains Indians, for example, nor for the Irish in Northern Ireland. It’s not OK to arrive and seize control to a point where the Native Population is robbed of rights. So all I’ve asked of Israel is to let all adults who live in the country to have full citizenship rights. Why isn’t that fair? Then, if there are terrorists, they’re internal criminals, nothing more.
“Yes, Blacks in apartheid South Africa were allowed to elected an “African” legislature, Yes, they were given “self-governing homelands. Yes, the French had a government under German occupation with their own security forces. Yes the Czechs had their own government after the 1968 Soviet invasion (they even had elections). I think, without wanting to sound condescending or insulting, that you need to explore world history a little bit more deeply. I say this without being one bit respectful of terrorism (and I have my own good reasons for that), but I also know that people will fight with whatever they’ve got if they live in unacceptable circumstances. If the Palestinians had tanks and helicopters and jets they’d fight a different style of war, but they don’t.”
You conveniently did not answer the questions I asked, so without being condescending, I advise that you do not make gross claims with no basis in the world’s history. I do admit, I was unaware of South African self-rule, but whether or not it was a viable entity is unknown to me. The Palestinian Authority has power over police forces, they practically have an army on their hands. Did the South African blacks have that? Were they confined to a specific piece of geography or were the relatively evenly dispersed? Surely, the situation between the founding of the two nations (one has colonial booty, the other as the result of peaceful partioning and then the defining of borders from unprovoked wars) is also entirely different. Furthermore, the aims of south african fighters, self rule, are far different from that of Palestinian fighters, who on the most part have an ever expanding agenda. Surely, a knowledge of world history would make such differences obvious. However, it is always easy to ignore what you cannot answer to and then infer other things without base.
“And sure. People can move wherever they want. But that didn’t work out all that well for America’s Plains Indians, for example, nor for the Irish in Northern Ireland. It’s not OK to arrive and seize control to a point where the Native Population is robbed of rights. So all I’ve asked of Israel is to let all adults who live in the country to have full citizenship rights. Why isn’t that fair? Then, if there are terrorists, they’re internal criminals, nothing more.”
Okay, so we are narrowing it down. Now, how do you give full citizenship. Just to those expelled in 1967? That number is not quite so great, because there was the rest of Transjordan with more people that was lost (and the Palestinians were equally disenfranchised). Full citizenship rights entails a lot of responsibility. Is it smart of instantly enfranchising a huge population that will start civil war? The is the antithesis of being a responsible citizen.
The route that ISrael is taking and that should be taking is that of protecting themself when provoked. That of maintaining decent borders coinciding with those of dangerous sovereign nations that have attacked in the past. This policy entails having some sort of authority in the west bank, and that is why in the peace deals offered in 2000, where 95% of what the Palestinians asked for was granted, the other 5 percent was needed for defense and survival (as the case for drinking water.) The palestinians, if and when they get their “own state” will probably still have to let Israel maintain some key areas for defensive reasons.
However, you ask for Israel to open their arms and to accept Palestinians as Muslim ISraels and share equal citizenship. This is a great idea, but it can never occur and I will say why. Either the Palestinians are far too violent to make such a course of action possible or if they become capable of controlling their terrorism and maintaining self rule would probably out of ethnic pride not want to be absorbed into ISrael and enjoy equal citizenship. That’s why the problem was and always is war mongering from the neighboring Arab populations. That’s why the only solution is the end of their hostiilies. Because this is the only way it is possible without more bloodshed for either the Palestinians to join Israelis as citizens are earn the right to gain sovereignty.
You keep changing the target. You say people can move anywhere. Fine. If they live there, they become citizens. If a nation absorbs territory, it is either an occupation (Germany in Alsace 1870-1918, for example, Israel on the West Bank and Gaza) or those people become part of the nation (Californians, Hawaiians, Alaskans). You can have laws against violence and revolution, but sorry, you can’t say no to citizenship because you don’t like how those people will think or vote.
Now, what is exactly the difference between South Africa and Israel? Both “nations” were created when Europeans chose to move to a different continent to “start a new nation.” In both cases they began by acquiring land “legally.” (purchasing it or through treaties). Then, in both cases this “land-sharing” went bad, and through a series of wars (the Boers would always claim these were essentially defensive wars, the Brits say the same about their wars with the Zulus), the Europeans became masters of a vast territory that they chose to rule by denying citizenship rights to the descendants of the native population. When pressure mounted, both nations created “authorities” and “homelands” for the native population. In both cases, though native workers were welcomed, they had no rights within “European-ruled” areas, needed passports to move. In both cases natives were allowed “governments” and “security police” whose only real authority existed when they were enforcing what the Europeans wanted.
In both nations the Europeans claimed that “power could never be shared,” that the “natives were too dangerous,” that they had “never proven they could govern themselves.” In both cases surrounding nations encouraged attacks on European rule, financed those attacks, provided training bases for rebels, and armed those trying to overthrow the European government. Maybe you see things I don’t, but I really can’t see any difference, except that hopefully the situation in Israel can be resolved in less time than the centuries it took to restore freedom to South Africa.
So, to answer your questions:
“Were South Africans able to elect people to represent them like the Palestinians?” Yes. They had both limited representation in the national legislature and “homeland” legislatures.
“Were the French Resistance cut a deal to have sovereignty over the land they resided in by the Germans?” Yes, read the 1940 Armistice. The French maintained a government, a police force, even their navy remained in control of their ships. Many French didn’t respect a collaboration government and security force, and became (in German terms) “Franc-tirreurs,” or the heroes we know as “the resistance” – killing Gerrman troops and civilians almost whenever they could.
“Did the Czechs in 1968 throw away peace and land offerinings and decided to conduct a protracted attack aimlessly against civilians?” No they didn’t. They fought the invaders briefly, then gave up. It took another generation to gain their freedom.
“You keep changing the target. You say people can move anywhere. Fine. If they live there, they become citizens. If a nation absorbs territory, it is either an occupation (Germany in Alsace 1870-1918, for example, Israel on the West Bank and Gaza) or those people become part of the nation (Californians, Hawaiians, Alaskans). You can have laws against violence and revolution, but sorry, you can’t say no to citizenship because you don’t like how those people will think or vote.”
I do believe the ISraelis are occupying the west bank. It is obvious. They occupied a territory during a war and the war has not ceased. As soon as the war ends, then we can think about citizenship. The moment America took over Iraq, did you think they should have voted in our presidential election?
“Now, what is exactly the difference between South Africa and Israel? Both “nations” were created when Europeans chose to move to a different continent to “start a new nation.”"
Your first act of deception, Israelis like Arabs already lived in Israel and were already moving there before any sort of state creation, so it is NOT a matter of European state carving for the fact that jews lived there, it is only afterwards when the Arabs refused to have any true government exist where jews would be a majority did they resist. Two entirely different situations.
”In both cases they began by acquiring land “legally.” (purchasing it or through treaties).”
So the Ottoman Empire was politically disorganized and did not recognize private property? That’s laughable. Legally, instead of “legally” is the word.
“Then, in both cases this “land-sharing” went bad, and through a series of wars (the Boers would always claim these were essentially defensive wars, the Brits say the same about their wars with the Zulus), the Europeans became masters of a vast territory that they chose to rule by denying citizenship rights to the descendants of the native population.”
Again, you use deception. The Jews, after already living there for years legally, want to welcome European Jews who survived the holocaust sanctuary, which the British denied as imperialist occupiers. When the Jews and Muslims were offered their own states, the JEws accepted, for they already were living there and wanter sovereignty, and the Muslims said no, hoping that a combined Arab force would push the jews into the sea. So it is most definitely NOT a bunch of “Europeans” acquiring “vast territory” when Israel is smaller than counties in California…much smaller.
“When pressure mounted, both nations created “authorities” and “homelands” for the native population. In both cases, though native workers were welcomed, they had no rights within “European-ruled” areas, needed passports to move. In both cases natives were allowed “governments” and “security police” whose only real authority existed when they were enforcing what the Europeans wanted.”
However, this “homeland” existed only after 1967 when the Jordanian Yoke was overthrown for an Israeli one, so again, the situations are not the same. Immediately, organizations like the PLO rose up, giving no oppurtunity of peacefulling annexing such land. Finally after years of war, peace finally was achieved where the self rule you describe above came. Furthermore, peace looked lasting, and they WERE CLOSE TO A FEW SIGNATURES TO GAIN A SOVEREIGN NATION. South Africa did not have this.
***It is no surprise that you rely upon loose connections and deception when creating your argument, because that would be the only way to make Israel look illigitimate. I have shown that your assertions are simply not true.
“In both nations the Europeans claimed that “power could never be shared,” that the “natives were too dangerous,” that they had “never proven they could govern themselves.” In both cases surrounding nations encouraged attacks on European rule, financed those attacks, provided training bases for rebels, and armed those trying to overthrow the European government. Maybe you see things I don’t, but I really can’t see any difference, except that hopefully the situation in Israel can be resolved in less time than the centuries it took to restore freedom to South Africa.”
I have shown the glaring differences between the two. It is up to you to open your eyes. There is a difference between a nation with war with several other nations and then with newly occupied territory making it impossible to offer citizenship and that of a perpetually Anglo dominated nation with no foreign enemies and many many years to give up apartheid. What you fail to see is that geographically, the Israelis and Arabs are seperate populations with neither population wanting to be incorporated with the other (unless in the case so many arabs are allowed in they can overthrow Israel). At this point, want both states supposedly want are to have two sovereign nations at peace. Okay, let’s have that, but in order to have two sovereign nations so tied to each other to exist, they cannot be involved in perpetual hostilities.
“Yes. They had both limited representation in the national legislature and “homeland” legislatures.”
And how much military did they have?
“Yes, read the 1940 Armistice. The French maintained a government, a police force, even their navy remained in control of their ships. Many French didn’t respect a collaboration government and security force, and became (in German terms) “Franc-tirreurs,” or the heroes we know as “the resistance” – killing Gerrman troops and civilians almost whenever they could.”
If you consider the Vichy french puppet state self ruled, or the french navy which constantly fought with the british (and the british attacked and destroyed much of it during the war) independent, than I question what you consider “independent” to be. I fail to see how the French Resistance or french “self rule” have anything to do with the Palestinians. Please show a connection.
“No they didn’t. They fought the invaders briefly, then gave up. It took another generation to gain their freedom.”
Thanks for the answer. However, I fail to see a true parallel with Israel.
This isn’t going anywhere. You want “motives” to be the defining idea. You think that because European Jews were persecuted they get special rights. Maybe so. Maybe the world should work that way. I prefer to look at realities. And the reality (to me) is an open-ended bad faith occupation, almost exactly like that of the German Empire in Alsace and Lorraine 1870-1918 (because the French wouldn’t give up their desire to be French, they weren’t allowed to be Germans). That was a bad occupation for Germany (Bismarck was the most significant opponent of it), and prevented any real European peace, and guaranteed the next war. (It was also a “defensive occupation” – “needed” to keep French troops further from the Rhine heartland of Germany.)
Were there no Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, were there no wall inside the occupied territories, your argument might make some sense. But to me it all looks like “liebensraum.”
On South africa, I guess I’ll give up. You clearly don’t know enough of that history (or you want it to be different, I’m not sure). To claim that surrounding states weren’t “enemies” of South Africa is mighty funny, but claim it if you’d like.
But as for World War II history: we should know that. The French navy fought the Brits once, defensively when ordered to surrender off Algeria. The French never went into naval action on the side of the Germans, and in fact, scuttled their entire fleet when the Germans were marching to seize it (mirroring the German post-Great war action at Scapa Flow). And if the only connection you can see between the French Resistance and the Palestinians is that occupied people tend to fight their occupiers, I’ll hope you at least see that.
“This isn’t going anywhere. You want “motives” to be the defining idea.”
How so? The main idea is that Israel has a right to exist and it cannot exist if it allows its own destruction. that’s the main idea.
“You think that because European Jews were persecuted they get special rights.”
I never said this. Their rights are equivalent to all nationalities in Israel. If many Arabs did not leave, they would enjoy that equal citizenship. As of now, that would be impossible.
“Maybe the world should work that way. I prefer to look at realities. And the reality (to me) is an open-ended bad faith occupation, almost exactly like that of the German Empire in Alsace and Lorraine 1870-1918 (because the French wouldn’t give up their desire to be French, they weren’t allowed to be Germans). That was a bad occupation for Germany (Bismarck was the most significant opponent of it), and prevented any real European peace, and guaranteed the next war. (It was also a “defensive occupation” – “needed” to keep French troops further from the Rhine heartland of Germany.)”
Again, you use deception and draw false parallels. France did not invade Prussia for 60 years by that time. This is FAR different than people attacking you on a daily basis and several wars in the last 50 years.Furthermore, these people were conquered by germany. They were not once PART of the holy roman empire, conquered by a third party and then france, and then attained in a war with france that france had begun. Funny how the situation looks FAR different if you make an ACCURATE analogy.
“Were there no Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, were there no wall inside the occupied territories, your argument might make some sense. But to me it all looks like “liebensraum.”"
You love equating the Israeli to nazis, but your blind faith makes what you say baseless. It is easy to throw assertions about, but I want to see evidence for your “analogies.” Liebensraum required ethnic annhilation in the aim of putting other people to settle that land. Settlements, which are close to always built over former bomb factories and sectors used to conduct war, and the wall, use to prevent people from openly attacking somewhere, make the two so completely different, that it is not only offending to mention the two in the same sentence, but close to a racial slur against Jews.
“On South africa, I guess I’ll give up. You clearly don’t know enough of that history”
If I were to take your interpretation of their history has 100% true, I have proven your analogies wrong.
“(or you want it to be different, I’m not sure).”
It is easy to attack the character of the poster or make assertions concerning my motives, but the truth is that you proved absolutely nothing.
“To claim that surrounding states weren’t “enemies” of South Africa is mighty funny, but claim it if you’d like.”
So the early 19th and 20th century has much to do with the 1970s and on for South Africa? Was there even a close to analogous situation between south africa and its neighbors and Israel? You know it is not so.
“But as for World War II history: we should know that. The French navy fought the Brits once, defensively when ordered to surrender off Algeria. The French never went into naval action on the side of the Germans, and in fact, scuttled their entire fleet when the Germans were marching to seize it (mirroring the German post-Great war action at Scapa Flow).”
It has been some time I have studied this subject, but the French fleet left for france to Africa to retain a sort of independence, but the English feared it falling into German hands and so they attacked it at Oran on the third of June 1940, destroying most of it I believe. The French in response held bombings against Gibraltir. The French also used their fleet to land soldiers in West Africa to prevent a DeGaulle landing. However, you are correct, I have googled it up and the remainder of the French fleet was scuttled at Toulon in 1942.
“And if the only connection you can see between the French Resistance and the Palestinians is that occupied people tend to fight their occupiers, I’ll hope you at least see that.”
That is a very shallow view of an in depth situation.
For any outsiders looking into this debate, let me say that you are seeing two very different people debating in different ways. One has consistantly made analogies that cannot possibly be true, has not acknowledge when he or she was wrong, and has stopped at nothing to rid murderers of all guilt. The other has been at the very least able to admit when he was wrong and has acknowledged the realities of war, but throughout all of this has maintained the reality of the situation. I have shown, that for the violence to cease, Israel must cease to exist or those conducting war against Israel must stop fighting against an enemy which clearly cannot be stopped. Because people brutishly fight a wrong and losing battle, by being sheerly outfought does it make them right. It might invoke us to root for the underdogs, but the truth is that throughout the Middle East, one tiny sliver of a nation has again and again survived invasion and maintained the most prosperous and free and equal society there is (aside from the mega rich in Qatar and Kuwait.) That this nation has indeed tried to extend the right to sovereignty to its enemy and has been denied with renewed war. A nation that is under consistant threat of not only political annihilation, but ethnic genocide if its people are taken over.
So, the situation at best can be simplified like this. Israel has no right to exist and so it does not matter if every last one of its citizens are killed, no matter of its historical and political roots giving it just as much of a right as anyone else to exist. Otherwise, as soon as a working peace is achieved between these geographic neighbors, it is far to dangerous to expect Israel to act different from how it is already acting. Israel is withdrawling (sp?) from its settlements, has built a wall, has driven Abbas to the peace table, and has made every effort to make a clear seperation from its Arab neighbors in order to give no reason to continue fighting? Why? Because, if violence is used, their enemies have no excuses. A nation cannot exist if it refuses to defend itself against enemies who hate it for the very reason that it exists to begin with. It is contrary to all logic and reason to not support Israel in its plight. If one cares for humanity and the plight of both Israelis and Palestinians, it is only right to support peace and peaceful regimes. Until the Palestinians achieve and maintain this capaibility, that is impossible. This is where I stand. No spin, no off the wall analogies, no second guessing the motives of my opposing debater.
There’s no possible response to a debater who doesn’t accept historical fact. “Israel is unique because they’re special.” “No other occupation in history can be compared to this because Israel is a humane denier of rights.” It’s like debating Bush. All I can point to is the remarkable success of Israel’s strategy over the past 30 years. Everything has just turned out perfectly for both them and the Palestinians (70% of whom have been born since 1967, and have lived nowhere else), so I suppose they must be doing the right thing.
Your argument shortens and lacks a premise each time you write. You have decided to instead insult my intelligence directly. I know I am right and the reason why is that I can show why I am right and I can substantiate it. You have failed to address what I have said and disproved it. You instead made faulty analogies and expect them to be regarded as gospel.
“There’s no possible response to a debater who doesn’t accept historical fact.”
I think I have shown that I do indeed understand quite a bit of history and have admitted to the parts of history I do not know. I would say my knowledge of Israeli history by far trumps yours, but I am not using this fact as a basis of my argument. YOU FAIL TO GIVE ANY REASON WHY I AM WRONG, YOU JUST DOGMATICALLY ASSERT THAT I AM.
”Israel is unique because they’re special.”
Never said that. There is nothing particularly special about Israel overall, though I do believe the circumstances that this nation is put in are indeed extraordinary. I do not think anyone disagrees with that.
”No other occupation in history can be compared to this because Israel is a humane denier of rights.”
Another disceptive misquote.
“It’s like debating Bush.”
A blatant ad hominem argument, because by saying “Bush” you mean “a moron.” Considering that Bush is the man who says baseless assertions and concocts ridiculous analogies, I would say you are making a title rather fitting for yourself.
“All I can point to is the remarkable success of Israel’s strategy over the past 30 years. Everything has just turned out perfectly for both them and the Palestinians (70% of whom have been born since 1967, and have lived nowhere else), so I suppose they must be doing the right thing.”
Israel has successfully dealt with different situations in different ways. The question is, are they dealing with the current one correctly. There is no way you can win an argument whose premise is that Israel’s past denies it some sort of right to exist, but whenever trying to justify palestinian murder in the present, the past is always invoked. This is rather laughable.
I will say it again, there are two routes. Either ISrael and its people must disexist or the situation must play out as it is currently. I believe I can easily get my message out there in a more concise fashion than you, simply because my beliefs have a basis in reality. You can go attack me all you want online, but it will show you have not proved a thing.