.

And by a prudent flight and cunning save A life which valour could not, from the grave. A better buckler I can soon regain, But who can get another life again? Archilochus

Friday, May 21, 2021

Current Events


Slavoj Zizek: "Israelis’ SHAME over what their state is doing in West Bank would be sign of truly belonging to Israel"

The latest Arab-Jewish escalation reveals that rule of law is disintegrating in Israel – at least for Palestinians, who are left to themselves and cannot appeal to any higher agency that will intervene when they are attacked.

Sometimes the Slovene government does something that makes me deeply ashamed of being a citizen of Slovenia. One such moment came earlier this month when, in an act of solidarity with Israel, it decided (together with Austria and the Czech Republic) to fly Israeli flags along the national and EU flags on government buildings. The official explanation was that Israel is under rocket attacks from Gaza and has to defend itself – none of the usual calls for mutual restraint, just a clear assignation of guilt.

But the current escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict did not begin with rockets from Gaza; it began in East Jerusalem, where Israel is again trying to evict Palestinian families. The frustration of the Palestinians is easily understandable: for over 50 years following the 1967 Six-Day War, they have been stuck on the West Bank in a kind of limbo, with no identity, refugees in their own land.

This protraction is in Israel’s interest: they want the West Bank, but they don’t want to directly annex it, because in doing so they would have to make the Palestinians living there Israeli citizens. So the situation just drags on, and is from time to time interrupted by negotiations which were perfectly described by a Palestinian participant: both sides sit at the opposite sides of a table with a pizza in the middle, and while they negotiate over how to divide the pizza, one side constantly eats its parts.

When, as a sign of solidarity with protesting Palestinians on the West Bank, Hamas began to launch rockets against Israel, this act (which should be condemned) could have served as the perfect ground for Netanyahu to gain political points: a genuine desperate protest against the Israeli ethnic cleansing became yet another Hamas-Israel conflict, with Israel just responding to rocket attacks. But Netanyahu had to admit that the civil unrest in Israel was a greater threat than the rockets from Gaza. He condemned the “anarchy” of Jewish-Arab violence in cities across Israel.

One of the focal points of the protests is the Israeli city of Lod, south-east of Tel Aviv, with a strong Palestinian presence. Lod’s mayor has described the events as a “civil war.” Gangs from both sides are terrorizing individuals, families, and stores, up to direct lynchings.

“Far-right Jewish Israelis, often armed with pistols and operating in full view of police, have moved into mixed areas this week. In messages shared by one online Jewish supremacist group, Jews were called to flood into Lod. ‘Don’t come without any instrument for personal protection,’ one message read,” the Guardian reported on Saturday. “Amir Ohana, the public security minister, has encouraged vigilantism, announcing on Wednesday that ‘law-abiding citizens carrying weapons’ were an aid to authorities. He made the comments after a suspected Jewish gunman was accused of killing an Arab man in Lod. The minister, without presenting evidence, said it was in self-defence.”

The most dangerous aspect of the situation is that the Israeli police are not even pretending to be acting as a neutral agent of the law and public safety; they were reportedly applauding the far-right Jewish mob waving Israeli flags in Lod.

In short, the rule of law in disintegrating in Israel, at least for its Palestinian citizens – they are left to themselves, alone; they cannot appeal to any higher agency that would intervene when they are attacked. This scandalous situation is just a consequence of what has been going on in Israel in recent years: the openly racist extreme right (who want to assert what they obscenely call Israel’s “full sovereignty” over the West Bank and treat Palestinians who live there as unwelcome intruders) is more and more recognized as legitimate and becoming part of the public political discourse. This racist stance has always been the de facto foundation of Israeli politics, but it was never publicly acknowledged; it was just the secret – although known to everyone – motivation of the Israeli politicians whose public official position was always (at least until recently) the two-state solution and respect for international laws and obligations.

Now that this facade of respect for the law is dissolving, it is not enough to say that the reality we see now was the truth behind the appearance all along. Appearances are essential; they oblige us to act in a certain way – so without the appearance, the way we act also changes. The distance between the public appearance and the dark reality behind it enabled Israel to present itself as a modern state of law in contrast to Arab religious fundamentalism, but with this public acceptance of the religious fundamentalist racism, Palestinians are now a force of secular neutrality, while the Israelis act like religious fundamentalists.

The wider context of this escalation of events in Israel makes the entire picture even darker: first in France, then in the US, a considerable group of military officers and retired generals published letters warning against the threat to the national identity and the way of life of their countries. In France, the letter attacked the tolerance of the state against Islamization, and in the US, they warned about the “socialist” and “Marxist” politics of the Biden administration. The myth of the depoliticized character of the armed forces is dispelled: a considerable part of the army supports the nationalist agenda. In short, what happens now in Israel is part of a global trend.

But what does this mean for the Jewish identity? As one of the Holocaust survivors said, “In the past, an anti-Semite was a person who dislikes Jews; now, an anti-Semite is a person whom Jews dislike.” The title of a recent dialogue on anti-Semitism and the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement in Der Spiegel was: “Wer Antisemit ist, bestimmt der Jude und nicht der potenzielle Antisemit” (“The Jew, not the potential anti-Semite, determines who is an anti-Semite”). OK, sounds logical; the victim should decide their victim status, so in the same sense that this holds for a woman who claims she was raped it should hold also for Jews. But there are two problems here: (1) Shouldn't the same also hold for Palestinians on the West Bank, who should determine who is stealing their land and depriving them of elementary rights? (2) Who is “the Jew” who determines who is anti-Semitic? What about the quite numerous Jews who support the BDS or who, at least, have doubts about the State of Israel politics on the West Bank? Is it not the implication of the quoted stance that, although empirically Jews, they are in some “deeper” sense not Jews, they betrayed their Jewish identity? (I was once ferociously attacked as anti-Semitic for just using the term “the Jews”…)

Italian historian Carlo Ginzburg proposed the notion that a shame for one’s country, not love of it, may be the true mark of belonging to it. A supreme example of such shame occurred back in 2014 when hundreds of Holocaust survivors and descendants of survivors bought an ad in Saturday’s New York Times condemning what they referred to as “the massacre of Palestinians in Gaza and the ongoing occupation and colonization of historic Palestine.” “We are alarmed by the extreme, racist dehumanization of Palestinians in Israeli society, which has reached a fever-pitch,” their statement read.

Maybe today, some Israelis will gather the courage to feel shame apropos of what the Israelis are doing in the West Bank and in Israel itself – not, of course, in the sense of shame of being Jewish, but, on the contrary, of feeling shame for what the Israeli politics in the West Bank is doing to the most precious legacy of Judaism itself.

11 comments:

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Remember when Israel used to enter their territory of Samaria and surround Yasser Arafat's compound with Merkava IV tanks to scare away anyone trying to kill him?

Pepperidge Farms remembers.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
(((Thought Criminal))) said...

(No one aerially bombards territory under their own control)

😉

-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...

Sounds like the "two state solution", wasn't.

-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...

Maybe the Israeli's should have bombed Cairo instead.

Gert said...

[i]When, as a sign of solidarity with protesting Palestinians on the West Bank, Hamas began to launch rockets against Israel, this act (which should be condemned) could have served[/i]

If only it was that simple.

Firstly, it isn’t up to lazy Westerners to dictate how an oppressed people resists their oppressors.

Secondly, w/o the ‘rockets’ [unguided stovepipes] the Palestinians have no means of armed resistance and disarming the Palestinians is part of a long colonial project, going back to the Brits in Palestine.

It’s no coincidence that Hamas gained traction shortly after Arafat relinquished all armed struggle (and got zilch in return for it)

Gert said...

The influence of the Zionist Far Right is really a consequence of Israel’s system of coalition Gubmints.

The Right (Netanyahu, essentially) started courting the Far Right and the settlers, who saw an opportunity and stepped up to the plate. Today you can’t form an Israeli Gubmint w/o one or more Far Right parties.

In much of the West we try and [i]deradicalize[/i] people but not in Israel, quite the opposite. Now the genie is out of the bottle and I think it spells big trouble further down the line.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Move all the Palestinians from Samaria (the "West Bank" if you prefer what the Jordanians renamed it) to Gaza. Bulldoze and move the Al Asqa Mosque there too.

I don't see a rational reason why this can't be hashed out over beer and bacon sandwiches. 🤷‍♂️

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Speaking of pride and shame for one's country, here's the Palestinian national anthem...

Warrior, warrior, warrior,
Oh my land, the land of the ancestors
Warrior, warrior, warrior,
Oh my people, people of eternity 𝄇

With my determination, my fire and the volcano of my vendetta
With the longing in my blood for my land and my home
𝄆 I have climbed the mountains and fought the wars
I have conquered the impossible, and crossed the frontiers 𝄇

Warrior, warrior, warrior,
Oh my land, the land of the ancestors
Warrior, warrior, warrior,
Oh my people, people of eternity

With the resolve of the winds and the fire of the weapons
And the determination of my nation in the land of struggle
𝄆 Palestine is my home, and the path of my triumphal
(Palestine is my home, Palestine is my fire,)
Palestine is my vendetta and the land of withstanding 𝄇

Warrior, warrior, warrior,
Oh my land, the land of the ancestors
Warrior, warrior, warrior,
Oh my people, people of eternity

By the oath under the shade of the flag
By my land and nation, and the fire of pain
𝄆 I will live as a warrior, I will remain a warrior,
I will die as a warrior - until my country returns 𝄇

𝄆 Warrior, warrior, warrior,
Oh my land, the land of the ancestors
Warrior, warrior, warrior,
Oh my people, people of eternity


Probably rhymes in Arab? Lyrically, needs a sick stuttering gangsta trap beat bumping 808 bass. Maybe even sample in "Warriors...come out to plaaaaaay" from that cult classic movie.

Still not as cool as our song about men dying in an artillery barrage at Ft. Henry to keep our flag standing because the Brits told them take the flag down when they want to surrender.

Thersites said...

...songs of peace... ?

-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...

@Gert.

Let's face it, America, much like Israel, was built on stealing native lands.

Ben Franklin was all about land...

“Even before his mission to England, Franklin had dreamed of leading a colony to the Ohio, and during his English residence he had been involved in an abortive application for a grant of land.”93 Once in England in the 1760s, Franklin’s hope for a major land grant in Ohio kept in him in England. He worked on it for nearly a decade beginning in 1763. Franklin biographer Gordon S. Woods wrote: “When the Walpole partners first approached Hillsborough as secretary of the American Department, they asked for a grant of only 2.5 million acres for their company. Hillsborough told them that they were too modest: ask for 20 million acres, he suggested. This was a duplicitous suggestion, as Franklin later realized, but the Walpole speculators bought it and upped their request to 20 million acres – one of the biggest land grabs in world history. Hillsborough actually hoped that such a grandiose claim would discredit the whole project and prevent its getting a royal charter. He wanted to diminish the power of the colonies, not help them grow.”94 Biographer Walter Isaacson noted that Franklin became “involved with a variety of partnerships, including ones called the Illinois Company and then the Indiana Company, that had failed to win support in London. In the summer of 1769, Franklin helped organize a consortium so powerful that he was convinced it would be able to outmaneuver Lord Hillsborough. The Grand Ohio Company, as it was named, included a collection of some of London’s richest and most prominent names, most notably Thomas and Richard Walpole.”95 Indeed the company was known as the Walpole Company. Biographer H.W. Brands noted that Franklin had always been a small player in this large game; his value to the bigger bettors was the influence he wielded among those who could make the project or break it.” Hillsborough succeeded to block it for several years, but in 1772, it was brought before the Board of Trade. Franklin was wary that his involvement might prejudice Hillsborough, but “when the petition (signed by Walpole, Franklin, John Sargent and Samuel Wharton) was presented, the board handed down a detailed unfavorable report,” wrote biographer Alfred Owen Aldridge. “Franklin thereupon drew up an answer, which was presented to the Privy Council. Against Hillsborough’s two principal objections, he urged that the project involved no conflict with Indian claims and that the area could be settled so as to maintain trade intercourse advantageous to England.”96 As a result, the petition was approved, prompting Hillsborough to quit as prime minister. Brands noted: “The prospective Ohio grandees [had] infiltrated the government by the tested means of offering shares to ministers and friends of ministers.”97 Franklin had successfully derailed Hillsborough, but Hillsborough had derailed the Grand Ohio Company long enough that the Revolutionary War would prevent its operation.