Yet there is no such consensus on Zionsim, they contend: national liberation movement or racist colonialism? Fallen from grace or corrupt from the start? Activists in the Finkelstein camp may recognize the inherent problems with such international institutions as the U.N. or NGO’s (Finkelstein himself remains an avowed Communist, surely grasping how distant such bodies are from his ideals), but see no use in arguing from a weak and divided position. Should international law actually be followed (an untested proposition to be sure), conditions for Palestinians would surely ameloriate. Deal with the possible, they say, not the ideal. As Hussein Ibish of the American Task Force on Palestine summarizes in a recent debate,
“If you are involved in Palestinian national liberation for decades, as I have been, then it is clear that to have an effective political program you need a clear and well-defined goal. Without it, you can have no coherent strategy, and, without a coherent strategy, you cannot be effective. Things will just be random and ad hoc, and whatever momentary victories take place end up getting lost in the ether. So the question, ‘What is our actual goal?’ is crucial.”
On the other side, you have scholars like Joel Kovel (“Overcoming Zionism"), Ali Abunimah (“One Country“) and Gabriel Piterberg (“The Returns of Zionism“), who are more radical in the acute definition of the word: a problem finds its solution only when the very core is addressed. Zionism itself, they say, is an exclusionary doctrine, wholly incompatible with universal democratic rights. Israel, so long as such an entity exists as a Jewish State, will necessarily continue abusing the Palestinians. International law, peace settlements, two-state solutions – these are diversionary, they say. Their best case scenario is a repeat of South Africa, where formal apartheid yielded to de facto apartheid. Kovel argues in a recent debate published in The Platypus Review,
“The Israeli occupation is not accidental. It has a law of motion that can be discerned if you take into account the history of Israel itself. So, clarifying aims is a matter of gaining perspective, really. You cannot gain any real perspective unless you are willing to commit yourself to certain ends and adopt the means consonant with those ends.”
This is obviously a simplistic review of the debate, and one that doesn’t include the voices of Palestinians on the ground who should be differed to on such questions. But the schism so much as it exists in a relevant way in North America presents certain questions and implications for solidarity activists.
Here’s some questions that occur to me:
- If one postures as anti-Zionist in North America, this necessitates a fundamentally anti-colonial position which interrogates one’s position as a settler on stolen land in a much more immediate space. Claiming anti-Zionism but supporting or reinforcing the United States as a legitimate political entity is, as far as I can tell, an uncritical hypocrisy.
- Engaging international law also presents complications, particularly if one identifies as anti-capitalist. Situating the conflict as an issue of human rights (as most major organizations do), rather than imperialism/colonialism/racism wrought from the capitalist system, may miss the point.
- Similarly, a settlement based on a two-state solution raises the issue of national liberation. Zionists often contend that activists support national rights to Palestinians, while criticizing or dismissing the national liberation movement which founded the state of Israel. Of course, should you argue on the grounds of the international consensus, you can make the very valid point that national liberation and colonial expansion are too very different things. But again, at what point in history do we locate the “Fall” of Zionism from legitimate national liberation movement to colonialism/imperialism?
There are people who could present exhaustive responses to these questions. Let’s hope they find their way to our little blog.
All nation-states are exclusionary, and all states employ massive violence and repression.
ReplyDeleteYeah, this is where I don't get the radical defense of the Palestinian cause. Where does Palestinian nationalism fit into the narrative of nation-states being inherently fascist, and nationalism being inherently motivated by racism, exclusivism, and classist views? I mean clearly Palestinian nationalism isn't just motivated by the expulsion of '48 or the occupation past '67, it predates both those events by at least a 100 years, and employed violent tactics against the Ottomans, the British, and the Arab Jewish population of Israel from its inception. In any case, there were Jews living in Israel for centuries before nationalism became a world-movement( ironic), and certainly before Zionism, so any Palestinian state would necessarily have precluded their citizenship. Under the Ottomans, following Islamic law, Jews were treated as dimmi, or second-class citizens, who received limited benefits and paid a special tax. In my view, Palestinian nationalism is just as doubtfully motivated as Zionism was, and had equally troublesome views. So from a radical point of view, how is this justified?
ReplyDeleteI think it's justified for a few reasons. Many on the Left have, at times, supported national liberation movements as an important tactical step against colonialism and imperialism, the defeat of which would ultimately, presumably be beneficial. I would've supported the Algerians against the French, the Vietcong against the US, etc. Obviously, there are important historical differences between Zionism/Israel and these European colonial powers, but for the indigenous population, not so much difference at all.
ReplyDeleteActually, major differences, the opposition to Zionist and Jewish settlement by Palestinian nationalists was ultimately unequivocal, leading to the declaration of war by those nationalists. Again, I support anti-colonial efforts, but I find the history here much more damning of the "indigenous population" than you're willing to allow. In any case, from a radical point of view, I think it better to damn the colonial efforts, than to support the national liberation movement behind it, which is why I protest the occupation in Israel, while also deploring terrorist tactics of all shapes and sizes. If I had been alive in the time of the Irgun, I would have felt similarly towards them; deplored British rule, while also deploring tactics which resulted in civilian death.
ReplyDeleteThe original PLO charter said "Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine." The dichotomy you pose between Jews and Palestinians didn't necessarily have to develop. A concept of Palestinian nationhood could have developed which would not have regarded Jewish vs. non-Jewishness and issue. Had that happened a Palestinian state wouldn't have necessarily excluded all Jews from citizenship (since it would be possible to be both a Jew and a Palestinian) just as an American state doesn't necessarily exclude all Jews from citizenship.
ReplyDeleteThe criticism of nationalism and nation-states I made earlier is an anarchist critique, other left-wing radicals don't agree with it. There are numerous cases of left-wing radicals building socialist nation-states or trying to - some of them in Palestine. Nationalism as a strategy for liberation is fundamentally flawed because it leaves intact other forms of oppression, and can have the potential to recreate colonialism/imperialism/racism. I wouldn't have supported the Vietcong or any other nationalist movement. A Vietcong/Palestinian nationalist victory would still be preferable to a victory by the imperialists, and the Vietcong/Palestinian nationalists are still oppressed people fighting back against their oppressions, no matter the shortcomings of their strategies. The indigenous population in North American, Vietnam, and elsewhere aren't anymore perfect than the Palestinians. The main difference is that the state of Israel is still thoroughly demonizing the Palestinians, whereas the United States today tends to avoid demonizing American Indians and Vietnamese in the same terms it used to.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear — historically and politically speaking — that the Israeli state operates with the fabricated notion of an 'ethnic' (and thus national) continuity to a (pre)historic past in the Middle East. (Why else would right-wing Zionist settler organizations in the occupied territories deploy archaeologists to support the claim that the land is rightfully theirs?) While this gives Israel a strong nationalist tendency, Israeli politics cannot be severed from their imperialist strategies and goals. Imperialist strategy is how Israel makes what is still considered 'exceptional' in the eyes of most white middle-class Euro-Americans the rule (this is where international law has its place): indefinite detention of Palestinians, detention of minors, no fair trials for Palestinian prisoners, roadblocks, insufficient infrastructure in the occupied territories, and the list goes on and on. Imperialist goal is, just as in the case of the US empire, territorial expansion and destruction as well as the making of non-citizens and displaced persons.
ReplyDeleteSupporting the Palestinian struggle for liberation should not be a complicated intellectual exercise for those of us who actually read the long list of violations of international law. Even less complicated is it when we contextualize these perpetual perpetrations of violence within the larger structures of imperialist interventions, where such violence becomes paradigmatic. But the problem remains: How does one support a liberation movement that is framed as nationalist? (And, similarly, a note directed at the anarchist critique of nation states, which is philosophically and to some degree also tactically correct: But how do anarchists solve the age-old problem that an insurrection might result in a new violent system, precisely because it will be built on the successful yet violent overthrow of an old one?)
We certainly must support a Palestinian national liberation movement, along with other such movements; but I also want to urge us to recognize a diversity of forms of resistance in Palestine, as well as acknowledge that such diversity has the potential to bring about forms of democracy that differ from nation-state doctrines. It is precisely for this reason that I do not want us to assume a unified Palestinian position: Palestinians, too, differ on the issue of what the solution to the violent occupation they are suffering under would be. It is problematic that mass media (including mainstream Western media, as little as they may report on the issue to begin with), but also, and especially so, radical independent media sources still focus on the violent uprisings of Palestinians as emblematic of (nationalist) resistance. They forget that 'intifada' — shaking off Israeli rule — also refers to non-violent protesters, including those mothers who shake their fists at Israeli solders when they are taking away their husbands and sons, and cry out against the barrel of a gun, 'Do you have no shame?'
Supporting any side, in any struggle is a complicated intellectual exercise, it has costs and it has benefits. Israel has violated human rights, does that mean that it is justified to support other organizations who also violate human rights, except this time to their own citizenry, as an alternative? Fatah is renowned for pocketing UN aid money, Yasir Arafat built his villas using money set aside for his own people. Hamas oppress and terrorize their citizens daily, burn down UN humanitarian structures if they don't comply with their own ideology( http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/un-summer-camp-for-gaza-kids-vandalized-by-masked-men-1.291720), and in general, rule with an iron-fist based in guns and terror.
ReplyDeleteI support the establishment of a Palestinian state, and an end to the Israeli occupation, but I also am hesitant to lend support to violent efforts on both sides, or to any specific nationalist agenda, as I think such views often lend themselves to targeted violence and vehement rhetoric. I want a secure and safe Palestinian state, and that means having a government with the moderation to not continue armed resistance once a state is established, and with Hamas at the helm, I don't see this happening.
Like I posted previously, I hope that with the establishment of the state, Hamas's clear inadequacies as leaders will be made clear, and with no Israeli scapegoat to assume responsibility for all of the problems in Gaza, the more moderate Fatah will again rule there. Or maybe Palestinian politics will change. In any case, I sympathize with the citizenry of Palestine as well as the citizenry of Israel, both are victims( although the former more truly than the other) of their own histories, and regardless of the Israeli state or the Palestinian people's actions, neither side deserves to suffer, although sacrifice and compromise will be an integral part of any solution. Let's hope that these current peace talks don't fall through.