As a non-Jew, I can’t claim to really understand the suffering of the Jewish people as a result of the Holocaust, but I’ve had enough Jewish friends explain the emotional horror of knowing that your grandparents, aunts, and uncles (the kind of relatives most of us love and cherish so much for what they tell us about our past) were just all wiped out completely. At best, a picture or two and a few distant memories remain to suggest what these relatives may have been like . . . and maybe more terrifying to remind you that people you live next door to and believe you can trust might suddenly, unexpectedly turn against you too, just because your religion and ethnicity is different from theirs. That’s got to be a pretty deep and disturbing realization . . . and the implication that Jews are like Nazis (which comes from the comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany) can only stimulate an extremely defensive (and, I’d claim justified) reaction from Jews, which is completely unproductive to the debate about the real issue of creating some kind of just, peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

All of this, of course, gets us to heart of the dispute about Israel (and the dispute in some ways if we are honest is about Israel, not about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict)—which is the legitimacy of Zionism. While comparisons between Nazism and Zionism are extreme, it is true that Zionism has some roots in the kind of nationalism that was prevalent throught Europe in the late 1800s and that has largely been discredited and rejected, in large part because its most extreme form resulted in the horrors of Nazism. Someone who isn’t Jewish (and therefore is not directly affected by the real threat of extermination that was made manifest by the Nazis) can, with this distance and emotional detachment, look at Israel and legitimately wonder why a state should exist to promote the interests of a particular ethno-religious group, particularly when there’s a large, indigenous population in the state (or lands controlled by the state) that are of a different ethno-religious background. Isn’t this patently unjust? Shouldn’t Israel just become a secular democracy (sort of like the U.S. hopefully continues to be, if only we can prevent the theocons from taking over) that is blind to race and religion and treats all it’s citizens the same?

Well, I have to say my instinct is to answer “yes.” Israel should become a purely secular democracy, etc., etc. I believe in secularism—and ultimately the goodness (and sameness) of all humanity, regardless of individual differences in race, ethnicity, religion, etc. So there seems to be something wrong about a state being specifically Jewish—or Islamic or Christion or White or Black or anything else.

However, I then put on my “what if I were Jewish?” hat and think about the issue as Theodor Herzl did. Herzl was a very secular Jew who believed fully in the ideal that race and religion were irrelevant and Jews and Christians were on the way to complete assimilation. And then the Dreyfus affair happened in France—a stunning outbreak of atavistic antisemimtism in what was supposedly the most enlightened nation in Europe. Herzl’s only conclusion was that antisemitism was simply impossible to eradicate . . that there was (and is) some deep, intractable impulse of non-Jews to despise Jews. His conclusion is highly depressing and one ultimately I want to reject only because I want so desparately to believe that people are better than that. But I also have to admit that the empirical evidence of history makes Herzl’s conclusion not only rational, but even convincing. If Herzl is right, then, Zionism is an absolute necessity, because Jews need some place of refuge from a world that is intractably hostile to them.

And so this gets to the heart of the reason the discussion about Israel gets so emotional. We non-Jews look at Zionism and in some ways see it as an accusation that we can’t really get over our racism. To accept the notion that Zionism is necessary is also to accept, in some way, that we non-Jews are barbarians who can’t get over the atavistic impulse to kill people unlike ourselves. This is a hard, unflattering thing to admit. But for Jews, the evidence from history makes a compelling argument for Zionism. The Jews simply can’t be expected to bear the unbearable risk once again of extermination. Particularly, when it came so close to happening again just a few decades ago in this supposedly enlightened age. So the instinct to protect Israel as a Jewish state even if that means sacrificing some liberal ideals of secularism and equality (and results in some injustice to Palestinians) is not only understandable—it has to be viewed both seriously and with sympathy. It’s a matter of life and death in a way that isn’t merely metaphorical but as bluntly real as a Nazi gas chamber.

So what’s my conclusion to all this rambling? I don’t know. I just hope we try to understand the legitimacy of each other’s view and not say things that seem designed only to exacerbate fear and misunderstanding. There are two very real, deep sides to this issue, and resolving it will never be easy. That’s why the issue of Israel continues to garner so much attention and passion . . . even though Israel (from a purely objective standpoint) isn’t by far the world’s most pressing problem.

Making a very slow exit, I bow out again . . .

Second, David All and abb1, you’ve both distorted the EU Poll. 59% of Europeans said that Israel was “a threat to world peace”, NOT the “greatest threat to world peace.” The other top countries viewed as a threat to world peace were Iran, North Korea and the United States at 53 percent, Iraq with 52, and Afghanistan at 50. All 6 of those countries are either involved in combat or involved in the building of a nuclear bomb. But nowhere were respondents asked to pick which country they viewed as the “greatest threat” to world peace.

These percentages, which are based on the proposed route of the wall are deceptive. Here’s why:

1)the approximately 195,000 Palestinians living in Jerusalem (nearly 10 percent of the West Bank’s total population) will remain on the Israeli side of the wall, separated from the West Bank by a concrete wall, multiple checkpoints, and a permit system going into effect in July that will prevent nearly all Jerusalemites from entering the West Bank and West Bankers from entering Jerusalem.

2) the wall to be built around Maale Adumim and the fact that the entire area of Jerusalem and its environs will end up on Israel’s side of the wall mean that the West Bank will be divided into two totally non-contiguous areas, attached only by a promised highway that will permit Palestinians to skirt Jerusalem to the east; this is Ariel Sharon’s idea of contiguity, which he calls “transportation contiguity”;

3) several Palestinian suburbs of East Jerusalem to the north and the south have been or will soon be surrounded by the wall on all sides, rendering them small concentration camps to which entry and egress will be allowed only to permit-holders and only through a gate manned by Israelis; the thousands of Palestinians in these areas whose livelihoods lie in Jerusalem will be left high and dry;

4) the entire Jordan Valley, encompassing nearly one-quarter of the West Bank, will most assuredly never be relinquished by Ariel Sharon or any Israeli government on the right (even most Labor governments have envisioned retaining this strategic, settlement-filled territory in perpetuity, and Ehud Barak’s best offer at Camp David in 2000 involved Israel holding it under a long-term lease), meaning that Makovsky’s “92-percent solution” is actually only at best a “68-percent solution” that would leave the so-called Palestinian “state” in three pieces counting Gaza, each completely surrounded by and under the domination of Israel, and with no capital; each of the two West Bank land segments, moreover, would be made into Swiss cheese by the intrusion of fingers of the wall built to accommodate Israeli settlements;

5) tens of thousands of Palestinians live in towns and villages along the route of the wall that have been bisected by it, leaving rich farmland, olive and fruit orchards, and fresh water wells on Israel’s side, unreachable by their Palestinian owners except via a limited number of gates in the wall that are manned irregularly by Israeli security personnel;

6) 53 Palestinian communities, according to the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, will be surrounded on three sides by the wall—twice the number so enclosed under the old route;

7) the hundreds of miles of wall and fence have necessitated the demolition of hundreds of Palestinian homes, the bulldozing of hundreds of thousands of acres of private agricultural land, and the razing of thousands of olive and fruit trees; Israel has called this wall temporary, but the demolished homes and the destroyed olive groves can never be restored.

Thanks for stating this so plainly. It will stand as another monument to the anti-semitic element that has hijacked Left discourse in my lifetime. I will always remain on the Left, but as with the AUT, my membership in the Left is no longer natural or automatic.

I know I’d promised to quit this thread, but…

Jesus.

Let’s consider Germany in 1935 for a second. At that point, Germany was ruled by a declared ideology of racial supremacy (as opposed to simple ethnonationalism) that gave every indication of putting its agenda into effect. The Enabling Act and the Nuremberg Laws had been enacted. There were concentration camps – not death camps yet, but concentration camps. Germany was a de jure one party state in which the legislature, courts and media had all become adjuncts of the ruling clique. Granted, it wasn’t an occupying power yet, but given its later track record (e.g., Lidice and Oradour), I think we can safely assume that it wouldn’t have been a humane one.

If 50 percent of Europeans really can’t tell the difference between that and present-day Israel, then they’ve given up any grip on history. Fortunately, I doubt that this is the case.

If you’re going to compare Israel to another ethnonationalist state with not-very-nice policies, at least pick a more recent and accurate one: Croatia (which was not only more similar to Israel in terms of policy and politics but, like Israel and unlike Nazi Germany in 1935, was involved in a multi-sided conflict). Which, I believe, has been forgiven the sins of the 1990s and is currently on track for EU membership.

Those who view Israel as somewhat nationalist but otherwise ordinary democratic state will never understand those who see Israel as a state very similar to Germany circa 1935. And that’s, I guess, about 50-50 in Europe. Eventually there will be a decisive shift to one direction or the other (probably towards the latter view) and then everything will be clear.

“the AUT encourages and supports co-operation with Cuban educational institutions.”
http://www.aut.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=106

Human Rights Watch:

“Cuba did not release any political prisoners, or grant any breathing room to the country’s beleaguered human rights activists, or make even the most token gesture in support of human rights. The government of Fidel Castro evidently felt no need to moderate its repressive policies to ensure itself a seat on the commission.

To the contrary, Cuba flaunted its disregard of the commission’s stated ideals. On March 18, the day after the commission opened its annual session in Geneva, state security agents began rounding up political dissidents, independent journalists, human rights advocates, independent librarians and others brave enough to challenge the Havana government’s monopoly on truth. The arrests heralded Cuba’s worst crackdown in decades.

In all, nearly 80 people were detained, including such prominent figures as Raúl Rivero, the poet and journalist, and Héctor Palacios, one of the leaders of Cuba’s pro-democracy movement. The Cuban security forces also searched homes across the island, confiscating dissidents’ fax machines, computers, typewriters and personal papers.

From April 3 to April 7, in a series of summary trials, the detainees were prosecuted under draconian legal provisions that ban actions meant to undermine the socialist system or support the U.S. economic embargo. Such laws criminalize a broad range of nonviolent statements of opinion, infringing fundamental rights of free expression.

A total of 75 detainees were convicted, receiving sentences of up to 28 years of imprisonment. The cumulative total of the sentences was a mind-boggling 1,454 years. There was not a single acquittal.”
http://hrw.org/editorials/2003/cuba043003.htm

Ynet English has a much more limited selection of articles than the English edition of Ha’aretz, it isn’t updated as frequently, and the translations aren’t nearly as good. (And for the record, I don’t consider Ariel close to the Israeli border, and I don’t think Israel should keep it as part of a final settlement.)