[I'm sorry if I repeat any of others' contributions to this thread.]
Let's skip the first part where David uses a non-standard meaning for
"ethnocentrism." Since definitions are essentially conventions, it's
fruitless to argue about them. But it's a relief that he wasn't
accusing me of believing in ethnic supremacy (as he seemed to do).
then we get get to his definition of "tribal":
> ... If we think of identity as an aggregation of individual, nuclear family,
> extended family, clan, community, class, nation, etc. Americans and Israeli
> Jews and Arabs are very different. Extended families and clans play much
> larger roles in in the Middle East than they do in US and Europe. Arabs are
> more tribal than the Israelis when it comes to extended family and clan, but
> Israeli Jews are tribal in the sense that being Jewish is an essential part
> of their identity. I truly am not judgmental about any of this in context.<
To my mind, from my incomplete studies of anthropology, the difference
between ethnicity (me as a largely Irish-American) and tribalism is
political/economic organization. (This differs from what I said in my
previous missive in this thread, but I clarified my thinking.) In
other words, there is no political/economic organization of the Irish
in the US, so it's not a tribe. (However, my friend Feargus calls it
that.) A tribe has some sort of elected or inherited "chief." (To go
one step further, a caste is a tribe within an institutionalized
hierarchy of tribes, with some tribes having more power than others.)
David's definition of "tribal" fits more with the idea of
"pre-industrial," "pre-modern," or "pre-capitalist" societal
organization, in which people live in extended families, clans, etc.
In "industrial," capitalist, or "modern" society, we "are all
individuals" (to quote that great political economist Monty Python)
with minimal connections with each other besides via the nukular
family, the cold cash nexus, and the obligation to pay taxes. But
that's okay. As before, David can use what I think of as a
non-standard definition since, again, definitions are mere
conventions.
But what is the alternative to tribalism as either David or I define
it? within the allowable range of capitalist politics, it's
nationalism. The Israelis (by which I mean the citizens of Israel who
are of Jewish ethnicity) have embraced an expansionist nationalism
(Zionism), which has been encouraged by the fact they get generally
away with it. (They didn't learn any real lessons from their 2006
defeat by Hezbollah, but it did redirect their ambitions west and
southward within the currently occupied territories.) Morally
speaking, and in terms of chances for peace, I don't think that
Israeli nationalism is more amenable than are the allegedly more
tribal Palestinians.
(The Palestinians are of course nationalist, too. So far, it's more of
a self-defeating version of a national liberation struggle, against
Israeli domination, with people like Ariel Sharon deliberately
provoking self-defeating actions such as the second Intifada.)
In passing, it should be noted that David doesn't talk about
Palestinians and instead seems to lump all "Arabs" into one amorphous
mass (an anonymous "other"? do they all look alike?). I wouldn't do
that, nor would I lump all Jews in the same category.
I'll skip a part which may or may not be a miscommunication of another
kind (misrepresentation of his point of view). Anyway, David rejected
any analogy with South Africa, so I defended the use of such analogies
(while acknowledging the limitations of any argument based on
analogies alone) as a way to break down dogma.
David writes:
> And second. around half the Jews in Israel are descended from Arab countries,
> so "European colonization" is just factually inaccurate..<
Wasn't it David who said "mostly European colonizers"? Maybe I put
words in his mouth. But no matter. More importantly, it was the
_military and money power_ behind Israeli expansionism that was
crucial, not the geographical origins of the population. Military and
money power came mostly from W. Europe and the U.S. This includes
increasing U.S. backing for Israeli expansionism since 1967, seeing
Israel as a useful ally in the Middle East.
The geographical origins of the Israeli population is only one part of
the colonization and conquest of the West Bank (and much of the
pre-1967 Israel), though the Israeli government uses its population's
housing shortage as a weapon, justifying their imposition of a housing
shortage (and a water shortage, etc.) on the Palestinians. Without
military and money might (and thus "Western" help), this kind of
conquest couldn't have happened.
David:
> I just think the differences [between apartheid S. Africa and Israeli
> conquest of Palestine] are too great. The European settlement of SA was part
> of the general European Industrial Age colonization motivated primarily be
> economic gain and opportunity. The Jewish settlement of Israel was primarily
> a refugeee population motivated by religious and ethnic persecution. The
> psychology of the two groups is materially different. Similarly, the Black
> SA tribes [that word again!] want to share in what the Whites have and have
> no objections to the Whites per se, while the Arabs view the Jews not just as
> an unwanted foreign influence, but an influence that is theologically
> unacceptable. That is a huge bridge [gap?] that does not exist in SA. <
Remember the Boer war! Even before that (from about the time of the
Great Trek that began in 1835), the Boers -- the shock-troops of
apartheid, as it were -- felt quite persecuted by the Anglo South
Africans and unleashed much if not most of their ire and ideology on
the indigenous population. They imposed apartheid when they gained
political power in the Union of South Africa, in the 20th century.
This parallels the way that many Jews turned their persecution in
Europe and elsewhere as an excuse to smash the Palestinians (while
bringing in a dollop of the ideology of European supremacy).
In addition, my reading is that the Palestinian Arabs do not view Jews
as a "unwanted foreign influence" and "theologically unacceptable" as
much as an oppressive bunch of conquerors. In simple terms, if the
Israelis weren't conquerors, they wouldn't be so unwanted. When the
Israeli government -- or settlers -- grabs land and water rights and
their soldiers treat Palestinians with extreme arrogance (or terminate
them with extreme prejudice), that encourages many Muslims to
misinterpret the Koran as being anti-Jewish and to embrace ethnic
stereotypes that make Israeli individuals look bad, distorted
mirror-images of the Israeli stereotypes about Palestinians.
It sure looks like the Israeli state -- especially the Likudniks --
act in order to _maximize_ anti-Jewish bigotry among the occupied
population. Maybe they _are_ doing so, since it definitely serves the
Israeli hawks' political interests to have anti-Jewish bigotry grow
wider and deeper. ("anti-Semitism" is an even more inappropriate word
here than usual, since Palestinians are Semites.)
The Likudniks can justify their racism (e.g., the common use of the
word "cockroaches" to refer to Palestinians) by reference to the
resentment of the downtrodden. "Those we step on try to bite our feet!
how can they be so hate-filled?"
me:
>>> The Israeli state's monopolization of a lot of land in Israel/Palestine is
>>> part of its defense of class power -- and its expansion, the accumulation
>>> of economic/political power by one ethnic bloc at the expense of another.
>>> Part of this process is decentralized use of extra-judicial penalties to
>>> grab land or water rights from Palestinians and to keep Israelis from
>>> selling land to Palestinans. This is akin to the decentralized use of
>>> violence by the lords and nascent agricultural capitalists to chase the
>>> peasants off the land that was traditioinally "theirs" (under
>>> often-ambiguous pre-existing property rights). It's also akin to the
>>> decentralized use of violence by the
U.S. settlers in the West against the indigenous population.<<<
>>> On the issue of Palestinian punishment of other Palestinians for selling
>>> land to Israelis, I can see how it would happen, looking at it from the
>>> Palestinian perspective. it's like other fruitless (and disgusting)
>>> activities like suicide bombing. It seems like a fruitless --
>>> self-defeating -- effort to stop the Israeli juggernaut.<<<
David:
> The libertarian critic of Israel would agree with what you write. [wow!]
> Libertarians believe the real solution is to let Arabs buy land where they
> want and let Jews buy land where they want (including the West Bank), and
> then let the political chips fall where they may. Like I said, easier said
> than done.<
Let the [Palestinian] Arabs buy the land???? with what? Everything the
Israelis do denies them the funds and other resources to pull this
off. Someone's son is a suspected "terrorist," so the Israeli state
tears down their house and chops down their olive trees. Etc.
(Notably, this kind of collective punishment wasn't meted out against
the family of Yigal Amir, the guy who assassinated Yitzhak Rabin.)
There's been a massive transfer of wealth to the Israelis from the
Palestinians, ruling out any "buy back." Instead, many Israeli
property rights have to be transferred back.
David's proposal here is not just money-libertarian, but patently
absurd. (Is that redundant?) It's like the idea that the slaves in the
Southern U.S. in 1860 could have bought their own freedom (and only
marginally more reasonable).
Okay, maybe they Palestinians can hit up some oil-rich Persian Gulf
Emirs for some cash. (After all, "Arabs" are a unified mass, aren't
they?) But we should remember that almost all of the Arab governments
(and the Iranian state) use the Palestinian plight not because of any
sympathy for the downtrodden but instead to distract their populations
from what their oppressive government-hyphen-business is doing. (This
tactic works pretty well with the Palestinian laborers who don't get
any of the oil winnings.) I doubt that these oil barons really want to
end the current _status quo_ in Israel/Palestine -- because it serves
their political purposes.
(Note: the Arab and Iranian governments do propose useful peace plans,
such as going back to the pre-1967 borders. But that doesn't involve
much of a commitment of resources.)
Even if they did buy the land from the Israelis, it would (1) reward
the Israelis for their conquests and (2) mean that it would be the
oil-rich Persian Gulf Emirs who would own the land, not the
Palestinians. Or there would be some major strings attached. (Meet the
new boss -- almost the same as the old boss.)
me:
>>> It's revealing that David wants Israel and the Palestinians to "treat
>>> property rights with respect" rather than treating _people_ with respect.
>>> ... By the way, the two are not the same: as economists know, standard
>>> capitalist property rights allow a lot of disrespect for human rights
>>> (e.g., poisoning our air and water). Would EPA rules against pollution
>>> count as treating property rights with disrespect?<<<
David:
> Property rights are human rights. This supposed conflict between the two is
> a figment of the imagination of the statists of left and right. <
This assertion shows a deep ignorance of economics, replacing
knowledge with ideology (statism vs. free markets as the eternal
dualism, kind of like the endless battle between of Ahura Mazda and
Ahriman in Zoroastrianism).
To equate property rights with human rights is to ignore the way many
humans use their "human rights" (property) to abuse others and to
accumulate more and more "human rights" for themselves: those with the
most property rights have power over those with insufficient property
rights. Human rights that aren't distributed in a roughly equal way
among humans aren't really human rights. Rather, the idea that
"property rights are human rights" is more along the lines of "all
animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Of course, this was Locke's famous sleight of hand: he put "estate"
(property rights) on the same level as life and liberty. But then
(because money allegedly doesn't rot in its natural state) people with
money could accumulate unlimited amounts of it, trumping life and
liberty (except for those with sufficient estate). Then, of course,
it's okay to shoot someone who invades your property: property rights
are more important than humanity. In addition, since property rights
are "natural," they give their owners the right to be socially
irresponsible (though of course Locke encouraged them to play nice,
give to charity, etc.)
(To make sure that money doesn't rots, money libertarians require
tight monetary policy or the artificial imposition of the gold
standard. The fact that it doesn't decay isn't natural.)
Locke did seem to recognize the fact that the statist vs. free market
contrast was a false dichotomy. After all, for him one of the state's
purposes was to defend the power of the class of property-owners
against the propertyless.
me:
>>> I don't equate Israel with Judaism or with people of Jewish ethnicity....
>>> There are lots of Jewish people who don't identify with Israel, while
>>> Israel seems to go far away from the humanistic priniciples associated with
>>> most religions (including Judaism) and seems to have abandoned all
>>> connection with the culture of Yiddishkeit. It was only after 1967 or so
>>> that Judaism or Jewish culture became associated with arrogance and a sense
>>> of entitlement (along with delusions of "existential threats") and then
>>> only in Israel and in Likudnik groups outside of Israel. To equate Israel
>>> with Judaism or Jewishness is like equating Mussolini with Italian
>>> ethnicity or language.<<<
David:
> You may not equate Israel with Judaism, but Israeli Jews and Arabs certainly
> do. Israeli Jews think of Israel as a "Jewish State" and like it that way
> [ignoring, of course, the ultra-orthodox sect that denies the validity of the
> state of Israel], and Arabs think of Israel as a "Jewish State" and don't
> like it that way. Pre-WW2, Zionism was very controversial in the Jewish
> community, because Zionism challenged the idea that Jews could be
> incorporated as citizens into European countries while retaining their
> dignity and identify as Jews, and many European Jews were committed to
> becoming "Good Germans," etc.. The Zionists said that could never happen and
> Jews had to have their own state. After WW2, the anti-Zionists became
> analogues to the members of the America First Committee after Pearl Harbor.<
Nationalism is usually disgusting. The exception occurs when a
"people" is defending themselves from oppression, exploitation, etc.
The rub is that a dominated people (e.g. the Jews of 1940s Europe) can
get power and become dominators, as in Israel.
Many people may equate Israel with Jewishness (an ethnicity), but many
do not equate it with Judaism (a religion). These are secular in
orientation. Crucially, the secular ideology of revisionist Zionism --
including the Likudniks -- is central to Israeli expansionism (though
nowadays it allies with many of with ultra-orthodox Jewish faiths).
The Wikipedia summarizes some of the history I'm familiar with:
>> Revisionist Zionism is a nationalist faction within the Zionist movement. It
>> is the founding ideology of the non-religious right in Israel, and was the
>> chief ideological competitor to the dominant socialist [sic] Labor Zionism.
>> Revisionism is represented primarily by the Likud Party... The ideology was
>> developed originally by Ze'ev Jabotinsky who advocated a "revision" of the
>> "practical Zionism" of David Ben Gurion and Chaim Weizmann... In 1935, after
>> the Zionist Executive rejected his political program and refused to state
that “the aim of Zionism was the establishment of a Jewish state,”
Jabotinsky resigned from the Zionist Organization....<<
Of course, this trend spawned such groups as the Irgun and the "Stern
gang," two of the first terrorist groups of the 20th century.
David:
> [equating] Israel [with Jewishness] is not like equating Mussolini with
> Italian ethnicity or language. [equating] Israel [with Jewishness] is like
> stating that Italy is the state for Italians, who are those peope that speak
> Italian and share Italian ethnicity. The fact that Italy may include as
> citizens those that do not have Italian ethnicity does not mean that Italy is
> not an Italian state. In the view of [a majority of] Israeli Jews (and most
> Jews worldwide) Israel is the state for Jews, who are those people that (1)
> are ethnically Jews, or (2) choose to be part of the Jewish tribe.<
I though the Israelis weren't "tribal." But no matter.
Start with similarities. Both Italy and Israel were artificially
created, like other nation-states (Germany, France, etc.) (There
really were no "Italians" until the late 19th century.)
A key difference is that while Italy is currently not invading other
people's land, stealing their land and water rights, etc. Israel, on
the other hand, was created largely on the basis of colonizing others'
land and dominating the indigenous population (much like the French in
Algeria until they were kicked out).
Another difference is that most Italians outside of Italy do not act
these days like they had dual citizenship. The vast majority in the US
are "Italian Americans" and do not seek to have the US government give
special privileges to Italy (or to perpetuate such privileges). A lot
of US Jews don't do so either, but there's a big and powerful Zionist
bloc (and no significant subsidize-Italy bloc). Thus, US politicians
(such as Obama) feel obligated to go to AIPAC meetings, etc.
It's interesting that the "Israel as a Jewish state" was created by
hook and by crook. For example, the Israeli government worked to make
sure that Jews in the old Soviet Union couldn't move to the US or W.
Europe (where many or most wanted to go). Instead, they were funnelled
into Israel, creating shock troops for further geographic conquest.
Anyway, the point of bringing in Mussolini was to make it clear that
if I were Jewish, I wouldn't want Israel to represent me. If we equate
Israel with Jewishness, that encourages further anti-Jewish bigotry.
That would be a tragedy.
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
