Well, Daniel has moved on. First it was Ir Shalem and then Ir-Amim, all to keep Jerusalem divided.
I found a recent interview. First, Jerrold Kessel continues to champion the radical left in Israel with Pierre, a team formerly of CNN. Second, Daniel seems to have a much white hair as I do.
And third, his logic and rational are as ever, well, wrong-headed.
Some extracts:
...IPS speaks to Daniel Seidemann, founder of Ir Amim, an Israeli watchdog group on settlement expansion and other Israeli policies in occupied East Jerusalem. Many international agencies rely on the information and analysis provided by Seidemann as a base for shaping their policy positions on Jerusalem.
Direct from an extensive visit to the U.S. where he met with leading policymakers in the new Obama Administration and prominent Washington- based diplomats, he talks about what is needed to prevent Israeli policies in the city from derailing international peace efforts.
...Daniel Seidemann: ...the possibility of a two-state solution is literally hanging on by its finger-nails. It's still possible for the two states to be formed with sustainable borders that are both viable and secure, but we're very, very close to losing that: left unattended, Jewish settlement expansion within the eastern part of the city will reach a critical mass that will create a Balkanised stalemate, geographically and demographically, that would make the two- state solution impossible...the turning over of the public domain, in terms of demography, history, culture, archaeology, the religious sites, to Jewish extremist religious and nationalist settler organisations with the active support and consent of the Israeli government. These have far-reaching implications not only for the status of Jerusalem but also for the nature of the entire conflict.
...IPS: Where do you see the main flashpoints?
DS: As a whole, Israeli settlement activity in and around East Jerusalem - the applicability of a settlement freeze is clearly on the U.S. agenda. The area known as "E1" is the most emblematic - that's the area where Israel wants to build a major new settlement that would effectively link the outskirts of East Jerusalem with the big settlement town of Ma'ale Adumim...Then, there are Israel's plans for what's called the Holy Basin, including the walled Old City and the whole area adjacent to it where most of the holy sites of all three monotheistic religions are located. It has, in effect, become a domain of the settlers. There is definitely government collusion with the ultra-nationalist religious settlers who have been given total control of the delicate ecosystem there. The immediate concern is for 88 Palestinian homes in the Silwan neighbourhood against which demolition orders have been issued.
...IPS: So will Washington get it right this time, do you believe?
DS: Solving Jerusalem is a bit like the global economic crisis. This Administration can do all the right things and still fail. But one thing's for sure - they don't have the time, and Jerusalem cannot be left on the sidelines. Jerusalem can be very wise and very forgiving to those who understand her complexities. But it's one nasty bitch of a place to those oblivious to the complexities: it's very unforgiving for those who treat its complexities in a cavalier manner.
I admit that Israel's policies in the eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods vis-a-vis the Arab population should be improved. Services need to be equalized (and municipal taxes paid).
However, the grand picture that Seidemann conveniently ignore is that Jerusalem, the whole of it, was and is a Jewish city, the capital of the Jewish people. The 1947 Partition Resolution had it as one big land mass from south of Ramallah to Bethlehem. Jews have been not only living in but buying up property in the city from almost 150 years, when permitted, of course, as Jews were discriminated against by the Turkish Ottoman rule.
And, of course, there's that minor incident in 1947 when the Arabs destroyed the entire Jewish Quarter and other areas of Jewish residency (and before, in Silwan, for example) as well as the synagogues and cemeteries and other communities in and around the city. And the act of Jordanian aggression in 1967 without which (I almost wrote "thanks to") Israel would not now be administrating the city.
What a difference 19 years - 1948-1967 - make.
That "Holy Basin" semantics from the Clinton era is one big cold splash. It's a creation ex nihilo.
And so, Danny goes on, arguing the wrong side of the story from well-meaning intentions from a human rights level but all bad from a Jewish nationalist angle.
Posts
8 comments:
Good for you to finally admit that "a Jewish nationalist angle" is more important to you than a "a human rights level", something you tried to deny before. This is precisely the problem with you.
Don't be silly. I am a Jabotinskyite. The nationalist Jewish level is the human rights level.
a)
A week after publication of the Peel Report, Jabotinsky delivered an address to members of the British Parliament, strongly opposing the partition of Palestine and describing the area of the proposed Jewish State as the Jewish “Pale”. He saw no reason why the Arabs should choose to migrate out of the Jewish “Pale” and regretted that the Peel Report should have mentioned “in a very suggestive paragraph the 'instructive precedent' of that compulsory 'exchange of population' between Greece and Turkey.” Jabotinsky said, “They may call me an extremist, but at least I never dreamed of asking the Arabs who live in a Jewish country to emigrate. It would be a most dangerous precedent, extremely harmful to the Jewish interests in the Diaspora... So this 'trekking' business is just empty talk.” He concluded that in the Peel Report's proposed area for the Jewish State there would be no room for “even remotely adequate” Jewish immigration and that partition of the country “if final, would mean the doom of death.”(320)
Two months later, Jabotinsky wrote an article in which he again came out strongly against the Peel Commission's transfer proposal. “The babbling about 'transferring' the Arabs of the proposed Jewish State is even worse than irresponsible. From the Jewish point of view it is a crime.” Jabotinsky complained that the Commission knowing nothing about population transfers nor of the Jewish position, yet proposed that “when a certain territory will become Jewish, the non-Jewish population must be 'transferred'.” He disclaimed all Jewish responsibility for “their babble” and was surprised that the members of the Commission “are not ashamed to publish such nonsensical ideas in an official document.” He then queried how the Arabs were to be persuaded to transfer and where it was proposed to settle them, “or will they simply be forced to go thus creating a real precedent of historical magnitude for anti-Semites?”
Jabotinsky concluded by distinguishing between voluntary and compulsory transfer. “Emigrations are possible. Maybe they are desirable,” but they would have to be on a voluntary basis. However, he felt that the prevailing conditions in the Middle East were not conducive to voluntary emigration by the Arabs.”(321)
Why should Jabotinsky, a “right-winger” so strongly oppose the proposal for population transfer at a time when many socialist Zionists strongly supported the transfer of the Arabs, and in many cases were in favour of a transfer of a compulsory nature? A study of Jabotinsky's writings shows that his negative attitude to population transfer did not date from the period of the Peel Commission but can be traced back to at least 1916.
b) Three generations of Jewish thinkers...have come to the conclusion that the cause of our suffering is the very fact of the Diaspora, the bedrock fact that we are everywhere a minority...The phenomenon called Zionism may include all kinds of dreams...but all of this longing for wonderful toys of velvet and silver is nothing compared with that tangible momentum of irresistible distress and need by which we are propelled and borne...
Whenever I hear a Zionist...accused of asking too much...I really cannot understand it...Yes we do want a State; every nation on earth...they all have States of their own...the normal condition of a people. Yet, when we, the most abnormal of peoples, and therefore the most unfortunate, ask for only the same...then it is called too much...We have got to save millions, many millions. I do not know whether it is a question of one third...half...or a quarter (indeed, one third of world Jewry would be eliminated within just a few years of his remarks).
I have the profoundest feeling for the Arab case, in so far as that case is not exaggerated...I have also shown to you...that...there is no question of ousting the Arabs. On the contrary, the idea is that Palestine on both sides of the Jordan should hold the Arabs...and...Jews. What I do not deny is that in that process the Arabs of Palestine will become...a minority...What I do deny is that that is a hardship.
It is not a hardship on any race, any nation possessing so many National States now and so many more National States in the future. One fraction, one branch...and not a big one, will have to live in someone else's State: Well, that is the case with all the mightiest nations of the world...That is only normal and there is no "hardship" attached to that. So when we hear the Arab claim confronted with the Jewish claim, I fully understand that any minority would prefer to be a majority.
It is quite understandable that the Arabs...would also prefer Palestine to be the Arab State No. 4, No. 5. or No. 6...but when the Arab claim is confronted with our Jewish demand to be saved, it is like the claims of appetite versus...starvation.
That's pretty illogical. How did Jabotinsky imagine that "the Arabs of Palestine [would] become...a minority...", without any transfer, exactly? Given that even in the partition proposal there was a very slim Jewish majority in Israel, which would have been outnumbered very quickly by the Arabs were it not for the hundreds of thousands of them not able to return after 1948? This doesn't make any sense!
What is quote (a), anyway?
Quote (a) is a summary I found of his testimony.
And do your math. Prior to WW II, there were enough Jews to assure a Jewish majoriyt.
Prior to WW II, there were enough Jews to assure a Jewish majoriyMost of whom had no intention of going to Palestine (as did most Holocaust survivors, for that matter). So, maybe Jabotinsky contemplated an involuntary transfer of Jews, but anyhow I cannot see how his ideas were any more realistic than, say, the non-statist Zionism of Magnes.
Speaking of Holocaust, it is still a better idea for the survival of the Jewish people to "diversify". Even if Jabotinsky somehow had seen his dream of most Jews concentrated in EY prior to Holocaust, their survival would still have been only a matter of chance - had Rommel been not stopped in North Africa, he would've continued to the Palestine and exterminate the Jews there.
Finally, one needs to update their positions to circumstances, don't you think? Once the "math" you are talking about stopped working int he wake of the Holocaust, Jabotinsky's logic broke completely. Where is the adaption?
Medad is not anywhere close to the Jabotinsky position judging from his comments and choice of topics.
I admire your determination, Peter, but you lack not for enthusiasm and knowledge but for specific knowledge.
Max Nordau developed the "Nordau Plan" which called for the settling of five hundred thousand Jews in Eretz Israel as a means of acquiring a Jewish state already in 1920. In 1936, Jabotinsky adopted that plan as the basis for his Ten-Year Plan and began to organize. Nothing happened overnight, not even the socialist kibbutzim. Jabo tried, but his catastrophic-style Zionism wasn't fast enough either. It doesn't mean that his conceptualization was wrong then or wrong now. And actually, they really did have intentions but a good third were under the influence of ultra-orthodox anti-Zionists, and more than a third couldn't get in because of the British. And when they did eventually try, the White Paper sealed them in for Hitler.
Whatever your opinions, don't make history fit your theorizing.
And as for chance, I'll leave that up to Higher Being(s).
And as for chance, I'll leave that up to Higher Being(s).Then you are not very consistent in this approach. I asked you before already and you had no reply. You should stop worrying about survival of the Jewish people and worry about human rights.
You still did not reply about why the Jabotinskian position did not change once the math stopped making sense.
Post a Comment