Mamdani the Elder in 2004

It seems that I never uploaded this post from 2015. But now that his son is running for election as New York City's next mayor with his 2023 Not On Our Dime Bill lurking, I realized it should appear as better late than never.

The things one finds as in “Representing Settlers” by Assaf Harel -

Mahmood Mamdani (2004. Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: Post-Apartheid Perspectives on America and Israel, PoLAR 27(1):1-15), for instance, opened a recent lecture by claiming that “The violence of the settler and the suicide bomber, more than any other, has come to define the contemporary work of terrorism and counter-terrorism.” [he establishes equality and equivalency] The settler has come to represent unbridgeable difference from the secular, liberal humanists of the West. [does the PLO, PA and/or Hamas do something to Western liberalism?] At the same time the settlement project in Israeli post-1967 occupied territories is seen as a break from the previous trajectory of the Israeli state. These depictions have become widely acceptable, especially in liberal academic circles. But they are not only analytically weak, they actually participate in a political purpose that might be unintended. As we have seen, many studies (Lustick 1988; Lustick 1993; Silberstein 1993; Sivan 1995; Feige 2003; Zertal and Eldar 2007) emphasize ideological differences or point to the settler project inthe Occupied Territories as having fundamentally altered the foundations of Israeli society. This discursive construction depicts religious settlers and their project as different from legitimate Israeli state practices by inscribing a moral high ground for those who vilify and denounce the settlers in the Occupied Territories.

The “settlers’” project, it would seem, is not really Zionism at all, [as if all that went on previously, of Jews emigrating and repatriating back to the Jewish historic homeland, resettling and creating agricultural communities throughout the centuries is not Zionism] and so the Zionism of mainstream Israel is morally elevated in its distinction from beliefs and practices in the Occupied Territories. Religiously motivated settlers are often condemned for the violence of their settlement project. This includes both the structural violence of territorial expansion and the face-to-face violence between settlers and Palestinians. Yet if we move beyond demonizing religious settlers and seek instead to apply a post-structural istanalytical framework to them, then we must seek commonalities with those who currently oppose these settlers.

Did Peter Beinart read that and become influenced? 

^

Mahmood Mamdani on Israel

Mahmood Mamdani, the father of, specializes, among other topics, in "settler-colonialsinm" and I thought I'd like to see what he thinks/writes about Israel and Zionism.

From his 2015 article, "Settler Colonialism: Then and Now":-

Walzer considered the colonial question to be a historical relic: the rights of “aboriginal peoples like the Native Americans or the Maori in New Zealand . . . are eroded with time.” This erasure in time, this dimming of memory, according to Walzer, was true also of  Palestinians inside Israel but not, for some reason, of ancient Israelites. Walzer never gives us a reason for this Israeli exceptionalism.

I'll provide a reason: Jews never yielded or surrendered their national identity, their longing for their homeland and, more importantly, the traveling to the Land of Israel, residing in it after emigrating to it and supporting it financially in all the centuries since the loss of Jewish political independence in 135 CE. Never.

Their proto-Zionism endeavors were made to and known to many non-Jewish heads of state and politicians and military leaders and religious leaders for 1800 years.

On the other hand, no one knew of a group of people called "Palestinians". In fact, "Palestine" was a replacement name for the Holy Land which was the Jewish homeland. They knew Arabs lived in the area but they came in the 7th century as conquerors and occupiers, just as the Romans, the Byzantines and the Persians before them.

A few pages later, Mamdani the Elder writes:-

"It is worth recalling the statement of Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, the former president of Tanzania, to a visiting Palestinian delegation in the 1960s, that Palestinians had suffered a fate worse than had South Africans. In Nyerere’s words: We only lost our independence, you lost your country!"

They didn't actually lose a country. They rejected a state, twice, in 1937 and 1947, intending that the Jews should not have their state after partition proposals were made to reduce violence. If they hadn't gone to war on November 30, 1947, and lost, they would have been in their towns and villages - in Israel.

At the end of the 1948 war, Arabs were left in Israel despite hundreds of thousands fleeing. In the eastern neigborhoods of Jerusalem, Hebron and other locations where Jews managed to continue to reside during the Mandate period in Judea and Samaria, Jews were completely ethnically cleansed from those areas. They lost home and a country that had been promised to them by the international community of nations.

Another excerpt:-

"in Israel, the state guarantees equal political rights for Jewish and Palestinian citizens. But that is where equal treatment ends. Like American Indians in reservations, Palestinian Israelis may have the right to vote or even to be elected to office, but they live under a state of exception that denies them constitutionally defensible civil rights."

What 'civil rights' are denied? And what of the civil rights of Jews in Jordan? Syria? Libya? Iraq? And on and on. Oh, and Arabs in Israel do not live in reservations.

I won't go through his other articles but think it enough to point to crooked thinking, misleading argumenation and misrepresentation of history and the present.

As for his son, Zohran, perhaps the apple has not fallen far from the tree?

^