Israel on the wrong side of history

[DogPoundPup]

By Uri Avnery
Published: January 25, 2009, 23:25

Of all the beautiful phrases in Barack Obama's inauguration speech, these are the words that stuck in my mind: "You are on the wrong side of history."

He was talking about the tyrannical regimes of the world. But we in Israel, too, should ponder these words. In the last few days I have heard a lot of declarations from Defence Minister Ehud Barak, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Benjamin Netanyahu and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. And every time, these eight words came back to haunt me: "You are on the wrong side of history!"

Obama was speaking as a man of the 21st century. Israel's leaders speak the language of the 19th century. They resemble the dinosaurs which once terrorised their neighbourhood and were quite unaware of the fact that their time had already passed.

Israel is the product of the narrow nationalism of the 19th century, a nationalism that was closed and exclusive, based on race and ethnic origin, blood and earth. Israel is a "Jewish State".

Israel's leaders are now boasting about their part in the Gaza War, in which unbridled military force was unleashed intentionally against a civilian population, men, women and children, with the declared aim of "creating deterrence". In the era that began last Tuesday, such expressions can only arouse shudders.

Between Israel and the United States a gap has opened this week, a narrow gap, almost invisible - but it may widen into an abyss.

The first signs are small. In his inaugural speech, Obama proclaimed that "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and nonbelievers." Since when? Since when do the Muslims precede the Jews? What has happened to the "Judeo-Christian Heritage"? (A completely false term to start with, since Judaism is much closer to Islam than to Christianity.)

read more: http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/region/10278808.html

[cali]

1. what a silly piece. That he's actually trying to make something

out of Muslim having preceded Jew in that speech is simply absurd. And his usual baloney about how Israel is some exceptional state regarding ethnicity and nationalism, is so obviously false that it hardly needs pointing out. I've never been impressed with Avnery. I grow less impressed each time I read his same old same old. He's rarely insightful and he can't get off his one state hobby horse for even a minute.

[Chulanowa]

2. It's exceptional in one way...

Sure there are other states that define themselves by ethnicity - Tajikistan, for instance. Japan's another big, big one.

But the United States does not support them on the basis of their ethnic rulership. Has anyone ever said "there must be a Tajik state!" with the same fist-thumping action as Israel gets? Has anyone who's criticized the blatant racism of Japan been accused of anti-nipponism or whatever?

No, there are no shortages of states that define themselves by ethnicity. However, only one of them has a resounding endorsement of that policy from the US.

[cali]

3. most nation states are centered around ethnicity and culture

not just Japan or Tajikistan. Having said that, I don't think that we should support Israel militarily. And no one demands that Japan be dismantled. Lots of folks do demand that of Israel.

[aranthus]

4. No it's not.

You are totally missing it. The right of the Japanese to Japan is so well accepted, that no one talks about it. What is exceptional is that Israel is the only state who's right to exist is questioned. Have Tajikistan's neighbors declared the intent to destroy it? Of course not. The right of nation states to exist is basic to the international system. It's only because the Arabs refuse to accept that basic right of Israel that anyone talks about it.

[Chulanowa]

5. I think you're missing it as well

Does Japan have the right to discriminate against the Koreans and Chinese and Ainu and Okinawans living within Japan? How about against western immigrants to the country? What moral right does Japan have to tell people who live there, "You are not the right race, so you get poor treatment"

If I recall correctly, most of the people advocating and defending this sort of behavior in other nations, would also never accept it in their own. Does the dominantly anglophonic, Christian, European nation of the United States of America have an inherent right to disenfranchise against those people living there that don't fit that mold?

[aranthus]

6. Now you're changing the subject.

You originally posted that Israel was exceptional in seeking affirmance of its right to exist. I responded by pointing out that it only does that because only Israel's right to exist is challenged, while every other state's right is so well accepted that no one even thinks about it. Now you're saying something different: that Israel doesn't have the right to mistreat minorities. Granted, but that doesn't answer the main question, now does it? The fact is that all states have problems with minorities. Does Japan have the right to discriminate against Koreans, Chinese, Ainu and Okinawans who are citizens of Japan? No it doesn't. Does Japan discriminate? Yes it does. So does every other state. Does that mean that it's legitimate to challenge their right to exist? Of course not. So why does it justify de-legitimizing Israel? It doesn't. The dominant culture still has a right to a state on its cultural model.

You ask if the United States has the right to disenfranchise people living here. If they are not citizens, then yes we do. Only citizens get to vote. Now let's look at Israel. Are Israeli Arabs disenfranchised? No. They have the vote, and the right to participate in government. Are Arabs in the West Bank citizens of Israel? No. They are citizens of the PA, and they get to vote for that government, but not in Israel.

The bottom line is that you still don't have a justification for the Arab refusal to accept Israel, nor why we in the West should support that rejection or at least turn a blind eye to it.

[Vegasaurus]

7. Avnery needs a new job

He is beginning to sound ridiculous.

Let's count all the states that are based on "nationalism that was closed and exclusive, based on race and ethnic origin, blood and earth. "

Where do you want to start, Mr. Avnery?

Any of the Arab states, or those Muslim theocracies, that are based on religion or ethnic origin, tribalism, nationalism?

There are plenty of others, outside of the middle east too.

Why are the not "on the wrong side of history"?

WHY is it only Israel, the only democracy in the middle east, which has full civil rights for all its citizens, maligned?

Seems there are plenty of states far more "on the wrong side of history".

Maybe he should worry about a couple of those (particularly the ones with the worse human rights records).

[aranthus]

8. He has too much time on his hands.

By the way, you can count the United States as one of those based on nationalism. Every state has an animating set of ideas. In Israel, those ideas happen to be Jewish. Is that what bothers people?

[anonymous171]

9. Actually I think both sides are on the wrong side of history.

Years from now we will mock their war, just like we mock all the other pointless tribal feuds remembered by history.