Peace (process) be upon you

This article by Barry Rubin explains why the Annapolis peace process might do more harm to U.S. interests than good. He raises good points. I still think the U.S. is going about this simply for good PR, like I said in an earlier post. It reminds me of this Ethiopian Jew in Israel with whom I was friendly. Whenever we’d see greet each other he’d say, “Peace,” and then pause and add, “Process!”

If Annapolis is doomed to fail, why is the United States organizing it?

I dunno ... Actually, I don’t think the conference is really about ending the Arab-Israeli conflict, although that would be a wonderful outcome. Rather, I think it is about good PR for the United States, which some U.S. officials believe will in turn help America achieve its objectives in the region. Many allies and so-called allies have been nipping at America’s heals for having allegedly dropped the ball on Arab-Israeli peacemaking. There is some truth to this argument, because America has rightly recognized that the Palestinians and Syrians are uninterested in peace with Israel, so America figures, why bother? But, America also has important foreign policy objectives that require cooperation from allies and allied countries in the region, and most are hostile to Israel. Some of these American objectives are securing Iraq, Afghanistan and the what to do about Iran’s nuclear program. Some U.S. officials believe cooperation regarding the aforementioned issues will be far more forthcoming if the United States is viewed as leading the charge to heal one of the worst open sores in the Middle East – the Arab-Israeli conflict. A cynical view? Perhaps, but international relations has little to do with friendship and good intentions and much to do with interests.

Annapolis is doomed to fail. Support it anyway.

This article by Efraim Inbar explains well why the Annapolis Middle East conference is doomed to fail: The great American delusion Despite the near certainty that the conference will fail, it is still important for Israel to participate because: 1. All opportunities for peace should be pursued. 2. Israel’s greatest ally – the United States – is the sponsor. It isn’t smart to turn down your ally, especially when you are Israel and you do not have many allies. That said, my fear regarding this latest peace conference is that when it fails, there will be yet another spasm of violence as there was in 2000 after Camp David. Nevertheless, when this happens, Israel should unilaterally withdraw to a border roughly based off the 1967 borders, but taking in major settlement blocs – basically what everybody knows Israel will do eventually. Any Palestinian attacks emanating from relenquishedterritory should be considered an act of war and dealt with appropriately, i.e. harshly. The reason Israel needs to make this unilateral move is because the occupation of millions of Palestinians – no matter how justified from a security and historical standpoint – is untenable. The sole card the Palestinians have when it comes to garnering sympathy from anywhere outside the Islamic world is the “occupation” card. Israel should take that card away. I realize there are some anti-Israel countries that will never sympathize with Israel no matter what Israel does (or other countries that do sympathize, but cow tail to Arab demands out of fear of terrorism or their continued supply of oil). But I believe it is nevertheless important for Israeli society to end the occupation. I think it will unify Israelis in a way that they haven’t been truly unified in decades. And a united righteous Israel – an Israel faced with an enemy that can no longer lie that it is fighting for its own state, but instead for the destruction of the Jewish state – is one hell of a determined foe. Or, put another way: Most Israelis live in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa, the Gallil, the Negev, the coastal plain, etc. They will defend those places far more vigorously than they will defend Hebron or Nablus, where the vast majority of the people are Arabs anyway. And, although I am still bitter and distrustful at the way many Western European countries treated Israel after the failure of Camp David, I do believe that an Israeli unilateral withdrawal will serve to strengthen Israel’s relations with those important countries overall. I am heartened by the change of heart we have witnessed in France, for example, with the election of Sarkozy. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter if Israel captured the 1967 territories in a defensive war, or if Israel would have given most of them up in the recent past. The bottom line is that Israel is a country that cannot exist without support and relations with outside states, and so to an extent Israel must placate its allies. Not fair? Of course it’s not fair – life’s not fair. Get over it! Israel is not Iran and cannot stand alone against the world. And any Jews or Christians who think God won’t let anything happen to Israel weren’t paying attention during the Holocaust or a lot of Jewish history for that matter. Okay, done.

An answer to one of the dumbest arguments in the world

I was perusing the comments section from an article about Iranian nukes, Israel, IAEA, etc. There are always a few dolts who make the following argument: “Iran has every right to nukes because Israel has them, and that amounts to a threat to Iran.” Here’s an analogy that will show why that line of reasoning – if you can call it reasoning – is flawed. There are two friends—Avi and Reza. Throughout their many years of friendship Avi owned a gun (his neighbors wanted him dead; he needed it for protection). Avi’s gun didn’t concern Reza. He and Avi were friends, and he knew Avi would never dream of using the gun unless mortally threatened. Avi was a very responsible gun owner. Then one day out of the clear blue, Reza was stricken by a terrible mental illness. He severed his friendship with Avi. Reza began describing Avi as “Satan” and claimed Avi had no right to live in his home. He could be heard constantly screaming “Death to Avi!” Reza made alliances with all of Avi’s mortal enemies and even sent assassins to kill Avi. Then, he started designing his own gun. But when Reza wasn’t screaming about killing Avi, he could often be heard justifying his need for a gun because Avi had one. At other times, however, Reza would claim he wanted a gun for target shooting, but then he could be heard switching gears and talking ominously about using the gun for other purposes. Shockingly, many stupid people in the vicinity actually sympathized with Reza’s position. In a nutshell, that is essentially what happened between Israel and Iran. It was the Iranians, not the Israelis, who decided to turn an alliance into cold war. It has been the Iranians, not the Israelis, who have issued bellicose, genocidal threats. Therefore, anybody who argues that Iran needs nukes in order to defend from an Israeli threat is deluded.

Why Zionism is not a dirty word

About a year ago I was chatting on the phone with a friend, although at the time we had gone out on a couple of dates.

Oh, and she’s a Muslim.

Obviously she’s not the most observant Muslim, but she was raised in a religious family. A big part of her identity is Muslim. Anyway, during the conversation she told me she mentioned to one of her Muslim friends that she went out with a Jewish guy (me). I don’t remember the specifics, but I recall her telling me that she told her friend that dating a Jewish guy wasn’t that big of a deal since it’s not like he was a Zionist.

Ahem.

I told that, in fact, that I am a Zionist. I explained that a Zionist is simply a person who believes the Jewish people have a right to self-determination. Because, really, that’s all that Zionism is when you boil it down. Sure, there are different types of Zionists—Labor Zionists, Revisionist Zionists, religious Zionists—but the bottom line is that Zionism is simply Jewish nationalism, plain and simple.

But I don’t blame my friend for her ignorance regarding Zionism. Indeed, to be honest, I find myself almost bristling at the term these days.Why? Recent history can shed light.

The defamation of Zionism began during the Cold War. The USSR played spoiler to the West, of which Israel is a part (although a majority of Israelis are descended from Jews indigenous to the region, but that’s for another post). The Soviets played a big role in the propaganda war against Israel, as well as arming Israel’s Arab enemies. The Soviets were politically astute; they knew that opposition to Israel couched in anti-Semitism was somewhat self-defeating. Instead of attacking Jews and Judaism, they attacked Jewish nationalism—Zionism—and the culmination of Zionism: Israel.

The Arab states, Islamic states, Eastern bloc countries and many developing nations jumped on the anti-Zionism bandwagon, since they were loosely or closely allied with the Soviets.

But anti-Zionism took on a life of its own. Soon, any imagined evil that an Israel-hater (anti-Semite?) could conjure became attributed to Zionism. Soon, there was rhetoric denouncing Zionists for being behind wars all over the world, or controlling the media, international banking, or manipulating Western governments.

These so-called anti-Zionists thought they were very cleaver, but anybody remotely familiar with the history of anti-Semitism will recognize that the such accusations are simply recycled anti-Semitic motifs. It’s the same shit the Nazis raved about.

Sadly, this has been going on since the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. In fact, it you listen to the rhetoric emanating from many Islamic states, like Iran, there seems to be no diabolical evil that the Zionists are not capable of. Far Leftists, Arab nationalists, Islamists—all have been lumping Zionism in with the evils of the world, like racism, or Apartheid, or colonialism, etc (I’m surprised global warming hasn’t been blamed on Zionism yet).

As Hitler—or was it Goebbels?—said: Repeat a lie enough and people will begin to believe it. Thanks to the endless bile about Zionism, it’s understandable if the average Shmo begins to imagine that Zionism is on par with the evils of the world.

What is of course worrisome and creepy about all of this is that just as the Nazis had to dehumanize the Jews in order to justify genocide, anti-Zionists have to de-legitimize Zionism in order to justify the destruction of Israel.

When I say I am a Zionist, I am only saying that I believe the Jewish people have a right to self-determination in their own land, just like most other peoples around the world. Now, if one believes that nationalism is inherently racist, then one should also equally oppose the existence of a French state, or Japanese state, or German state, or Italian state, or Ethiopian state, or Egyptian state, etc.

Self-described anti-Zionists should realize it is utterly futile to draw a distinction between Jews that live in the Diaspora and Israeli Jews. That’s because 99.999% of all Jews are Zionists—they support Israel’s right to exist, even though over half of all Jews in the world opt to live outside of Israel.

And I reject that idea that simply living in Israel means one deserves to be marked for death, or that living in Israel makes one a racist. Haters of Zionism must realize that the logical outcome of their view translates into millions of dead Jewish Israelis. If they can't stomach that, they should reevaluate their views.

If you believe in a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, you then by extension believe that Israel has a right to exist. In a sense, you are a Zionist.

But don’t worry—Zionism is not a dirty word.

First post on new blog

After a hiatus of about 5 months I have decided to start blogging again. I need that cathartic release, and blogging gives it to me. Although I’m calling this blog “Zionism is not a dirty word,” this blog will be about more than just Israel and the Middle East. It will be about whatever interests me, and I have a lot of interests. But mostly it will be about Israel and the Middle East. I also realize that some of the things I will write will seem controversial to certain people. I don’t expect that everybody should agree with me, and sometimes I will be wrong. It won’t be the first time. Therefore I welcome opposing views, so long as they are based on facts and reason, no matter how passionately held. That’s my introduction. Stay tuned for more.