Unhelpful Labels: Semitism and Zionism
Probably the most contentious issue in the world today is the Middle East conflict between Israel and its neighbours. It is difficult to find someone who does not have a passionate view of who is right or wrong here.
But what has always irritated and confounded me in confronting this subject is the proliferation of meaningless labels.
If you, in some way or another, support Israel or the Jews, you are labeled a Zionist. (The other irritating thing is the frequent assumption that Israel is equivalent to those of Jewish heritage and/or those who practice the Jewish faith.)
On the other hand, if you sympathise with the Palestinians or otherwise criticise something Israel does, you are labeled an anti-Semite.
These labels cloud the issue because they force you to take a stand: are you with us or against us? (The us being Israel or the Palestinians, depending on who you are talking with.)
I just cannot see how any reasonable person can agree with either side 100% of the time. As far as I'm concerned, you would have to be insane to be either a Zionist or an anti-Semite.
It's certainly arguable that it was a mistake to create a Jewish state where Israel is today. It is probably indisputable that how this creation took place was horribly carried out, with far-reaching consequences till the present. Likewise, it is impossible to argue that Israel has been entirely or even mostly innocent of human rights violations.
But at the same time, how easy is it to back up the assertion that the Palestinian leadership has been sincere in its desire for peace? How easy is it to avoid the fact that the Palestinians have themselves resorted to violence against Israelis, many of them often innocent?
Is it impossible to support two co-existing states for the Israelis and Palestinians? Must the only solution be to either drive the Israelis or Palestinians into the sea?
The rational person answers both these questions with an emphatic "No!" But to resort to labeling of people as anti-Semites or Zionists, when both these terms have very loaded definitions in common usage, is to answer one or both with a "Yes!"
If you can set the rules of engagement, you already have over half the battle won. By using these loaded terms with their dichotomous definitions, we effectively guarantee that we will never be able to come to a consensus on this divisive issue, because we have set it so that only one side — our side — can and must come on top unequivocally.
In an issue such as this, we know there has to be compromise. But how can we compromise when we continue to call one sideor the other Zionists or anti-Semites?
(Infernal Ramblings is a Malaysian website focusing on current events and sociopolitical issues. Its articles run the gamut from economics to society to education.
Infernal Ramblings is run by John Lee. For more, see the About section. If you have any questions or comments, do drop him a line.
Comments
Thoughts? Comments? Discuss this and other ramblings at the forums.
(Alternatively, contact the author privately.)
| Related comments from forum thread "Unhelpful Labels: Semitism and Zionism": | |
|---|---|
|
hizami
Member Posts: 2 IP Logged | Posted at 3:48:01 am Sep 11, 2007
That's quite interesting, John. You have a point about the Zionist/anti-Semite dichotomy... if we don't want opposition to Israel's policies to be equated with anti-Semitism, the converse is also true. So we don't say the Jews, because a lot of Jews are against Isreli policy. We don't say the Israelis, because many are against Israeli policy, Ilan Pappe and Avi Shlaim being examples par excellence. It's going to be a bit more difficult not targeting the Zionists... if you know of any Zionists who support a viable two-state solution, I would be very happy to have my mind changed on this. If that happens, then, we have to start talking about 'supporters of Israeli policy'. Which is more of a mouthful, but more true, which is good. In a way, the reason why I'm a bit reluctant to embrace this is that it's hard enough as it is to wean people away from saying Jew and Israeli, if we add Zionist to the list... but I know it's just laziness, so I'm sorry. I will do my best. But I would like to be convinced that Zionism isn't a problem first. Because the reason why we've been saying Zionist all this while is twofold: Zionism has traditionally been hostile to the Palestinian cause, and Zionism manifests itself in an ugly way when it underpins the apartheid state that Israel has become. If it can be shown that not all Zionists are averse to a viable two-state solution, and that Zionism cannot be seen as the intellectual basis for the second-class treatment of Israeli Arabs, then there's no basis for saying Zionist. But if both of these are true, then there is a problem, IMHO. Finally, there's one central fact about the situation. The cards are in Israel's hands. They're the occupying power. If Israel agreed tomorrow to withdrawal to the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital, and enough land to create a contiguous Palestinian state, as well as enough access to water supply and the freeing of all Palestinian prisoners, do you really think there will be any more violence? That's why I actually have very little sympathy for Israel. I sympathise with all the civilians killed - the Palestinians had no right to do that. But neither did the Israelis have the right to kill four times more Palestinians. And the Israelis could end it all tomorrow, if they just chose to do so. Sorry if this turned into a bit of a rant - and if you could help me on the Zionist thing, I'd be very grateful. It would make my life a bit harder, but at the end of the day, its the substance that matters, not the labels. |
| Last five replies (0 comments not shown): | |
|
johnleemk
Infernally Rambling Thoughtless Mind Head Administrator Posts: 949 IP Logged | Posted at 11:37:43 am Sep 11, 2007
For me the issue is defining Zionism. You and many others take it to mean an ideology supporting total obliteration or deportation of the Palestinian people so Israel can remain the one and only state in the area - but I have heard others who view Zionism merely as an ideology supporting the right of Jews to reside in Israel. This irritates me terribly because it means whenever I am asked (as one inevitably is when the subject of Israel and Palestine is on the table) if I am a Zionist, I don't know what's the right answer because I don't know what definition we're operating under. You're quite right about the Israeli government's ability to end this all by compromising on a number of issues. (I'm not sure about the feasibility of this compromise you propose because, sadly, of the symbolic importance of the Temple Mount to the world's three main monotheistic religions.) Like you, I really don't sympathise with the Israeli government at all, but rather with the civilians who had little to no control over the policies of their government. |
|
hizami
Member Posts: 2 IP Logged | Posted at 4:11:10 am Sep 20, 2007
Sorry took so long to reply - that's very true, John, if you just support the right of Jews to stay in Israel, but you also agree that the Palestinians have the right to a state too, and that still makes you a Zionist, then it's hardly fair to target you. Which is why, at the end of the day, you're right about labels - far better to state the substance: I support the rights of both Palestinians and Israelis to live there, both have the right to viable states, with clear borders, freedom of movement, etc... takes a bit longer than I'm a ..., but no one can fault you for it  On Temple Mount, I agree with you that it's a problem, but unless we're willing to go back to the 1948, and declare Jerusalem a UN city, it's gonna be hard. I see it as a 2-step process: we go back to 1967 first, with two viable, intact states (inc. the splitting of Jerusalem, but with right of access to Temple Mount), which will give both peoples a chance to live in peace. The next step, however, can go two ways: if the UN is sufficiently authoritative by that point (which it isn't now), then we can begin negotiations for UN jurisdiction, but IMHO, the better alternative is actually working towards an eventual unified state. Now, the main problem with this is that it goes against one version of Zionism: the right to Jews to their own EXCLUSIVE state. But not all Jews are committed to this version (see Jews Against Zionism, for example), and it is conceivable that after decades of peace, both peoples could actually reach the point of unification. But we can't actually use unification as a first solution, because that sort of rapport can only come after an extended peace. Which is why we need the 2-state solution, and the 1967 borders provide an internationally legal basis for that, and since East Jerusalem happens to be on the Palestinian side, let it be so. The most important thing is that the current disgraceful limbo be ended. 90% unemployment in Gaza is just... sigh... take care! |
|
johnleemk
Infernally Rambling Thoughtless Mind Head Administrator Posts: 949 IP Logged | Posted at 3:14:04 pm Sep 22, 2007
Yes, I totally agree with you on that. The ideal solution is one state for all peoples in the area who call it their home, be they Jewish or Muslim. But as you say, an extended peace is required, and your proposal seems to be one of the soundest and most sensible possible, given the circumstances. |
