State of exception. Land of confusion. It can be plausibly be asserted that Zionism has been intertwined in racial identity issues since its modern incarnation that began before Herzl. The hierarchy and pecking order, the old tropes of status and distinction were to be reproduced outside Europe in a new ghetto in which the oppressed could now switch roles. This involved a re- constructing of ‘the Jew’, a kind of social psychological cosmetic surgery where hefty noses, slouched posture and the aura of victimhood found the scrapheap of the laboratory and replaced by new differentiations between Palestinian and Jew and between Ashkenazi and Mizrahi Jew.Under such a foundational basis, the ideal of a one state solution can only be realized through an understanding of Israel as a racial entity rather than ethnocentric collectivity or colonial project.
Lentin: Goldberg’s racial state is a state of power which excludes and includes in order to construct homogeneity, achieved through governmental technologies such as constitutions, border controls, the law, policy making, bureaucracy, population census, but also invented histories and traditions, ceremonies and cultural imaginings, including ancient (in Israel’s case, Biblical) origins. Modern states, each in its own way, are defined by their power to exclude and include in racially ordered terms, aiming to produce a coherent picture of the population by keeping racialised others out and by legislating against the ‘degeneracy’ of indigenous minorities.
If we agree with Goldberg’s theorisation of all modern nation-states as racial states, and with Foucault’s view of racism as intrinsic to all modern, normalising states (through the use of bio- and thanato-political technologies ranging from social exclusion to mass murder), there is little doubt that Israel must be theorised as a racial state par excellence, where, according to Shenhav, ‘there is a constant state of emergency.Read More:http://www.ronitlentin.net/2010/12/01/re-thinking-israel-palestine-racial-state-state-of-exception/
From the beginning, the praxis of the dialog was not to to deny the Arab existence,- the myth of land without a people- but to de-construct these individuals of all human capacities,-especially the desire for a homeland and cultural survival. But, to promote the capacity to be duped and agitated into violence. What results is a condescension, even in a rare gesture of good-will, from a privileged position. This gesture further privileges the Zionist as the one who defines the terms of relationship and, importantly determines whether an antifada, an uprising is a popular expression of the collectively oppressed. Like Apartheid, eventually, the system becomes unsustainable, leading to the present fortress mentality and large scale public intractability in the face of mass complicity.
For the Zionists, the Palestinians were and are “the other”, much as the Arab world had been the other to European society Christian believers since the Crusades. The origins of conflict seemed to be sparked with the first blast of Jewish immigration during 1880-1905 period of pogroms. Tensions then heightened after a second immigration wave and reached its zenith with the Balfour Declaration of 1917. Then began the Jaffa Revolt of 1921, followed by “the lull” until the Jerusalem riots of 1929, the final polarization and deadlock.
Outside the racial issue, the other dimensions of the Zionist vision: spiritual homeland, land of renewal, and geopolitical reality which redeems Jews from the nexus of historical oppression and Diaspora, seemes to serve more as window dressing and flashy public relations. Zionism,for even “liberal” poets like A.M. Klein, would reverse the assimilative and destructive patterns, and restore Jews to the present and future. overlooked, in the idyllic vision, is Klein’s clear and unequivocal acceptance the necessity of armed militancy on behalf of Israel, Zion, and sheer survival. This acceptance is generally mournful,- the shoot and weep syndrome- but sometimes presented with vindictive satisfaction, a relish in the kill.
So, we see that his conflict, particularly complex, has been going on for a long time, and the tactics have remained pretty much the same for a century:
Muslim notables and worshippers objected to certain Jewish observances at the Wall. A crowd of young Jewish men “staged a hitherto unprecedented procession through the streets of Jerusalem to the foot of the Wailing Wall. There they raised the Jewish flag and sang the Zionist anthem–Hatikvah–against the specific instructions of the (British) High Commissioner” . Muslims held a counter-demonstration, and bloodshed followed. The religidispute, as Klein knew, fueled the growing fire of Arab hostility toward Zionism….
…”Greeting on This Day” was Klein’s response to the intensification of conflict in 1929-1930. The poem seemed even more apt after the Palestinian Revolt of 1936-39, when the struggle between Zionists and Palestinians (with the British playing the middle) finally reached the stage of organized and protracted violent conflict. For Klein, a life-long Zionist, the Palestinian Revolt–not recognized as a popular uprising by Zionists–took place against the backdrop of Nazism and worsening anti-Semitism. Klein was one of the first Zionist spokespeople and Jewish writers to warn against the Nazi menace. Klein was hardly concerned with the claims, grievances and fate of Palestinian Arabs. The fiat was a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and events in Europe strengthened resolve, added urgency, and reinforced the biblical and historical rationale for Zionism. ( Lemm )
israel should be the fist nation to vote “yes” at the united nations and offer full recognition to the state of palestine. the u.s. should follow. it is not just in the best interests of the peoples of israel and palestine to recognize each other’s right to independence and security, it is the most fundamental call of human rights….but mutual recognition has been offered and has been both accepted and rejected by both sides. both sides have leaders in government who reject recognition of the other and pursue concrete policies to undermine the very potential for reconciliation…. ( Hune at Martin Buber Institute )
Yakov Rabkin:Herzl had already noted in 1894 that Jews had ‘taken on a number of anti-social characteristics’and that Jewish character was ‘damaged’. David Frischman wrote that traditional ‘Jewish life is a dog’s life that evokes disgust’. Chaim Brenner likened Jews to ‘filthy dogs, inhuman, wounded dogs’. A.D. Gordon wrote that European Jews were parasites. M.J. Berdyczewski called traditional Jews ‘spiritual slaves, men whose natural forces had dried up and whose relation to the world was no longer normal,’ and elsewhere, ‘a non-people, a non-nation – non-men indeed.’
Israeli society, which incarnates these theories, naturally inherited this basic anti-Semitism with respect to traditional Jews, which the author illustrates with chilling cartoons drawn from mainstream Israeli press: “it is an ugly picture, and it recalls centuries of anti-Semitic iconography, from sixteenth-century woodblocks of Jews draining the blood of Christian innocents to Nazi portrayals of Jews as vermin” ….
…Efron recalls that the main objective of Zionism was “regeneration” of the traditional Jew and his transformation into a virtually Aryan model of a Muskuljude, a strong, blond farmer tilling the land and valiantly defending his land and his people. This negates any value to the traditional Jew: intellectual, urban and meek, in line with Europe’s varieties of transformative nationalism of the 1930s.
At the same time as it professes it, Zionism postulates that anti-Semitism is a constant of this world and that only in Israel can Jews feel truly safe. Israel has benefited from moderate doses of anti-Semitism: it has increased its Jewish population by attracting those who feel threatened by the anti-Semites elsewhere. Israeli agents are even known to have spread anti-Jewish sentiments in order to frighten Jews and to encourage their aliya (e.g., in Morocco and Iraq). Read More:http://www.yakovrabkin.ca/english/articles/judaism-zionism-and-israel/antisemitism-in-zionism-and-in-israel/
From Lawrence of Arabia:
Brighton: The one essential sector of this front is and must be the Canal. You can see that, sir, surely.
Feisal: I see that the Canal is an essential British interest. It is of little consequence to us.
Brighton: I must ask you not to speak like that, sir. British and Arab interests are one and the same.
Sherif: Ha! Ha!
Brighton believes the Arab guerrilla tribes should retreat to Yenbo because they need discipline, training by European officers (and ultimately absorption into the regular British forces), and equipment: “a modern rifle for every man.” Instead, Feisel demands “guns like the Turkish guns at Medina.” Brighton insists that the English must first teach the Bedouin to “fight a modern, mechanized army.” Although silenced by his military superior for being a disloyal “traitor,” young Lawrence is sympathetic with Feisal’s views and will not remain quiet. He is allowed to speak his personal opinions in “Feisal’s tent,” expressing a “passionate” appreciation of the vastness of the desert and the independent fighting spirit of the Arab tribes:…
…Lawrence: I think your book is right. The desert is an ocean in which no oar is dipped. And on this ocean, the Bedouin go where they please and strike where they please. This is the way the Bedouin has always fought. You are famed throughout the world for fighting in this way and this is the way you should fight now.
Brighton: I don’t know.
Lawrence: I’m sorry sir, but you’re wrong. Fall back on Yenbo, sir, and the Arab uprising becomes one poor unit in the British army.
Lawrence remains with the soft-spoken Feisal after Brighton and Sherif Ali leave the tent, and as they speak about the Arab destiny in the face of Western warfare, the masts of the tent creak as the wind blows. All too well, Prince Feisal understands the imperialistic English hunger for Arab lands. “Desert-loving” Lawrence has his own personal hungers for “desolate places”:
Feisal: Colonel Brighton means to put my men under European officers, does he not?
Lawrence: In effect my lord, yes.
Feisal: And I must do it because the Turks have European guns. But I fear to do it. Upon my soul I do. The English have a great hunger for desolate places. I fear they hunger for Arabia.
Lawrence: Then you must deny it to them.
Feisal: You are an Englishman. Are you not loyal to England?
Lawrence: To England, and to other things.
Feisal: To England and Arabia both? And is that possible? (He walks right up close and looks into Lawrence’s eyes.) I think you are another of these desert-loving English…No Arab loves the desert. We love water and green trees, there is nothing in the desert. No man needs nothing. Or is it that you think we are something you can play with because we are a little people? A silly people, greedy, barbarous, and cruel? What do you know, Lieutenant. In the Arab city of Cordova, there were two miles of public lighting in the streets when London was a village…
Lawrence: Yes, you were great.
Feisal: ..nine centuries ago…
Lawrence: Time to be great again, my Lord.
Feisal: …which is why my father made this war upon the Turks. My father, Mr. Lawrence, not the English. Now my father is old. And I, I long for the vanished gardens of Cordova. However, before the gardens must come fighting. To be great again, it seems that we need the English or…
Feisal: …what no man can provide, Mr. Lawrence. We need a miracle! Read More:http://www.filmsite.org/lawr.html
The excitable, emotional Auda is angered and displeased while looting the Aqaba garrison when he finds only paper money and not a “box of gold.” To appease his ally, Lawrence makes out a voucher for payment of gold to Auda before crossing the Sinai to reach Cairo:
Lawrence: Did Auda come to Aqaba for gold?
Auda: For my pleasure as you said. But gold is honorable. And Aurens promised gold. Aurens lied.
Lawrence: See, Auda. (He speaks the words as he writes out a promissory note) The Crown of England promises to pay 5,000 golden guineas to Auda Abu Tayi. Signed in his Majesty’s absence by me. (He hands the voucher to Auda) In ten days, I’ll be back with the gold – with gold, with guns, with everything.
Auda: In ten days. You will cross Sinai?
Lawrence: Why not? Moses did.
Auda: And you will take the children?
Lawrence (his voice echoing): Moses did.
Auda (shouting after him): Moses was a prophet and beloved of God…
(To Ali) He said there was gold here. He lied. He is not perfect.
While crossing the Sinai, Lawrence spots a cyclone of dust that he calls “a pillar of fire,” alluding to Moses….Read More:http://www.filmsite.org/lawr2.html