I’ll start with your last points:

“You should be starting to see that I don’t like states very much, on the whole.”

So you say, and you also say that you have no special problem with Israel. However, even though this is a web site for discussion about Israel if you so don’t like nation States, why not for the sake of fairness pick three or four countries that you would like to see dismantled first along with Israel.

Pick, say Ireland, Great Britain, the US and France or Canada.

Had you don’t so you would have some credibility.

In any case if you don’t like nation States, which is your right, it’s not enough to say why you must also tell what form of governance if any you do approve of and show how it could replace the nation State.

In any case when I brought up Hama you replied that

“We weren’t talking about Syria. But if you want me to admit that Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and so on are exceedingly nasty states guilty of many crimes, I have no problem with that.”

This isn’t good enough since we were talking about countries taking action against terrorists. We know countries go overboard in trying to pursue and stamp out terror. I brought up a particularly nasty example of how another country dealt with it.

Can you offer me an example of a different approach milder than that of Syria or even Israel which worked against terrorists? Something which is analogous to the kind of terror Israel faces and not just an occasional attack.

You also said:

“I was at school with a boy whose uncle was a terrorist, a mass murderer. Would it have been criminal for the state to demolish my schoolmate’s grandmother’s house? After all, she had done nothing wrong. I think it would have.”

I don’t who that person was or what the circumstances of the attack. I also don’t know when the attack took place and how it was resolved. Lot’s of unanswered questions here.

Now, given the information you gave me I don’t think you expect an answer. It’s just a rhetorical exercise on your part.

Still, from what you said it is clear that if the terrorist lives in “the grandmother’s” house and she knew about the attacks in advance and if…. Lot’s of if’s there, S.F. Stoop.

Finally,

“I see both nationalisms as forces that resulted in the creation of a state, but the state is not their definitive expression, because it’s impossible to come up with such an expression, since nationalisms change over time. Perhaps that sounds a bit wishy-washy, I’m sorry. I just don’t buy into the whole narrative of states being the ideal expressions of the aspirations of peoples, or of dead generations having an active part in proceedings happening today.”

This is an interesting précis for a paper on “the ironies of the idealization of nationalisms.”

However, from where I sit the problem isn’t an abstract one but a concrete existential one.

The Jewish State isn’t there because of it is the ideal expression of the Jewish people. It was created to solve a real existential problem which the survival of the Jewish people in a world which doesn’t want to see Jews survive as a people and a culture.

Why not indict these other social movements too and not just nationalism?

It seems to me that you have singled out Nationalism because you want to target Zionism.

It is a blog about Zionism after all, as far as I want to ‘target’ it, and what I tried to do is consider Zionism as a form of nationalism, which is what it is, and consider how it is similar to other forms of nationalism.

You see individuals use Zionism, Irish Nationalism to justify their criminal acts and you are ready to indict these national movements.

It’s not a question of indicting these national movements or otherwise. I would note here that my own view on nationalisms is far less judgemental than yours. For me, nationalism can’t be rendered official. You appear to see the state of Israel as the official embodiment of Zionism, and an Irish independent state as an official embodiment of Irish nationalism, whereas I see them as no such thing.

I see both nationalisms as forces that resulted in the creation of a state, but the state is not their definitive expression, because it’s impossible to come up with such an expression, since nationalisms change over time. Perhaps that sounds a bit wishy-washy, I’m sorry. I just don’t buy into the whole narrative of states being the ideal expressions of the aspirations of peoples, or of dead generations having an active part in proceedings happening today.

While it is true that nationalists as they are fighting for their cause tend to use violence to achieve their aims it isn’t true that once the Irish or the Jews achieved independence they sanctioned criminal behavior.

Well that depends how you define nationalism and nationalists, and it also depends how you define independence. Even after the foundation of the Irish Republic, you had a substantial number of Irish nationalists engaging in acts of violence against the British state and its agents. In terms of criminal behaviour, you may choose to talk about ‘the Jews’, but I prefer to talk about the state of Israel, since I don’t believe that the actions of a state are really the actions of the sum of its citizens.

Moreover your indictment is based on criteria which wouldn’t apply to other nationalist movements

No, it isn’t.

House demolition is not the same as killing people. You may disagree with its use but it’s hardly a sign of “criminal behavior.”

We can agree to differ on this. But if I might provide a personal example that might illuminate. I was at school with a boy whose uncle was a terrorist, a mass murderer. Would it have been criminal for the state to demolish my schoolmate’s grandmother’s house? After all, she had done nothing wrong. I think it would have.

Have you for example heard of Hama in Syria? Yet, I don’t see you calling Syria a criminal country.

We weren’t talking about Syria. But if you want me to admit that Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and so on are exceedingly nasty states guilty of many crimes, I have no problem with that.

You should be starting to see that I don’t like states very much, on the whole.

It seems that your previous indictment of “nationalism” was merely an excuse for you to attack the Jewish State.

It wasn’t. As above, I don’t like states very much, so I see no reason why I should single out Israel for special treatment on account of the fact that the majority of its citizens are Jewish.

“As for Hitchens, Shriber, you have your logic completely twisted the wrong way around.

Hitchens’ point is that the fact that because some opposition to the existence of the State of Israel (e.g. by Orthodox Jews in the past) is clearly NOT antisemitic, therefore opposition to Israel today is not necessarily antisemitic. i.e. he DOES NOT make a distinction between people who opposed Israel’s existence in the past and those who oppose it’s existence now. AS I WROTE.”

Sorry that is not what you wrote. Earlier you said:

“And I guess the Bund, Orthodox Jews, and others who thought a Jewish state was a bad idea were all antisemites if you give them a little serious thought?”

This is what I was replying to above. (No need to repeat what I said.)

Moreover Hitchens anchored his views entirely on past opposition:

“This, however, will not do, since many Orthodox Jews and Marxist Jews were opposed ab initio to the founding of a Jewish state, and indeed, for the first few years of the Zionist movement’s existence, almost all its enemies were Jewish.” Hitchens

I should also note that each of you writes as if “the Bund” had only one view about Zionism, it didn’t. Nor were all adherents to Torah Judaism of the same mind. Some were and are opposed to Zionism and some are not opposed to it. (The proportion of opponents was larger in the past and is smaller now.)

In other words, the Torah has been used to oppose as well as to endorse the Zionist project.

Finally, I made a distinction between those who opposed Zionism in the past and in the present because not to take the history of the intervening years (the holocaust, the expulsion of the Mizrachi Jews from Arab lands, Soviet and Islamic inspired antisemitism, etc) is suicidal.

Well your comparison doesn’t hold because “the law of return’ is in effect in many other societies besides Israel.

Second, Treating Israel different in order to delegitimize the Jewish State is antisemitic. You can’t have different legal standards for different people or peoples and consider the laws just. The idea is that Jews (either individually or collectively) have to be better than other people in order to be allowed to exist is on the face of it an injustice.

“It is disturbing to me that you seem determined to uncover evidence of “treating Israel differently” (which according to you seems to equate directly to antisemitism) by parsing words to a degree that seems quite obsessive.”

“Israel may be treated differently for many reasons, running the spectrum from ahavas yisroel (love of, and between, Jews) to vicious antisemitism.”

“And please don’t tell us that even though Jews who love Israel and hold it to a higher standard “may not be acting out of antisemitic principles but …(are).. objectively antisemitic nonetheless.”” David

There is a huge difference between those who want to see something they love improved or made better and those who because the object of their love doesn’t measure up to their ideal standard want to destroy it.

(I don’t want to become Freudian here but from a psychoanalytic point of view the first kind of love is realistic and is governed by the life principle the second is governed by the death instinct.)

Most of us work every day to make what we love better without calling for its destruction.

Not playing with words at all (which is what I said the previous poster S.F. Stoop was doing).

I said that: “a leftist who is consistent in opposing all nationalism including Jewish nationalism may not be acting out of antisemitic principles but he is objectively antisemitic nonetheless.”

In plain language what that means is that someone my not intend his comment or his views to be antisemitic (subjectively he may believe that he is not being antisemitic) but the view or the comment may objectively still be antisemitic.

For example, Stalinists who opposed all ethnicities in the Soviet Union didn’t think they were singling out Jews when they closed down all Yiddish newspapers in the late 40’s imprisoned and shot many Yiddish writers, etc. After all they did the same to may other nationalities. Yet they were antisemitic nonetheless since antisemitism doesn’t mean that one hates only Jews, but that one hates Jews period. In the same way if you hate all religions and ban Christians along with other religions you are anti-Christian.

What you are suggesting is if one is an equal opportunity hater then one can’t be called a hater of any particular group. That is false.

This isn’t plaing with words, it a fact as the death of thousands of Jews in the Soviet Union showed.

Hitchens’ point is that the fact that because some opposition to the existence of the State of Israel (e.g. by Orthodox Jews in the past) is clearly NOT antisemitic, therefore opposition to Israel today is not necessarily antisemitic. i.e. he DOES NOT make a distinction between people who opposed Israel’s existence in the past and those who oppose it’s existence now. AS I WROTE.

Your point, AS I ALSO WROTE, depends entirely on making such a distinction.

So I would not be quite so quick to rush with the insults, if I were you.

Israel may be treated differently for many reasons, running the spectrum from ahavas yisroel (love of, and between, Jews) to vicious antisemitism.

Treating Israel differently in itself does NOT equal antisemitism, any more than the Law of Return makes Israel a Nazi state.

And please don’t tell us that even though Jews who love Israel and hold it to a higher standard “may not be acting out of antisemitic principles but …(are).. objectively antisemitic nonetheless.”

Sorry Shriber, please explain what you are trying to say here. I think it’s somehow the heart of your case, but I think you’re playing with words. To accuse someone who, in some sense, is “anti-everything” as being therefore antisemitic is as ridiculous as saying that this person is therefore a woman-hater, a racist etc.

The same here, SF Stoop.

Here what I disagree with.

First I disagree with your principle of singling out “nationalism” as a particular evil which inspires criminal behavior.

The same can be said of almost any doctrine.

Is communism a form of nationalism? No. Yet it inspired many of its adherents to commit many more murders than nationalism did.

Is Christianity a form of nationalism? No. Yet how many people where murdered in its name?

Is Islam a form of nationalism? No. Here again the religion has motivated thousands of acts of martyrdom which were nothing but criminal acts.

Other smaller religions including Judaism have inspired acts of violence.

Even people associated with environmental movements have been known to break the law in the name of its beliefs.

Any social movement, any organized ideal can and has inspired violence. Why not indict these other social movements too and not just nationalism?

It seems to me that you have singled out Nationalism because you want to target Zionism.

The problem is the way you frame the argument against nationalism.

You see individuals use Zionism, Irish Nationalism to justify their criminal acts and you are ready to indict these national movements.

For the sake of logic we need to distinguish individual use of violence and its endorsement by the groups it claims to represent.

While it is true that nationalists as they are fighting for their cause tend to use violence to achieve their aims it isn’t true that once the Irish or the Jews achieved independence they sanctioned criminal behavior.

However, in the case of Zionism you go on to level some specific charges:

You go from a generic and general indictment of nationalism to a very specific indictment of Zionism. Moreover your indictment is based on criteria which wouldn’t apply to other nationalist movements:

“For instance, I don’t see how administrative detention or house demolitions fits in with a society ‘rooted in the vision of the prophets’ to use the WZO’s phrase from the JP article posted on another thread.”

Firstly, you fail to recognize that Israel is engaged in a war against people who wish to destroy it.

Second, “house demolition” as a punishment was used by the British and was part of the legal code left from the days of colonial rule. In any case, house demolition was meant as more lenient form of punishment than what used to be the norm in other parts of the world which included the killing of anyone associated with people engaged in terrorist activities.

Have you for example heard of Hama in Syria? Yet, I don’t see you calling Syria a criminal country.

House demolition is not the same as killing people. You may disagree with its use but it’s hardly a sign of “criminal behavior.”

You also say,

“In the end I fear the state of Israel’s current path will bring catastrophe for Jews (and Arabs too) who live within its territory. To me that might mark the state of Israel as objectively anti-Zionist, and perhaps even, to use your phrase, ‘objectively anti-Semitic’.”

This is quite a leap, S. F. Stoop.

It seems that your previous indictment of “nationalism” was merely an excuse for you to attack the Jewish State.

In any case, to call the Jewish State antisemitic is just playing with words. On the other hand, to demand that Israel be held to a higher moral or legal standard is a sign of antisemitism.

Every community has some deranged individuals who would carry out criminal acts in the name of some idea or other. That doesn’t mean that the whole community is responsible.

The same applies to Israel.

Yes, I agree 100%.

Second, Zionism doesn’t inspire criminal acts rather certain people use Zionism in order to justify their criminal behavior.

I’m less certain about this. I mean, thinking about Zionism, or any other form of nationalism originating in the 19th century, I don’t think it’s possible to draw a complete separation between an ‘official’ nationalism and criminal acts performed with that nationalism as its justification. If I might refer to Ireland once again: the Easter Rising is a founding component of the modern, ‘official’ Irish nationalism that takes the form of the Republic of Ireland. But it has also served as the inspiration for many wild acts of criminal savagery on the part of Irish republicans. So whilst it might be tempting to say ‘but that’s not what Irish nationalism is all about: it’s really about this’, to do so would not be delivering the full picture.

The difficulty arises, I think, when you identify a given nationalism as authentically and officially embodied in a particular form of state, as is often done with Israel, by, it seems to me, both defenders and detractors of Zionism.

And the specific difficulty for Zionism, it seems to me, is that the vision of a ‘yearning for moral and spiritual fulfillment’ (which to my mind is fair enough), say, does not sit easily with a state built on the destruction of another society, and one which continues to punish those whom it expelled.

To repeat, I am not at all implying that Israelis, or Zionists, are collectively responsible for crimes committed by the state of Israel, whatever the uniqueness of its situation. But it seems to me there is a danger, for Zionists, in identifying the present state as an immutable vehicle through which the aforementioned moral and spiritual fulfilment can be delivered. For instance, I don’t see how administrative detention or house demolitions fits in with a society ‘rooted in the vision of the prophets’ to use the WZO’s phrase from the JP article posted on another thread. In the end I fear the state of Israel’s current path will bring catastrophe for Jews (and Arabs too) who live within its territory. To me that might mark the state of Israel as objectively anti-Zionist, and perhaps even, to use your phrase, ‘objectively anti-Semitic’.

I doubt you’ll agree, but I wish you all the best nonetheless.