What Albert Thought

*Article open to debate, all views welcomed, thanks*




http://www.counterpunch.org/chuckman04042003.html



Israel's Bloody Excesses

Was Einstein Right?

By JOHN CHUCKMAN

"My awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain -- especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight strongly, even without a Jewish state."
Albert Einstein


Einstein is one of my favorite twentieth-century characters. He was remarkable, and I don't mean only for his profound contributions to our understanding of the physical world. He was someone who drove authoritarians like J. Edgar Hoover mad. He was one of those rare souls, like George Orwell, who despite mistakes and flaws, consciously worked to direct his actions, and redirect them after missteps, by principles of decency, humanity, and rational thought. He never subscribed to menacing slogans like "My country, right or wrong" or "You're either with us or against us." Quite the opposite, he knew any country was capable of being wrong at times and did not deserve blind allegiance when it was.
Einstein's was one of the most important names lent to the cause of Zionism. His name and visits and letters raised a great deal of money towards establishing universities and resettling European Jews suffering under violent anti-Semitism long before the founding of Israel.
But even in a cause so dear to his heart, Einstein never stopped thinking for himself. He not only opposed the establishment of a formal Israeli state--he was after all a great internationalist- -but he always advocated treating the Arabic people of Palestine with generosity and understanding.
Clearly Einstein's Zionist path was not the one followed. The actual path chosen by Israel has been pretty much that of "the iron wall," a phrase put forward by Ze'ev Jabotinsky in the 1920s as the appropriate posture for Zionists to adopt towards Arabs in Palestine.
Charles de Gaulle, up until the Six Day War, demonstrated great understanding and support for Israel. This thoughtful and highly individualistic statesman felt an instinctive sympathy for the struggle of the Jews, but the Six Day War caused him to alter France's policies towards the Jewish state.
The Six Day War was a much darker and more complex affair than it is portrayed in official Israeli myths. The war was not simply an attack by a gang of Arab states against Israel--a description which suggests not just Goliath, but the entire tribe of Philistines, attacking little David with his slingshot. While this is an appealing image, naturally arousing great sympathy in American Puritans raised on the Old Testament, it is not an accurate one. A fine Jewish scholar like Avi Shlaim, a specialist in the first half century of Israeli policy, recognizing that not all important documents bearing on the matter have been released, agrees there are doubts and ambiguities here rather than light and darkness.
Before the Six Day War, David Ben Gurion made it clear to de Gaulle and other western leaders that Israel wanted more land to absorb migrants. Before the war, Israel also high-handedly diverted water from the Jordan river, a hostile act in a water-short region and the kind of thing that caused more than one "range war" in America's Southwest.
A very tense situation arose with a surge in Soviet armaments to Arab states, although any knowledgeable observer understood that Israel continued to hold the upper hand in any potential conflict. A major diplomatic mission was undertaken by Abba Eban to gather support for Israel's intended violent response to Egypt's blockade of the Straits of Tiran. Just as we now have Bush's obdurate, hasty demand for war with Iraq, Eban made it clear that Israel had no stomach for diplomacy to end the blockade. The blockade meant war.
De Gaulle made a remarkably prescient observation to the Israeli government: "If Israel is attacked, we shall not let her be destroyed, but if you attack, we shall condemn your initiative. Of course, I have no doubt that you will have military successes in the event of war, but afterwards, you would find yourself committed on the terrain, and from the international point of view, in increasing difficulties, especially as war in the East cannot fail to increase a deplorable tension in the world, so that it will be you, having become the conquerors, who will gradually be blamed for the inconveniences. "
De Gaulle also understood that Israel's behavior was nourishing nationalistic aspirations on the part of the Palestinians, a development Israel either greatly underestimated or chose to ignore, perhaps reflecting the arrogance of those supported by great power towards those without power. De Gaulle's advice was, of course, ignored. Israel managed easily to overwhelm the Arab states, as its leaders had known it would, and it has occupied a good portion of the territories seized ever since. It has ignored many quiet diplomatic voices on this matter. It has stood in contempt of UN resolutions for years. It has suffered innumerable guerilla attacks and launched innumerable reprisals, even starting a bloody war in Lebanon complete with atrocities. Israel finally came to toy with the notion of a Palestinian state but never made the genuine effort or concessions necessary to see this become a reality. It has, in short, fulfilled de Gaulle's warning of trouble more than thirty years ago.
The 9/11 attack on America, coming under the administration of perhaps the most aimless, blundering, and least informed president in American history, was a godsend for Israel's belligerent policy. The people Israel has occupied and mistreated for a third of a century are regarded by this American president as something akin to al Qaeda. We have even had trial balloons released by Republican figures like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Armey concerning Israel's right to hold the land and drive out its people, although it is possible these represent pre-assault softening-up by Washington to make Palestinians grateful for a second pathetic offer of statehood now in the works, pathetic because it is impossible to imagine anything else being blessed by both Bush and Sharon.
Perhaps most revealing of the moral state to which Israel has been reduced since the Six Day War were preparations for Mr. Bush's war on Iraq. All Israeli citizens were issued gas masks. A debate and legal moves centered around whether foreign workers, of which there are large numbers, should also receive gas masks. If they wanted gas masks, they must rent or buy them, and the masks available for rental were those considered as expired and unsuitable for Israelis. In families of mixed marriages, apparently spouses who remain unregistered under Israel's now more restrictive registration requirements, do not receive gas masks. Most Palestinians under Israeli occupation are not issued gas masks, it being considered the responsibility of the broken Palestinian Authority, almost without resources, to look after this.
There is something especially repugnant in establishing a hierarchy of people whose safety should be the responsibility of the state, and the various adjustments made to this hierarchy in the face of criticism hardly reflect humane policies.
In recent months, not a week passes in which Israel's army does not kill fifteen or twenty Palestinians. Often, this many are killed in a day or two. These killings are generally reported as the deaths of "militants," although we have no way of determining the legitimacy of that term. We do know that quite a number of people who cannot possibly be characterized as militants, including women and children and peaceful foreign observers, have been killed by Israeli soldiers. Of course, even those who might justifiably be called militants are in their view only putting up a pathetic defense of their homes against Merkava tanks and Apache helicopters.
The assassination of suspected terrorists is now an accepted, ordinary event in Palestine, and Mr. Bush has granted Israel the right to extend this violence to America territory. Mr. Sharon's secret services have conducted scores of assassinations. Perhaps assassination is the wrong word since it is generally used to describe the killing of a high-level political opponent. Mr. Sharon's bloody work is precisely that of a police force murdering, instead of arresting, criminal suspects by the score.
At this writing, as America bombs and burns its way through Iraq, Israel has again rolled out its bulldozers and tanks into Gaza--killing, wrecking, and making many improper arrests. Most horrifying is what Israel is doing to Bedouin farmers in the Negev desert. Israel has used crop dusters spraying poisonous chemicals to destroy the Bedouin crops. The charge is that they are illegal squatters--a remarkable accusation coming from those who still hold lands seized in 1967 and regularly build new settlements on them for brand-new, heavily-armed immigrants.
Defenders of Israel's excesses in the United States have been driven to advocate policies as chilling as creating a legal framework for torturing terrorist suspects in the United States and Israel's undertaking the cold-blooded reprisal killing of the families of desperate suicide bombers. These are powerful measures of the corrupting long-term effects of the Six Day War and Israel's determination to retain control over much or all of the seized land.
Regrettably, Einstein appears to have been right about what Israel had the potential for becoming. No person of principle can support Israel's present policies, and I believe there is little doubt that would include Einstein had he lived. Perhaps it is just as well he did not.

The stark truth is often difficult to debate or comment on, but at the risk of being labelled a terrorist loving, Jew hater, I would like to commend the writer for being able to, so acurately and objectively, pen the piece and also you for posting it, Steve.

catch-22 wrote:The stark truth is often difficult to debate or comment on, but at the risk of being labelled a terrorist loving, Jew hater, I would like to commend the writer for being able to, so acurately and objectively, pen the piece and also you for posting it, Steve.

No problem, my pleasure.

Of course, it is all to easy for one to avoid the content of an article, by way of discrediting the source.

I have told Grim before, for example, that I sign up free to online content, from a variety of online sources, mainsteam and otherwise.

Often I put the item out here for debate only, then if I feel there is merit in what the writer's message, will happily say so, just as I will happily have it debunked, as it were.

Some people talk of 'credible links', but what exactly is that?

A news story on the Republican site might be seen as an a link of authority, yet is it credible? It is sure to be slanted in favour of the party line.

Same with stories written by mainsteam journalists.

All newspapers have an agenda, one way or another.

Journalists are given a degree of freedom, however, their stories usually have to reflect the line of that newspaper. So is that a credible source?

See, I think once we demonise one source, while accepting a small number as being beyond question, we are on dodgy ground.

Anyway, glad you enjoyed the article, etc.


Steve

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I respect the writers point of view, even though I disagree with it.

In the first half of his piece, the writer was addressing Israel's history through the 1967 war, with facts and quotes from prominent people of the time. It was intelligent and objective enough, to keep me interested. The second half of the article however, was a typical anti-Israeli/anti-Bush rant that you can find at dozens of obscure blogs and websites across the net. I found it less than impressive... It took what started out to be an objective criticism of Israel, and turned into an anti-Bush, pro-Palestinian propaganda hate piece. Too bad, because I was hoping you might have posted a keeper their Steve.


Speaking of the facts the writer presented, here are a few of them that, shall we say, are less than accurate.

First there was this comment concerning the 6 day war in 1967:

David Ben Gurion made it clear to de Gaulle and other western leaders that Israel wanted more land to absorb migrants...

...Israel managed easily to overwhelm the Arab states, as its leaders had known it would, and it has occupied a good portion of the territories seized ever since

I read a few years back, that Israel has given back 97% of the land it seized during the 6 day war. That would seem to contradict both of those statements, don't you think?

It has suffered innumerable guerilla attacks and launched innumerable reprisals, even starting a bloody war in Lebanon complete with atrocities.

That's not how I remember it, and neither does Wikipedia:

The conflict began when Hezbollah militants purposely fired rockets at Israeli border towns as a diversion for an anti-tank missile attack on two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border fence. Of the seven Israeli soldiers in the two jeeps, two were wounded, three were killed, and two were kidnapped and taken to Lebanon

The author is just your stereotypical liberal... He started out to write an intelligent, fact based piece that's critical of Israel. But just like all liberal hate merchants, he's incapable of suppressing his rage, and goes off on a partisan rant that brings his true nature into the light, and discredits the entire article... What a shame.

A considered critique of the article, having read it.

I can't ask for more than that.

Thanks..

Grim17 wrote:Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I respect the writers point of view, even though I disagree with it.

In the first half of his piece, the writer was addressing Israel's history through the 1967 war, with facts and quotes from prominent people of the time. It was intelligent and objective enough, to keep me interested. The second half of the article however, was a typical anti-Israeli/anti-Bush rant that you can find at dozens of obscure blogs and websites across the net. I found it less than impressive... It took what started out to be an objective criticism of Israel, and turned into an anti-Bush, pro-Palestinian propaganda hate piece. Too bad, because I was hoping you might have posted a keeper their Steve.

Actually, I thought the WHOLE piece was an objective criticism of what Zionism in Israel has become and at the same time, pointing out that the US not only supports it but has outwardly cultivated it.

The 9/11 attack on America, coming under the administration of perhaps the most aimless, blundering, and least informed president in American history, was a godsend for Israel's belligerent policy. The people Israel has occupied and mistreated for a third of a century are regarded by this American president as something akin to al Qaeda.

Must admit, Catch, I thought the piece was well written, and (sadly) accurate, in many places.

Steve