Is Anti-colonialism Anti-semitism?

[lupercal]

Helen Thomas is being characterized as anti-semitic for making the following remarks (from a "media analysis" by the "Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America"):

Why Helen Thomas Had to Go, by Andrea Levin, Dexter Van Zile, June 7, 2010

Helen Thomas, longtime Hearst newspaper columnist famed for her front-row spot at White House press briefings has resigned after making astonishingly bigoted, anti-Jewish, anti-Israel statements. She made the statements at a May 27 White House event in celebration of American Jewish Heritage. Here is the transcript of the exchange between and Helen Thomas and Rabbi David Nesenoff, the man who videotaped the conversation, which became public on June 4, 2010:

Rabbi: Any comments on Israel? We’re asking everybody today for any comments...

Thomas: Tell em to get the hell out of Palestine.

Rabbi: Whoaa.

Thomas: (laughing)

Rabbi: Any better comments?

Thomas: Remember these people are occupied and it’s their land. It’s not German; it’s not Poland.

Rabbi: So where should they go? What should they do?

Thomas: They can go home?

Rabbi: Where’s home?

Thomas: Poland, Germany.

Rabbi: So you’re saying Jews should go back to Poland and Germany?

Thomas: And America and everywhere else.

link: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_conte ... ticle=1869

Thomas appears to me to be suggesting that the plantation project sanctioned by the UN in 1948 has not succeeded. I can tell you that the English plantation of Ireland initiated in the late 16th century produced disastrous consequences for the Irish for the next four centuries, continuing into the present. From this perspective, there is basically no "solution" to the problem other than the "extirpation" or extermination of indigenous populations (which Britain initially attempted, with some success).

Question: Was Thomas' calling attention to the futility and injustice of colonial plantation, in this particular instance, anti-semitic?

p.s. if anyone finds this question outrageous or offensive, please let me know so I can modify or delete it. It isn't meant to be.

[17breezes]

Anti-colonialism isn't de facto antisemitism. It becomes antisemitism when someone like Thomas says the extremely despicable things she says. There is of course a debate about whether the colonialism label is accurate. It looks to me like it was simply immigration since colonialism requires a state actor and the Jews who came had no state supporting them do any colonization. Take a modern day example. Are Mexican immigrants colonialists? Is Mexico sending them into the US to colonize it? Obviously not. It's simply immigration, some of it illegal

Of course there are those who don't really care if they are using accurate labels and descriptions as long as it will demonize Israel.

[operator kos]

Anti-colonialism isn't de facto antisemitism. It becomes antisemitism when someone like Thomas says the extremely despicable things she says. There is of course a debate about whether the colonialism label is accurate. It looks to me like it was simply immigration since colonialism requires a state actor and the Jews who came had no state supporting them do any colonization. Take a modern day example. Are Mexican immigrants colonialists? Is Mexico sending them into the US to colonize it? Obviously not. It's simply immigration, some of it illegal

Of course there are those who don't really care if they are using accurate labels and descriptions as long as it will demonize Israel.

I told myself I was just going to ignore your trollish rants from now on, but this post made me laugh so hard I just had to reply.

Yeah, Mexicans and Israelis... totally similar. I just hate it how Mexicans are rounding Americans up, using the tanks and F-16 that Russia supplies them with. What a bummer.

[lupercal]

Anti-colonialism isn't de facto antisemitism. It becomes antisemitism when someone like Thomas says the extremely despicable things she says. There is of course a debate about whether the colonialism label is accurate. It looks to me like it was simply immigration since colonialism requires a state actor and the Jews who came had no state supporting them do any colonization.

My understanding is that Israel was mandated into existence by the UN in 1948 and located in colonial territory formerly occupied by Britain. This is what makes the settlement project eerily similar to the large-scale Tudor "plantation" schemes initiated in the 1570s and carried into the next century. It also makes Israel a colonial artifact to the degree that it's a creation of Western nations in a former colony.

Take a modern day example. Are Mexican immigrants colonialists? Is Mexico sending them into the US to colonize it? Obviously not. It's simply immigration, some of it illegal

Of course there are those who don't really care if they are using accurate labels and descriptions as long as it will demonize Israel.

No Mexican immigrants aren't colonialists. If let's say Spain forcibly conquered the US and then initiated a large-scale program of sytematically transfering some portion of the population of Mexico to a powerless and militarily subjugated US, then the situations would be comparable.

[17breezes]

My understanding is that Israel was mandated into existence by the UN in 1948 and located in colonial territory formerly occupied by Britain. This is what makes the settlement project eerily similar to the large-scale Tudor "plantation" schemes initiated in the 1570s and carried into the next century. It also makes Israel a colonial artifact to the degree that it's a creation of Western nations in a former colony.

Jews have lived in what now is Israel for a long time. Same for parts of what now is known as Palestine. This Jewish presence had nothing to do with any "creation by Western Nations." Jews immigrated to the area for years and especially after the creation of Zionism. After the Holocaust lots more immigrated. When the community got large enough it sought sovereignty just as many groups have done over time. The only colonialists there were the British who reigned over everyone, Jew and Arab. The Jews fought against this colonialism and when the British left, declared their sovereignty. The Arabs fought against them and lost.

[lupercal]

Yes it appears there was Zionist immigration to Palestine and Transjordan in the early twentieth century, with the intention of establishing a Jewish homeland, and that a 1947 UN partition preceded the 1948 charter. Attributed to Chomsky's "Fateful Triangle":

In fact, in 1922 "the Council of the League of Nations accepted a British proposal that Transjordan should be exempted from all clauses in the mandate providing for ... the development of a Jewish National Home in Palestine," a decision that is difficult to criticize in the light of the facts that "the number of Jews living there permanently in 1921 has been reliably estimated at two, or according to some authorities, three persons." (pp. 50-51, Fateful Triangle)


Palestine and Transjordan 1922 Map

http://www.representativepress.org/Transjordan.html

This complicates the question, but it's still the same question, because Israel remains an artifact of plantation, i.e., population transfer to foreign territory with the intention of taking possession of indigenous property, through violence if necessary. What we're seeing appears to be that policy in action.

The problem is, the history of colonialism shows that short of exterminating the indigenous population, Israel will never be secure, and if that's what's required to maintain the state of Israel as currently constituted, supporting it doesn't appear to be conscionable. That's what I take Thomas to be pointing out.

[17breezes]

Yes it appears there was Zionist immigration to Palestine and Transjordan in the early twentieth century, with the intention of establishing a Jewish homeland, and that a 1947 UN partition preceded the 1948 charter. Attributed to Chomsky's "Fateful Triangle":

In fact, in 1922 "the Council of the League of Nations accepted a British proposal that Transjordan should be exempted from all clauses in the mandate providing for ... the development of a Jewish National Home in Palestine," a decision that is difficult to criticize in the light of the facts that "the number of Jews living there permanently in 1921 has been reliably estimated at two, or according to some authorities, three persons." (pp. 50-51, Fateful Triangle)


Palestine and Transjordan 1922 Map

http://www.representativepress.org/Transjordan.html

This complicates the question, but it's still the same question, because Israel remains an artifact of plantation, i.e., population transfer to foreign territory with the intention of taking possession of indigenous property, through violence if necessary. What we're seeing appears to be that policy in action.

The problem is, the history of colonialism shows that short of exterminating the indigenous population, Israel will never be secure, and if that's what's required to maintain the state of Israel as currently constituted, supporting it doesn't appear to be conscionable. That's what I take Thomas to be pointing out.

Well we are going to have to disagree on this because immigration is immigration NOT colonialism.

"the intention of taking possession of indigenous property, through violence if necessary."

I have never seen any intention like that. Whose intention; immigrants? Christ, the British severely limited the immigration of Jews because of the Arab revolts. So it wasn't them sending in Jews with any "intentions." So like whose intentions were they? Who was controlling the show?

[lupercal]

Well we are going to have to disagree on this because immigration is immigration NOT colonialism.

Immigration isn't necessarily colonialism, no, but plantation most certainly IS a form of colonialism.

"the intention of taking possession of indigenous property, through violence if necessary."

I have never seen any intention like that. Whose intention; immigrants?

What would you call the blood being shed over Israeli settlements in disputed territories, anyway?

Christ, the British severely limited the immigration of Jews because of the Arab revolts. So it wasn't them sending in Jews with any "intentions." So like whose intentions were they? Who was controlling the show?

The movement to establish a Jewish homeland in the Levant appears to have gotten under way in the late 19th century and taken off after the first World War. As you mentioned, there was also a lot of Jewish immigration before and during WWII. As you also mentioned, this was accompanied by violence from indigenous Arab populations who weren't keen on the idea at any stage.

Basic timeline from an Israeli perspective: http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html

Basic timeline from a Palestinian perspective: http://www.palestinehistory.com/history ... cktime.htm

The history of colonialism suggests that this is not a "problem" with any conscionable "resolution" short of Israel ending its expansionist policies and withdrawing to mutually acceptable borders, whatever those might be.

[17breezes]

Well we are going to have to disagree on this because immigration is immigration NOT colonialism.

Immigration isn't necessarily colonialism, no, but plantation most certainly IS a form of colonialism.

"the intention of taking possession of indigenous property, through violence if necessary."

I have never seen any intention like that. Whose intention; immigrants?

What would you call the blood being shed over Israeli settlements in disputed territories, anyway?

Christ, the British severely limited the immigration of Jews because of the Arab revolts. So it wasn't them sending in Jews with any "intentions." So like whose intentions were they? Who was controlling the show?

The movement to establish a Jewish homeland in the Levant appears to have gotten under way in the late 19th century and taken off after the first World War. As you mentioned, there was also a lot of Jewish immigration before and during WWII. As you also mentioned, this was accompanied by violence from indigenous Arab populations who weren't keen on the idea at any stage.

Basic timeline from an Israeli perspective: http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html

Basic timeline from a Palestinian perspective: http://www.palestinehistory.com/history ... cktime.htm

The history of colonialism suggests that this is not a "problem" with any conscionable "resolution" short of Israel ending its expansionist policies and withdrawing to mutually acceptable borders, whatever those might be.

Oh I agree that there should be no more settlements or taking of land. And I believe that previously discussed peace plans have all included promises of equitable land exchanges in the face of the reality of two states.

[Percival]

Agreed, 17.

[Percival]

Admin delete

Dude seriously and with all the due respect I can muster after reading the very upsetting, unsettling and out of character post above, can you or anyone else for that matter explain to me how such a hateful diatribe is productive to this discussion or any discussion for that matter,


Lately I feel like I am driving with my 5 and 6 year old on a road trip and every ten minutes I have to pull the car over because, well they are acting like 5 and 6 year olds do and I am sad to say that many people here who I once held in some serious high regard for their intellectual contributions over the years here have made me question my judgment of both character and intellect.

Please, for the sake of everyone here at RI, can we stop this, it just isnt helping at all to let you emotions get the best of you and to meltdown in public like this with so many watching, I can understand that to you this may be a harmless response to someone you disagree with but I would say that 90% of an objective group polled who saw this would swear that this site has become second rate and is slowly becoming void of any real intellectual discussion or dialogue of substance and has become instead hellbent on creating a hive mind absent of all dissent where everyone agrees with eachother on every subject and those who venture in with any dissenting viewpoint must be immediately shouted down, called names, insulted and personally attacked.


I dare say that it is NOT the few of us who support Israel that is ruining this board or causing problems in these threads its the lot of you who cannot keep your emotions in check and therefore throw reason out the window in favor of school yard bullying tactics just because you dont agree with anothers POV on this matter, as if you would prefer an echo chamber of a forum where nobody comes to discuss anything but rather to simply to scratch each other's backs.

I am really ashamed at many of you who I really once looked up to and felt so honored to be able to share a forum with you and your wonderful creative minds and unique world views but now I feel I have let myself down for being such a bad judge of character, hoodwinked in to believing some of you were something entirely different than you are now proving to be.


Mac was sent packing for these very same words but that rule is not being upheld consistently as I am afraid if it were the number of posters left would be few, if any, just from the last week of postings alone the entire face and dynamic of this forum has changed completely and perhaps irreversibly as I dont see how some of the very nasty, hurtful and hateful things being said to some of us can be taken back as easily as they were handed out.