Let's pretend that we're rational people and, as such, are capable of thinking anything - there is no such thing as "unthinkable". What if there were no Israel? Let's not worry right now how this might happen: a defeat at the hands of Palestine, a dismantling executed by the UN, an act of God,... It's just a premise. Apart from the warm, fuzzy feeling on the part of the Ashkenazi diaspora (myself included) that there is such a thing as a Jewish nation (talk about the unthinkable!), I don't see anything catastrophic happening. Part of the reason Israel exists is to prevent the extermination of the Jews of Europe. Well, the Jews of Europe were effectively exterminated and I really don't think the remnants would be in any greater danger without the political protection that the existence of Israel affords.
Let's face it: Israel is just a country. And it's not like it's all that great a country. It's just another 2-bit political artifact on the edge of the desert. American Jews (maybe Jews generally, but not me) think they have some special affinity for Israel because, well I guess because of Abraham and Moses. I guess it helps if you subscribe to Hebrew mythology, but I don't. I read about calls for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions, and that opposition to these calls is based on the notion that they would lead to the dissolution of Israel. And I think, "so, what's that to me?"
The debate seems to involve notions of loving Israel and hating Israel. Both sides seem to agree about this. What about indifference (that greatest of American virtues)? I don't love Israel and I don't hate Israel. Israel, to me, is like, well Estonia. I'm sure it's a fine place but so what? Take away the political structure and it's just geography. I categorically reject the notion that Jews must love the nation of Israel. Must Celts love Austria? The ancestors of the Celtic people lived in what is now Austria about the time my ancestors lived in what is now Israel. So what? Back to mythology.
It was the mythological association of the geography with, what?, genetics that led to the creation of a Jewish nation where it is. The original zionist movement wasn't so much fixed on the land "that god promised to Abraham" as they were on getting the hell out of Eastern Europe. Then England decided to give "them" some land that was incidentally occupied by people who thought they were entitled to do so but which land had been administered by the Turkish Empire whom the English had wupped. My mother used to say, "if the English loved us so much, why didn't they give us Sussex?"
The idea that criticism of Israel, even criticism of the notion of Israel, is antisemitic is preposterous. Israel is not "the Jews". Israel is not MY homeland. Israel is a political creature and it's political origins are a little smelly at that. If Israel had never existed, or ceased to exist tomorrow, my Jewishness, and that of all Jews I dare say, would not be compromised. Some may argue that my safety in the face of tomorrow's Hitler depends on the existence of Israel. Well, that's just crazy talk. If anything, given their outrageous policies, the existence of Israel is a threat to that safety. That leaves mythology.
I know: the US should stop sending money to the modern nation of Israel and instead send mythological money to the Kingdom of Judea. Let's see what would happen then?
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
If corporations are people...
The Supreme Court ruled recently that corporations are people. Since political contributions are speech, according to an earlier ruling, the court ruled that corporations, being people, could not be deprived of their free speech rights under the first amendment and so are allowed to make direct political contributions. Well, that's just stupid but maybe it just seems that way to me because I'm not a lawyer.
But let's take it as it comes. BP is a corporation, so it's a person. Now, it's a foreign person but foreign persons are subject to US laws when they're in the US. BP killed 11 people when their oil rig exploded. They've broken many environmental laws (something like "littering with extreme prejudice"). They should go to jail. Not that fatuous CEO, or the Board of Directors, or any number of executives. They should be prosecuted too, of course. But if BP is a person, it should be subject to the penalties of person-hood. They should be completely deprived of their liberty to function as a person in society, just like any other person. They should be subjected to punitive detention in the (admittedly dim) hope of rehabilitation. They should be deprived of their civil liberties as a person for life. Most importantly, just like a person, they should be locked away from contact with any other people or, apparently, corporations.
If this cannot be accomplished, regardless of the egregious nature of their crimes, then BP is not, despite any ridiculous Supreme Court ruling to the contrary, a person, and by extension, neither is any other corporation.
But let's take it as it comes. BP is a corporation, so it's a person. Now, it's a foreign person but foreign persons are subject to US laws when they're in the US. BP killed 11 people when their oil rig exploded. They've broken many environmental laws (something like "littering with extreme prejudice"). They should go to jail. Not that fatuous CEO, or the Board of Directors, or any number of executives. They should be prosecuted too, of course. But if BP is a person, it should be subject to the penalties of person-hood. They should be completely deprived of their liberty to function as a person in society, just like any other person. They should be subjected to punitive detention in the (admittedly dim) hope of rehabilitation. They should be deprived of their civil liberties as a person for life. Most importantly, just like a person, they should be locked away from contact with any other people or, apparently, corporations.
If this cannot be accomplished, regardless of the egregious nature of their crimes, then BP is not, despite any ridiculous Supreme Court ruling to the contrary, a person, and by extension, neither is any other corporation.
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Facts on the ground
I think that anyone would agree that, objectively, the events that took place in the Americas between 1492 and say, 1880, I mean the dispossession of the native Americans from their lands, were wrong. But here we are: facts on the ground. There's no going back. There's really no back to go to.
In 1917, the British government essentially promised to "give" the Jews of Europe land on which other people were living. This was the Balfour Declaration: His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." The legal authority by which the British felt they could do this was that they had beaten the Turks in WWI. The Turkish government, in their turn, had taken authority over the land in question by beating the Mamelukes, and so on. To be brutally honest, the only reason the British had any authority in England was because they beat the Celts.
But there you are: facts on the ground. After a while, a generation, a century, it no longer matters how we got here. Here we are. Of course, it may still matter to some people but no one who counts. Do the Israelis have a right to live in Israel? Where else are they going to live? Facts on the ground. Do the Palestinians who were driven out of Israel, or who left for whatever reason, have a right to live in Israel? Well, they're living somewhere else now. Facts on the ground. Is all of Jerusalem part of Israel? It sure seems to be. Facts on the ground.
Every day there are new facts on the ground. A wall separating Israel from the West Bank, except that for, you know, good reasons, some the Israeli side of the wall includes what was part of the West Bank before the wall was erected but, well, that's where we are. Facts on the ground.
All this can possibly mean is that the Palestinians will have to establish facts on the ground. There will be no resolution in the courts to give them a viable state. There will be no Balfour Declaration for them. No one will give them a single piece of land that facts on the ground tell us is part of Israel. They must, it seems, change the facts on the ground or nothing will change.
When all options save all out war are taken off the table, what else remains? Facts on the ground.
In 1917, the British government essentially promised to "give" the Jews of Europe land on which other people were living. This was the Balfour Declaration: His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." The legal authority by which the British felt they could do this was that they had beaten the Turks in WWI. The Turkish government, in their turn, had taken authority over the land in question by beating the Mamelukes, and so on. To be brutally honest, the only reason the British had any authority in England was because they beat the Celts.
But there you are: facts on the ground. After a while, a generation, a century, it no longer matters how we got here. Here we are. Of course, it may still matter to some people but no one who counts. Do the Israelis have a right to live in Israel? Where else are they going to live? Facts on the ground. Do the Palestinians who were driven out of Israel, or who left for whatever reason, have a right to live in Israel? Well, they're living somewhere else now. Facts on the ground. Is all of Jerusalem part of Israel? It sure seems to be. Facts on the ground.
Every day there are new facts on the ground. A wall separating Israel from the West Bank, except that for, you know, good reasons, some the Israeli side of the wall includes what was part of the West Bank before the wall was erected but, well, that's where we are. Facts on the ground.
All this can possibly mean is that the Palestinians will have to establish facts on the ground. There will be no resolution in the courts to give them a viable state. There will be no Balfour Declaration for them. No one will give them a single piece of land that facts on the ground tell us is part of Israel. They must, it seems, change the facts on the ground or nothing will change.
When all options save all out war are taken off the table, what else remains? Facts on the ground.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)