narratives

joanna bujes joanna.bujes at ebay.sun.com
Thu Apr 25 09:56:35 PDT 2002


At 09:26 PM 04/24/2002 -0400, Max wrote:
>I don't think you can base a politics on unwinding history
>by fifty years or more. Once you start, why not go back to
>when the Jews were ascendant in the Holy Land? Ten or twenty
>years regression would mean the West Bank could be reserved for
>Palestine. Two states is the only plausible narrative. One
>people driven by oppression to impose on another, also oppressed.

Israel was one of many possible solutions to anti-semitism; it was not the only solution and it was certainly not the solution that a majority of jews desired. In response to discrimination/anti-semitism you can build an armed ghetto (Israel) or you can fight for civil/human rights everywhere. The nineteenth/twentieth centuries were an era of increased secularization and the expansion of civil rights. In particular, the enfranchisement of the Jews occurred simultaneously with every social revolution in Europe. The creation of Israel marks a giant step backward for Jews as well as for humanity.


>If socialists were right to counsel abstention during the 'imperialist'
>WWI, on the grounds that workers on both sides would die for alien,
>capitalist interests, it seems like a good analogy to the ME. The
>point is not to choose a 'side.' The correct line is peace. The
>best defense is not a good offense. The enemies are those who make
>war, in descending order of importance according to descending levels
>of violent acts: the Sharon-Peres Govt, Hamas, Al Aqsa, Hezbollah.

I don't follow the analogy. WWI was a war between empire-seeking nations; the Palestinian intifadah is a nation defending itself against extermination.

Joanna



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list