Jim,
Basically you are right. I agree with DeGaulle. I am not happier in my head or heart with a Palestinian State than an Israeli one.
However, and this gets back to an earlier set of posts on problems of anti-Semitism and the swastika in local demos, etc., while it would be wonderful if all of us all of the time avoided provocative language, (something to commend to people in discussing Cuba, and lessons to be learned from Jimmy Carter), the "target" of protests against Israeli policy are not that part of the community of American Jews who support Israel - those who oppose Israel are really going to do it, and those who support Israel will call you an anti-Semite no matter WHAT you say. No matter how politely, gently, or carefully you word the matter, you will be an anti-Semite. Remember (you are just barely old enough) that no matter WHAT we said about the Soviet Union we were called anti-Communist bastards, neo-fascists, and "who killed Rosa Luxemburg" (or is that simply a Trotskyist chant?).
I never protested Soviet policy in hopes I'd win members of the CP. And I don't protest Israeli policy in careful and measured terms in hopes the ADL might have a change of heart (Christ, those bastards had Sharon as a speaker after Jenin!).
No, we - you, me, all of us in DSA and the SP and CCSD and Solidarity and Freedom Road - what I would call all of us who are half-way sane, who are genuinely NOT anti-Semitic, MUST get to those coalition meetings, must take part in the demonstrations, DESPITE the fact there will be some unpleasant signs.
Radicals don't let a handful of crazies determine whether or not we will help build a demo. Washington, April 20th, was a grand success and YDS helped make it that. There were some who stayed away from the Vietnam protests because a small number of people carried the NLF flag and that "would prevent us from communicating with the American people". That was a mistake then and it would be a mistake now.
The tone, the tenor, the approach, of the movement for Palestinian solidarity will be determined in part by the fact we are THERE, that we demand there be clarity on the issue of anti-Semitism - a point on which I fully agree with Bodgan. That we make sure there is a rabbi or someone from the Jewish community present as a speaker. And most important, that we engage in discussions and dialogue with the Palestinians, who often feel even more alone and embattled than those who support Israeli policy.
There are, obviously, some demos which are setups and we should all skip. Usually (not always) this includes those clobbered together by Workers World in one of its many guises. I count on Duane and others to know their way around, to tell good coins from bad, and to make sure we don't let "bad money drive out good".
Socialists must advance into the midst of the ideological struggle, not find excuses to stay away from it.
And generally on Israel, I feel no need whatever not to use terms such as "rogue state", "war crimes", etc. in discussions about Israeli policy. While I would not hoist a swastika with Sharon's picture, I can bloody well understand why a Palestinian would.
There are very very few signs I've seen which "deny Israel's right to exist" (I can't remember any at the moment) but I'm also not prepared any longer to give the pro-Israeli groups veto power and insist we use some special magical phrase. Such as "We oppose the Soviet Invasion of Czechoslovakia but Recognize The Right of The Soviet Union To Exist". No state has the "right" to exist, not ours, not Israel's, not one. The right to exist applies to living human beings, to flesh and blood, to survivors of the camps - whether Nazi or the refugee camps on the West Bank and Gaza. Jews have a right to exist. Not Jews alone, but in view of the horror of the last century we must make clear that questions about Israeli policy do not involve any links at all to the dark world of anti-Semitism.
David
<<
In a message dated 5/15/02 2:22:43 AM, DavidMcR at aol.com writes:
<< Quick reply because I'm short of time. The words, Jim, are yours, not mine.
It is one thing to say that Israel is an artifical state - it is a very
different thing to say it is uniquely illegitimate. This is one reason that
discussions with you or your friend Leo are tricky - both of you invent
quotes of statements I never made.
On the rest, you are largely correct but those are technical quibbles. You
knew the answers before the asked the question - as I said, you are a bright
man and well educated and I get impatient when you strew red herrings here
and there.
David >>
David, if you don't think the question of Israel's legitimacy as a state is important, why are you always going on about it?
My "quibbles" and "red herrings" are exactly to the point that modern nations are creations of the last century, and just about all of them have murky histories, indeed.
Charles De Gaulle said "states are cruel monsters." Wasn't he correct?
Using morally charged language against Israel with a special sense of urgency, given this grim reality, has consequences, and mostly not good ones.
Here's a deal: why don't you just say that the state of Israel is occupying the West Bank and Gaza against the will of the people there, and that the people there have a right to their own national self-determination? That's simple, historical, and probably persuasive to the majority of Americans.
Rallies in which very large proportions of the participants are anti-Jewish or deny Israel's right to exist, or using language which draws upon the ample well-springs of these beliefs is not simple, historical, or likely to be persuasive to a majority of Americans, or to any Israelis except the infamous Israel Shamir.
Jim Chapin
>>