Just Another Zionist Buddhist Wordpress Site

Year: 2024 Page 3 of 6

The Nakba (What is Zionism, Part Two)

Once the Jewish state of Israel was established, one might suppose that there was no longer any need for Zionism. After all, hadn’t the goal of Zionism been accomplished? However, there still remained this one vital issue: would Israel survive?

In August of 1948, a young Syrian intellectual named Constantine Zurayk published a book titled Ma’na al-Nakba (معنى النكبة). The English title given to the book when it was translated 8 years later was The Meaning of the Disaster.  When Zurayk’s book first appeared, the Israeli War of Independence (aka, “the first Arab-Israeli War”) was not yet over, but it was already clear who would win. The only question was: how total would Israel’s victory be? Put another way, how complete would the Arabs’ disaster/nakba be?

Here is how Zurayk characterized the “disaster in every sense of the word” even while it was still unfolding before the world’s eyes:

The defeat of the Arabs in Palestine is no simple setback or light, passing evil. It is a disaster in every sense of the word and one of the harshest of the trials and tribulations with which the Arabs have been afflicted throughout their long history—a history marked by numerous trials and tribulations.

Seven Arab states declare war on Zionism in Palestine, stop impotent before it, and then turn on their heels. The representatives of the Arabs deliver fiery speeches in the highest international forums, warning what the Arab states and peoples will do if this or that decision be enacted. Declarations fall like bombs from the mouths of officials at the meetings of the Arab League, but when action becomes necessary, the fire is still and quiet, the steel and iron are rusted and twisted, quick to bend and disintegrate. The bombs are hollow and empty. They cause no damage and kill no one.

Seven states seek the abolition of partition and the subduing of Zionism, but they leave the battle having lost a not inconsiderable portion of the soil of Palestine, even of the part “given” to the Arabs in the partition. They are forced to accept a truce in which there is neither advantage nor gain for them.  [p. 2]

If this isn’t quite clear enough, Zurayk is good enough to elaborate further a few pages later:

When we view this disaster and appraise its extent and its results, it is also right and fair for us to know that it is only one battle in a long war. If we have lost this battle, that does not mean that we have lost the whole war or that we have been finally routed with no possibility of a later revival.

This battle is decisive from numerous points of view, for on it depends the establishment or extinction of the Zionist state. If we lose the battle completely, and the Zionist state is established, the Jews of the whole world will no doubt muster all their strength to preserve, reinforce, and expand it, as they mustered their strength to found it. [p. 7]

Zurayk makes it clear that the humliating defeat of the Arabs must be quickly followed by decisive action by a newly unified Arab popular struggle, even if the final goal of Israel’s destruction might take longer. Otherwise history will judge the Arabs (unjustly, Zurayk protests) only on the basis of the “disaster”:

It will also be said that the Arabs of Palestine have proved themselves weak and impotent; that no sooner had the first bombs fallen than they fled in utter rout, evacuated their cities and their strongholds, and surrendered them to the enemy on a silver platter, that a large number of them had fled even before the battle and had taken refuge in the other Arab countries and in remote regions of Palestine.

I do not deny that cowardice and disintegration have appeared among the Arabs, in Palestine and elsewhere. [p. 26]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2737764/Palestinian-leader-say-Hamas-caused-prolonged-war.html

Zurayk’s hope was that the Arabs could rally, and that the “trials and tribulations” that the Arab world was undergoing (that is, the birth of the state of Israel) would yet prove to be a catalyst for a new awakening of Arab nationalism. In Zurayk’s opinion this would only be the case if the Arab people learned the necessary lesson from the “disaster”.

Zurayk was not ambiguous about what he thought the necessary lesson to be:

The present struggle, which we have described and whose principles and conditions we have drawn up, is necessary for the battle we are now waging. However, the war waged to uproot Zionism and to conquer it completely will not be finished in a single battle. On the contrary it will require a long and protracted war.  [p. 34]

Zurayk makes it clear that there can be only one “Fundamental Solution”, as he calls it, to the problem of the Nakba: the complete destruction of Israel. But he is at pains to assure us that he has reason, morality, and even international law on his side. The Arab cause, in Zurayk’s view, is based on “principle”. Zurayk acknowledges that the Zionists also claim to have a “principled” cause as well, however: “They [the Zionists] do indeed flaunt many ‘principles’, but none of these stand before fact and evidence,” he claims (p. 60). Therefore it is not just Arabs who should join in the “crusade” (a term Zurayk frequently uses) against Israel, but all of humanity should join together to support the “lofty human ideal” of Israel’s destruction:

We deduce from all that has preceded that the struggle against Zionism and against the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine is not, from the Arab point of view, merely a national struggle, but a struggle for the sake of a lofty human ideal—a struggle between right and might, between principle and interest. [p. 59]

Zurayk insists that “religious tolerance” is among the “ideals” and “principles” that he champions (p. 72), and he certainly would have been horrified at any suggestion that he could conceivably be antisemitic. And yet his little book drips with classical antisemitic tropes:

Zionism does not only consist of those groups and colonies scattered in Palestine; it is a worldwide net, well prepared scientifically and financially, which dominates the influential countries of the world, and which has dedicated all its strength to the realization of its goal, namely building a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.

It is, therefore, our duty to acknowledge the terrifying strength which the enemy possesses and to take it into account when we view our present problem and try to remedy it. [p. 5]

Later on, Zurayk provides the reader with a master-class in classic antisemitism when he opines on the “world-wide power of the Jews — politically, financially, and culturally.”

This power became clear during the first World War. It extracted the Balfour Declaration from the British government, then imposed on the members of the League of Nations the inclusion of this declaration in the text of the mandate, and continued under the mandate to act in England and America so as to secure continued support for its aggressive policy, despite the awakening of British politicians to its dangers and despite successive Arab revolts. In recent years this power has been centered in the United States. No one who has not stayed in that country and studied its conditions can truly estimate the extent of this power or visualize the aweful danger of it. Many American industries and financial institutions are in the hands of Jews, not to mention the press, radio, cinema, and other media of propaganda, or Jewish voters in the states of New York, Illinois, Ohio, and others which are important in presidential elections, especially in these days when the conflict between Democrats and Republicans is at a peak and both parties are trying to acquire votes from any quarter possible. [pp. 65-66]

Just as Zurayk had hoped, out of the catastrophic failure, the Nakba, of 1947 to 1949, a renewed spirit of nationalism was kindled among the Arab masses. And Zurayk himself had more than a little to do with this nationalist awakening. And just as Zurayk had hoped, after 1948 Arab nationalism would become synonymous with hatred for Israel and with an obsessive fixation on its destruction. And over the decades the “Nakba” has even become a badge of honor, a slogan shouted at demonstrations. One might even be tempted to compare the Nakba to the Alamo. But such a comparison must be rejected due to the fact that the defenders of the Alamo chose to fight to the death rather than flee or surrender.

The case of Miriam Libicki’s un-banning is cause for hope (I hope)

Here is an article that is mostly a post-ban interview with the artist Miriam Libicki. It also includes the complete text of the original “accountability statement” in which Libicki’s banning from the Vancouver Comic Art Festival (VanCAF) was announced to the public (but somehow without actually ever mentioning her by name!):
MIRIAM LIBICKI ON VANCAF, BANNINGS, AND POLITICAL PROTESTS by Zach Rabiroff, The Comics Journal, June 12, 2024

And here is another article that gives some further details, including some interesting tidbits of the backlash that forced VanCAF to back down:
VanCAF resignations and board change follow controversial ban of Miriam Libicki by Dean Simons, Comics Beat, 06/04/2024

Personally I see this as cause for at least some measure of cautious optimism. In the current climate of world-wide unhinged hatred for Israel, Libicki’s initial banning was completely predictable. What wasn’t predictable was that there would be sufficient outcry against the banning to force VanCAF to reverse their decision and publicly apologize.

And here is an hour long presentation by Miriam Libicki (“I talk about my whole career and I do a reading from my work in progress at the end”) that she did a year ago:

Libicki’s book, Jobnik! is currently sold out on Amazon:

And here is her page at the Jewish Book Council (where you’ll find more articles by her, interviews, and more information about her work):
https://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/miriam-libicki

What is Zionism? (Part One)

The melancholy and disgraceful fact being established that, in these closing decades of the nineteenth century, the long-suffering Jew is still universally exposed to injustice, proportioned to the barbarity of the nation that surrounds him, from the indescribable atrocities of the Russian mobs, through every degree of refined insult to petty mortifications, the inevitable result has been to arouse most thinking Jews the necessity of a vigrous and concerted action of defense. They have long enough practiced to no purpose the doctrine which Christendom has been content to preach, and which was inculcated by one of their own race, when the right cheek was smitten to turn the left. They have proved themselves willing and able to assimilate with whatever people and endure every climatic influence. But blind intolerance and ignorance are now forcibly driving them into that position which they have so long hesitated to assume. They must establish an independent nationality …. I am fully persuaded that all suggested solutions other than this of the Jewish problem are but temporary palliatives.

The Jewish Problem, Emma Lazarus, The Century Magazine, February 1883
https://www.jewishideasdaily.com/docLib/20100204_TheJewishProblem.pdf

Emma Lazarus was not the first to embrace and articulate the idea of Zionism before the term had even been coined, which would not happen for another seven years after she wrote her 1883 essay The Jewish Problem, quoted above. It was Nathan Birnbaum who first used the words “Zionismus” and “zionistisch” in his German language journal Selbst-Emancipation (Self-Emancipation) in 1890.

The name Emma Lazarus might not ring a bell, but you are certainly familiar with her work. She wrote the poem “The New Colossus”, which is engraved on the base of the Statue of Liberty. Lazarus published her first poetry collection when whe was just 18 years old (some of the poems had been written when she was just 14). In fact, Lazarus, who died in 1887 at the age of 38, would not live long enough to witness the the first World Zionist Congress, which took place in Basel, Switzerland, in August, 1897. That historic gathering was a direct result of the growing realization so clearly expressed by Lazarus that “all suggested solutions other than this [Zionism] of the Jewish problem are but temporary palliatives.”

In addition to “Zionism”, another new word came into being around the same time: “pogrom”. The first occurrence of the Russian word “погром”, which literally means “to smash, to destroy”, might go back as far as the 1821 anti-Jewish riots in the Ukrainian city of Odessa, then part of the Russian Empire. But the term gained much wider international usage only in 1881 when anti-Jewish violence spread throughout the Russian Empire following the assassination of Czar Alexander II. From 1881 to 1885 there were an estimated 250 separate instances of violent mob attacks on Russian Jewish communities.

It must be emphasized that while the Zionist movement certainly arose as a response to antisemitism, Zionism has always been more than simply “anti-antisemitism”. Zionists, like Emma Lazarus, have always stated very clearly what Zionism is for: the establishment of a Jewish state in the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. In essence then, Zionism is simply the radical idea that the Jewish people have the same right to self-determination as everyone else.

In the decades following Larazus’ 1883 essay, Zionism transformed from an idea into a reality. By the early 1940s, Zionists had succeeded in creating the Yishuv, a thriving community of over half a million Jews living in Palestine. Having established this solid foundation, Zionists hoped that a large portion of Europe’s Jews would begin immigrating to Palestine. But most of those Jews would be dead before this could happen (indeed, many were already dead, for, as Shmuel Ettinger wrote in A History of the Jewish People, even in the early 1940s Zionists had “not yet grasped the scope and nature of the Holocaust“).

Finally in 1947 the United Nations passed (by a 2/3 supermajority) Resolution 181 to partition Palestine into a “Jewish State” and an “Arab State”. While Jews in Palestine and around the world celebrated, the Arabs of Palestine, along with Arabs and Muslims around the world, vowed to fight to prevent such a thing as a Jewish State from ever coming into existence.

And so there was war. The Jews of Palestine were outnumbered 20 to 1 by the Arab League, then comprising (along with the Palestinian Arabs) the seven nations of Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and North Yemen. The only real ally that the Yishuv had at the time was Czechoslovakia, from which they purchased the arms that they used to win their independence and establish the nation of Israel. In addition to the arms (which included fighter aircraft, rifles, machine-guns, and ammunition), Czechoslovakia also trained many of the air and ground troops who fought in what would become known as the Israeli War of Independence.

A major differences between the Arab and Jewish armies was that the Jews had nowhere to retreat to. Their only choice was to stand and fight where they were. But the Jewish forces did not simply hold their positions. Having been attacked on every side by forces that vastly outnumbered them, the Jewish fighters (who would become the Israeli Defense Forces) advanced on all fronts. And as the Jewish forces advanced, the Arabs fled their homes and villages. Many fled even before the fighting had started, especially the more well to-do.

Finally in 1949 Israel signed separate armistice agreements with Egypt, Lebanon, Transjordan, and Syria. These armistice agreements brought an official end to the shooting war, and established what are now known as the “pre-1967” borders of Israel. But despite the armistice every Arab nation, and especially the Palestinians, remained officially in a state of war with Israel.

Not surprisingly, those who had chosen to fight to prevent Israel from coming into existence in the first place were not welcome in the sovereign state that they were still at war with. These Palestinians had made two choices: (1) to take up arms against Israel, and (2) to flee to safety when the fighting turned against them (an option, it should be repeated, not available to their Jewish opponents). Obviously, the Palestinians who fled never dreamed, unless they were insane, that they would simply be welcomed back.

But Arab Palestinians did dream of “return”. However, this was not based on any notion they would somehow be allowed to peacefully return to Israel. Instead, Palestinians dreamed, and continue to dream, of finishing their war with Israel. Only now it could no longer be a war to prevent Israel from coming into existence in the first place. Having failed to prevent the founding of Israel, Palestinians now committed themselves to eradicating Israel.

What he said (Salman Rushdie)

Below are quotes from a recent (May 16) interview with Salman Rushdie. A video clip from that interview can be found here:
https://x.com/DavidSaranga/status/1792268944000127188

“Right now, if there was a Palestinian state, it would be run by Hamas, and that would make it a Taliban-like state, and it would be a client state of Iran.”

“Is that what the progressive movements of the western left wish to create? To have another Taliban, another Ayatollah-like state, in the Middle East, right next to Israel?”

“The fact is that I think any human being right now has to be distressed by what is happening in Gaza because of the quantity of innocent death. I would just like some of the protests to mention Hamas. Because that’s where this started, and Hamas is a terrorist organisation. It’s very strange for young, progressive student politics to kind of support a fascist terrorist group.”

“I feel that there’s not a lot of deep thought happening. There’s an emotional reaction to the death in Gaza, and that’s absolutely right. But when it slides over towards antisemitism and sometimes to actual support of Hamas, then it’s very problematic.”

Bookchinpalooza

Murray Bookchin was one of the most prominent American leftists to resist the deadly embrace of antisemitism. If you want to know more about him, here are some things to check out:

“Attacks on Israel Ignore the Long History of Arab Conflict” by Murray Bookchin:
https://buddhist-zionists.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/murray-bookchin-attacks-on-israel-ignore-the-long-history-of-arab-conflict.pdf

Introducing Murray Bookchin, the Extraordinary Originator of ‘Social Ecology’ by Janet Biehl
https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2023/05/introducing-murray-bookchin-the-extraordinary-originator-of-social-ecology

A review of Janet Biehl’s “Ecology or Catastrophe: The Life of Murray Bookchin”:
https://roarmag.org/essays/ecology-or-catastrophe-biehl-bookchin-review/

Murray Bookchin “was a true son of the Enlightenment” – Ursula K. Le Guin reflects on The Next Revolution
https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/news/1845-murray-bookchin-was-a-true-son-of-the-enlightenment-ursula-k-le-guin-reflects-on

Ursula K. Le Guin’s “Foreward” to Murray Bookchin’s “The Next Revolution”:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-next-revolution#toc1

Murray Bookchin’s New Life: Whatever their limits, Murray Bookchin’s ideas should be studied by today’s left
https://jacobin.com/2016/07/murray-bookchin-ecology-kurdistan-pkk-rojava-technology-environmentalism-anarchy

A Short Biography of Murray Bookchin:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/bio1.html

Bizarre and Wonderful: Murray Bookchin, Eco-Anarchist:
https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/bizarre-and-wonderful-murray-bookchin-eco-anarchist

Bookchin: living legacy of an American revolutionary:
https://roarmag.org/essays/bookchin-interview-social-ecology/

Turning Up the Stones (Bookchin on Ken Wilber, Nagarjuna, Spinoza, etc.)
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-turning-up-the-stones

Page 3 of 6

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén