Whats up with Israel?

[Dimitri Molotov]

what is so good or bad about israel? i heard some annoying dude on the radio talking about how he supports them because theyr the only democracy down there or something. other than that, i dont know why poeple like or dislike israel. i read some stuff about how they shot at some civilian boat in international waters and killed some people. i also saw another person on this website with a picture that said "boycott isreal". why is that?

[Obs]

Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories

Also, this should be moved to Learning.

[Dimitri Molotov]

sorry i wasnt sure if i should put it in here or in learning. is it possible to move it?

[Rusty Shackleford]

mods will move it.

anyways. Israel is fundamentally bad because it was created out of thin air on behalf of imperialists.

it was a "Land without people, for a people with out a land"

basically saying Palestine was uninhabited and therefore Zionists and Jews should be allowed to make a country out of it.

it led to people who were once good neighbors becoming enemies into enemies.
it led to a colonialist mentality of the "israeli" people.
it led to the destruction of native homes
it led to the "largest open air prison" known as gaza.

palestinian people are constantly harassed by zionist settlers.

[leftace53]

Yes, Israel was created on Palestine land (not that you can really own land:rolleyes:) through British imperialism. The league of nations gave the green light on the Mandate for Palestine (look that up if you wish), giving the Brits "responsibility" to create a country for the Jews within Palestinian territory. For a while now, Israeli people/zionists and what not keep messing with the palestinians, taking their land, killing civillians etc... all while being backed by imperialists of today.

and now they go after a ship in international waters

[Communist]

.

To Learning, from Politics.


Moved.



.

[Die Rote Fahne]

The current state of Israel is a problem to the struggle of the working class in both Israel and the Palestinian Territories. The far-right, I would deem fascist, government of Israel needs to be brought to trial for their crimes stretching from before they were elected to this very day.

A small majority of Israelis do blindly follow their government. We can tell this by Benyamin Netinyahu still being in power after his massacre of Gaza, the illegal siege on Gaza, the illegal "security" fence, the continued illegal settlements and the absolute refusal to seek peace. This is a major problem.

As long as there is not a Palestinian state, free of all Israeli occupation, aggression and oppression. That contains east Jerusalem as it's capital and involves the land on the 67 borders, there will not be a workers revolution in either Israel or Palestine. The occupation and constant distractions created by the capitalists at the top in Israel and the US, including the media, are keeping the Israeli and Palestinian workers minds away from class struggle and on a false racial struggle.

No free Palestine -- it means no workers revolution -- it means no freedom -- it means no peace.

[maskerade]

Israel continuously disregards international law, and thanks to USAs security council veto, all international attempts to help the palestinians or to stop Israel's terrible abuses of human rights are sent down the memory hole.

To put things in perspective, there are only 2 countries in the UN which vote against resolutions that seek to either put Israel to justice or to alleviate the situation - Israel and USA, the rest (or at least the majority) of the international community strongly disagrees with the actions of the Israeli state, particularly their inhumane treatment of Gaza.

can anyone tell me about the approval rating of Israel's actions in Israel? What does the Israeli population think? I know they have a very intense propaganda ministry and everyone must serve in the military, but what is the size of the dissent there?

[28350]

First and foremost I would like to make it clear that I am an anti-zionist.


Israel is fundamentally bad because it was created out of thin air on behalf of imperialists.

All capitalist states are bad.


and now they go after a ship in international waters

It was a trap, and attacking it was probably their best option.


The far-right, I would deem fascist, government of Israel needs to be brought to trial for their crimes stretching from before they were elected to this very day.

Why would you deem them fascist?


As long as there is not a Palestinian state, free of all Israeli occupation, aggression and oppression [...] there will not be a workers revolution in either Israel or Palestine. The occupation and constant distractions created by the capitalists at the top in Israel and the US, including the media, are keeping the Israeli and Palestinian workers minds away from class struggle and on a false racial struggle.

A Palestinian state would hardly offer a better chance for revolution.


Israel's policies are indeed terrible. But it does nothing that other aggressor states did 50 or so years ago. It's just late to the imperialist party. Denying it the right to exist based on who settled where (as opposed to on the basis of it being a capitalist state) is unhelpful, because
a) There would be no problem with Israeli and Palestinian cohabitation of a secular bi-national state (ie. displacement and repression of Palestinians arises not from the existence of Israel itself, but the policies of the Israeli government)
b) It singles out Israel as a sole aggressor, whereas the middle east is full of countries with shit policies that we should oppose
And
c) Even if Israel were abolished, we'd be no closer to revolution.

[freepalestine]

isreal is a racist ,aparthied state.
see zionism

[Boboulas]

Denying it the right to exist based on who settled where (as opposed to on the basis of it being a capitalist state) is unhelpful


Well actualy it is helpful because zionism isnt a progressive or fair ideology and ended up kicked millions of people out of their homes. You shouldnt look at it in such black and white terms because it removes the legitimacy of the palestinian struggle.


A Palestinian state would hardly offer a better chance for revolution.

Yes it would, at the moment palestinians are struggling to survive. They dont have the time or energy to focus on marxism when your children are bieng shot at and your home demolished.



There would be no problem with Israeli and Palestinian cohabitation of a secular bi-national state

And rightly so. Having a social democratic state is at least the foundation from which socialism can come into existance.



It singles out Israel as a sole aggressor, whereas the middle east is full of countries with shit policies that we should oppose

You are deffinetly right here. The USA sponsors these policies, activism in the US can help to stop the imperialists helping terror states.



Even if Israel were abolished, we'd be no closer to revolution.

And you know this how? If anything a free'er and fairer state is the foundations from which socialism can grow. The current conditions in that area of the world is blocking this from happening.

[28350]

Well actualy it is helpful because zionism isnt a progressive or fair ideology and ended up kicked millions of people out of their homes. You shouldnt look at it in such black and white terms because it removes the legitimacy of the palestinian struggle.
Zionism as an isolated ideology is just plain old nationalism based on cultural identity. It has nothing to do with progressiveness or fairness or unfairness. Zionism did not displace Palestinians, the policies of the Israeli government and the IDF did.


Yes it would, at the moment palestinians are struggling to survive. They dont have the time or energy to focus on marxism when your children are bieng shot at and your home demolished.
Perhaps I'm being presumptuous when I think that a Palestinian state would be very similar to the rest of the Middle Eastern states when it comes to progressiveness.

[gorillafuck]

It was a trap, and attacking it was probably their best option.
What do you mean by "trap", and how was it one?


Perhaps I'm being presumptuous when I think that a Palestinian state would be very similar to the rest of the Middle Eastern states when it comes to progressiveness.
While it is definitely true that there are some very awful governments in the middle east (Saudi Arabia, the former ruling Taliban) middle eastern states are often not as "backwards" as western media would have you believe.

[Red Commissar]

What do you mean by "trap", and how was it one?

Some people are saying that the ones who fought back against the IDF boarding wanted to incite violence and cause the commandos to kill them. Thus giving Israel a media black eye.

Poor Israeli government, everyone's hating on them :rolleyes:

[Boboulas]

Zionism as an isolated ideology is just plain old nationalism based on cultural identity. It has nothing to do with progressiveness or fairness or unfairness. Zionism did not displace Palestinians, the policies of the Israeli government and the IDF did.

Well the actions of the IDF and the Israeli government are the result of zionist ideals. The criticism of the people who settled there being unhelpful which was your original point, is one based on criticism of zionism as a non progressive type of nationalism and racism. If it had been one of assimilation and racial equality (fairness) then many of israel-palestine conflicts simply wouldnt exist.

[comradeRed:)]

Isreal is a very EVIL country. They continue to murder the palestines and are always trying to justify their actions! The Israeli government should be overthrow and the land given back to the palenstines!!!

[28350]

Link: http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2010/06/01/flotillas_and_the_wars_of_public_opinion_98988.htm l

By George Friedman

On Sunday, Israeli naval forces intercepted the ships of a Turkish nongovernmental organization (NGO) delivering humanitarian supplies to Gaza. Israel had demanded that the vessels not go directly to Gaza but instead dock in Israeli ports, where the supplies would be offloaded and delivered to Gaza. The Turkish NGO refused, insisting on going directly to Gaza. Gunfire ensued when Israeli naval personnel boarded one of the vessels, and a significant number of the passengers and crew on the ship were killed or wounded.

Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon charged that the mission was simply an attempt to provoke the Israelis. That was certainly the case. The mission was designed to demonstrate that the Israelis were unreasonable and brutal. The hope was that Israel would be provoked to extreme action, further alienating Israel from the global community and possibly driving a wedge between Israel and the United States. The operation’s planners also hoped this would trigger a political crisis in Israel.

A logical Israeli response would have been avoiding falling into the provocation trap and suffering the political repercussions the Turkish NGO was trying to trigger. Instead, the Israelis decided to make a show of force. The Israelis appear to have reasoned that backing down would demonstrate weakness and encourage further flotillas to Gaza, unraveling the Israeli position vis-à-vis Hamas. In this thinking, a violent interception was a superior strategy to accommodation regardless of political consequences. Thus, the Israelis accepted the bait and were provoked.

The ‘Exodus’ Scenario

In the 1950s, an author named Leon Uris published a book called “Exodus.” Later made into a major motion picture, Exodus told the story of a Zionist provocation against the British. In the wake of World War II, the British — who controlled Palestine, as it was then known — maintained limits on Jewish immigration there. Would-be immigrants captured trying to run the blockade were detained in camps in Cyprus. In the book and movie, Zionists planned a propaganda exercise involving a breakout of Jews — mostly children — from the camp, who would then board a ship renamed the Exodus. When the Royal Navy intercepted the ship, the passengers would mount a hunger strike. The goal was to portray the British as brutes finishing the work of the Nazis. The image of children potentially dying of hunger would force the British to permit the ship to go to Palestine, to reconsider British policy on immigration, and ultimately to decide to abandon Palestine and turn the matter over to the United Nations.

There was in fact a ship called Exodus, but the affair did not play out precisely as portrayed by Uris, who used an amalgam of incidents to display the propaganda war waged by the Jews. Those carrying out this war had two goals. The first was to create sympathy in Britain and throughout the world for Jews who, just a couple of years after German concentration camps, were now being held in British camps. Second, they sought to portray their struggle as being against the British. The British were portrayed as continuing Nazi policies toward the Jews in order to maintain their empire. The Jews were portrayed as anti-imperialists, fighting the British much as the Americans had.

It was a brilliant strategy. By focusing on Jewish victimhood and on the British, the Zionists defined the battle as being against the British, with the Arabs playing the role of people trying to create the second phase of the Holocaust. The British were portrayed as pro-Arab for economic and imperial reasons, indifferent at best to the survivors of the Holocaust. Rather than restraining the Arabs, the British were arming them. The goal was not to vilify the Arabs but to villify the British, and to position the Jews with other nationalist groups whether in India or Egypt rising against the British.

The precise truth or falsehood of this portrayal didn’t particularly matter. For most of the world, the Palestine issue was poorly understood and not a matter of immediate concern. The Zionists intended to shape the perceptions of a global public with limited interest in or understanding of the issues, filling in the blanks with their own narrative. And they succeeded.

The success was rooted in a political reality. Where knowledge is limited, and the desire to learn the complex reality doesn’t exist, public opinion can be shaped by whoever generates the most powerful symbols. And on a matter of only tangential interest, governments tend to follow their publics’ wishes, however they originate. There is little to be gained for governments in resisting public opinion and much to be gained by giving in. By shaping the battlefield of public perception, it is thus possible to get governments to change positions.

In this way, the Zionists’ ability to shape global public perceptions of what was happening in Palestine — to demonize the British and turn the question of Palestine into a Jewish-British issue — shaped the political decisions of a range of governments. It was not the truth or falsehood of the narrative that mattered. What mattered was the ability to identify the victim and victimizer such that global opinion caused both London and governments not directly involved in the issue to adopt political stances advantageous to the Zionists. It is in this context that we need to view the Turkish flotilla.

The Turkish Flotilla to Gaza

The Palestinians have long argued that they are the victims of Israel, an invention of British and American imperialism. Since 1967, they have focused not so much on the existence of the state of Israel (at least in messages geared toward the West) as on the oppression of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Since the split between Hamas and Fatah and the Gaza War, the focus has been on the plight of the citizens of Gaza, who have been portrayed as the dispossessed victims of Israeli violence.

The bid to shape global perceptions by portraying the Palestinians as victims of Israel was the first prong of a longtime two-part campaign. The second part of this campaign involved armed resistance against the Israelis. The way this resistance was carried out, from airplane hijackings to stone-throwing children to suicide bombers, interfered with the first part of the campaign, however. The Israelis could point to suicide bombings or the use of children against soldiers as symbols of Palestinian inhumanity. This in turn was used to justify conditions in Gaza. While the Palestinians had made significant inroads in placing Israel on the defensive in global public opinion, they thus consistently gave the Israelis the opportunity to turn the tables. And this is where the flotilla comes in.

The Turkish flotilla aimed to replicate the Exodus story or, more precisely, to define the global image of Israel in the same way the Zionists defined the image that they wanted to project. As with the Zionist portrayal of the situation in 1947, the Gaza situation is far more complicated than as portrayed by the Palestinians. The moral question is also far more ambiguous. But as in 1947, when the Zionist portrayal was not intended to be a scholarly analysis of the situation but a political weapon designed to define perceptions, the Turkish flotilla was not designed to carry out a moral inquest.

Instead, the flotilla was designed to achieve two ends. The first is to divide Israel and Western governments by shifting public opinion against Israel. The second is to create a political crisis inside Israel between those who feel that Israel’s increasing isolation over the Gaza issue is dangerous versus those who think any weakening of resolve is dangerous.

The Geopolitical Fallout for Israel

It is vital that the Israelis succeed in portraying the flotilla as an extremist plot. Whether extremist or not, the plot has generated an image of Israel quite damaging to Israeli political interests. Israel is increasingly isolated internationally, with heavy pressure on its relationship with Europe and the United States.

In all of these countries, politicians are extremely sensitive to public opinion. It is difficult to imagine circumstances under which public opinion will see Israel as the victim. The general response in the Western public is likely to be that the Israelis probably should have allowed the ships to go to Gaza and offload rather than to precipitate bloodshed. Israel’s enemies will fan these flames by arguing that the Israelis prefer bloodshed to reasonable accommodation. And as Western public opinion shifts against Israel, Western political leaders will track with this shift.

The incident also wrecks Israeli relations with Turkey, historically an Israeli ally in the Muslim world with longstanding military cooperation with Israel. The Turkish government undoubtedly has wanted to move away from this relationship, but it faced resistance within the Turkish military and among secularists. The new Israeli action makes a break with Israel easy, and indeed almost necessary for Ankara.

With roughly the population of Houston, Texas, Israel is just not large enough to withstand extended isolation, meaning this event has profound geopolitical implications.

Public opinion matters where issues are not of fundamental interest to a nation. Israel is not a fundamental interest to other nations. The ability to generate public antipathy to Israel can therefore reshape Israeli relations with countries critical to Israel. For example, a redefinition of U.S.-Israeli relations will have much less effect on the United States than on Israel. The Obama administration, already irritated by the Israelis, might now see a shift in U.S. public opinion that will open the way to a new U.S.-Israeli relationship disadvantageous to Israel.

The Israelis will argue that this is all unfair, as they were provoked. Like the British, they seem to think that the issue is whose logic is correct. But the issue actually is, whose logic will be heard? As with a tank battle or an airstrike, this sort of warfare has nothing to do with fairness. It has to do with controlling public perception and using that public perception to shape foreign policy around the world. In this case, the issue will be whether the deaths were necessary. The Israeli argument of provocation will have limited traction.

Internationally, there is little doubt that the incident will generate a firestorm. Certainly, Turkey will break cooperation with Israel. Opinion in Europe will likely harden. And public opinion in the United States — by far the most important in the equation — might shift to a “plague-on-both-your-houses” position.

While the international reaction is predictable, the interesting question is whether this evolution will cause a political crisis in Israel. Those in Israel who feel that international isolation is preferable to accommodation with the Palestinians are in control now. Many in the opposition see Israel’s isolation as a strategic threat. Economically and militarily, they argue, Israel cannot survive in isolation. The current regime will respond that there will be no isolation. The flotilla aimed to generate what the government has said would not happen.

The tougher Israel is, the more the flotilla’s narrative takes hold. As the Zionists knew in 1947 and the Palestinians are learning, controlling public opinion requires subtlety, a selective narrative and cynicism. As they also knew, losing the battle can be catastrophic. It cost Britain the Mandate and allowed Israel to survive. Israel’s enemies are now turning the tables. This maneuver was far more effective than suicide bombings or the Intifada in challenging Israel’s public perception and therefore its geopolitical position (though if the Palestinians return to some of their more distasteful tactics like suicide bombing, the Turkish strategy of portraying Israel as the instigator of violence will be undermined).

Israel is now in uncharted waters. It does not know how to respond. It is not clear that the Palestinians know how to take full advantage of the situation, either. But even so, this places the battle on a new field, far more fluid and uncontrollable than what went before. The next steps will involve calls for sanctions against Israel. The Israeli threats against Iran will be seen in a different context, and Israeli portrayal of Iran will hold less sway over the world.

And this will cause a political crisis in Israel. If this government survives, then Israel is locked into a course that gives it freedom of action but international isolation. If the government falls, then Israel enters a period of domestic uncertainty. In either case, the flotilla achieved its strategic mission. It got Israel to take violent action against it. In doing so, Israel ran into its own fist.

[#FF0000]

it was a "Land without people, for a people with out a land"

basically saying Palestine was uninhabited and therefore Zionists and Jews should be allowed to make a country out of it.

Yeah, which is nonsense because Zionists before World War 2 used to be cool dudes about it and just bought the land from people instead of bulldozing settlements.

The buying of land, of course, implies there were people there already.

Israel is a racist apartheid state that brutalizes, murders, and steals from the Palestinians. They also have a really amazing tendency to throw gigantic temper tantrums that leave hundreds of people dead. For example

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/7388/1275544687698.gif (http://img228.imageshack.us/i/1275544687698.gif/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

[28350]

Some people are saying that the ones who fought back against the IDF boarding wanted to incite violence and cause the commandos to kill them.
The people on the flotilla were counting on Israel not attacking in order to preserve (whatever was left) of its image and its relations with Turkey and the US. Clearly the hard-line government values being feared more than alliances.


Well the actions of the IDF and the Israeli government are the result of zionist ideals.
I was pretty sure all Marxists agreed that this is not how history works.

The criticism of the people who settled there being unhelpful which was your original point, is one based on criticism of zionism as a non progressive type of nationalism and racism. If it had been one of assimilation and racial equality (fairness) then many of israel-palestine conflicts simply wouldnt exist.
I may not be understanding you correctly (if I'm not, let me know), but what I think you're saying is that from the inception of the Zionist movement, it was the policy of settlers to be racist and expansionist.
I'm pretty sure this was not the case. I think the settlers came in slowly and non-aggressively, and didn't really make a problem.
EDIT:

Yeah, which is nonsense because Zionists before World War 2 used to be cool dudes about it and just bought the land from people instead of bulldozing settlements.
This.

Zionism is hardly a cohesive ideology - it has several branches. The popularity and growth of each branch varied through history, corresponding with the relative condition of the Jews. Early Zionism, when Jews were oppressed, was socialist. Zionism now, when Jews have a much more comfortable position, is more right-wing.
It comes down to the nationalism of the oppressed vs. the nationalism of the oppressor.


Isreal is a very EVIL country.
Evil doesn't exist.

[Boboulas]

I was refering to the post-1945 goal of zionism. I thought that if we went to much into zionist history it would derail the thread or something (im new here and dont know entirely what counts as derailing)

[Boboulas]

I was pretty sure all Marxists agreed that this is not how history works.


Well the goal of zionists is to create a jewish state, thats the basis of the idology. Moving the inhabitants out of "israel" is just another part of maintaining the jewish state. Blocking peace and blocking a 2 state solution are even more evidence of the zionist goal.

[Saorsa]

The point is that Israel is a Jewish state, i.e. a state built explicitly for one ethnicity/religion and in which all other ethnicities/religions are second class. An explicitly Jewish state is no more acceptable than an explicitly white state, or an explicitly Aryan state. The results are always the same - discrimination, oppression, ethnic cleansing and genocide.

The only solution is the destruction of the state of Israel (which obviously does not mean driving the Jewish people into the sea, but rather the destruction of the Israeli nation-state as a political and geographic entity) and its replacement with a democratic, secular and socialist state in which Jews, Arabs, Muslims, Christians, Atheists and anyone else can live in peace and equality. Plus, right of return for Palestinians.

I don't see this happening though without a wave of revolution that sweeps the Middle East. And frankly, while I wish it were otherwise, I don't believe the Israeli working class will ever break with Zionism unless Israel starts to suffer a great number of defeats - military, economic, diplomatic and so on. Until Israel is very much on the losing side, the Israeli working class will not develop a revolutionary and anti-Zionist consciousness. Why would they?

[Proletarian Ultra]

Israel's policies are indeed terrible. But it does nothing that other aggressor states did 50 or so years ago. It's just late to the imperialist party. Denying it the right to exist based on who settled where (as opposed to on the basis of it being a capitalist state) is unhelpful, because

No state has "the right to exist". Especially a state founded on racial apartheid.


a) There would be no problem with Israeli and Palestinian cohabitation of a secular bi-national state (ie. displacement and repression of Palestinians arises not from the existence of Israel itself, but the policies of the Israeli government)

You could decapitate the current government - prime minister, ministers, the whole Knesset etc. - and policy toward Palestinians would not be qualitatively different. Displacement and repression of Palestinians arises from the nature of the Israeli state, not merely the policies of the current government. (The same is true of e.g. the white supremacist policies of the American state; it is structurally fundamental to the constitution itself).


b) It singles out Israel as a sole aggressor, whereas the middle east is full of countries with shit policies that we should oppose

Oh, come on. The middle east is full of shit countries that are American clients. And it's not like Palestinian resistance has come anywhere near the brutality of the occupation.


c) Even if Israel were abolished, we'd be no closer to revolution.

Oh yes we would be. Current and former IDF personnel have regularly served as advisors in anticommunist repression all over the world. The best known case is with the Contras, but even now they're working with India to suppress the Naxalites.

[28350]

No state has "the right to exist". Especially a state founded on racial apartheid.

When I wrote "(as opposed to on the basis of it being a capitalist state)" I implied that no capitalist state has the right to exist.


You could decapitate the current government - prime minister, ministers, the whole Knesset etc. - and policy toward Palestinians would not be qualitatively different. Displacement and repression of Palestinians arises from the nature of the Israeli state, not merely the policies of the current government. (The same is true of e.g. the white supremacist policies of the American state; it is structurally fundamental to the constitution itself).
I think I agree with you. What do you mean by the nature of the Israeli state?


Oh, come on. The middle east is full of shit countries that are American clients. And it's not like Palestinian resistance has come anywhere near the brutality of the occupation.

This is true.


Oh yes we would be. Current and former IDF personnel have regularly served as advisors in anticommunist repression all over the world. The best known case is with the Contras, but even now they're working with India to suppress the Naxalites.

I stand corrected.