User talk:RK/A Liberal Defense of Zionism

Here's what's wrong with this essay:

• "a great deal of interest in the preservation of Jews.... I very much hope that the land of Israel will continue to provide an opportunity for Jews to flee oppression in any country..."

Someone who does not feel threatened, in America, is writing about a need for a refuge far away from himself, or others he feels empathy for. Why does he not lobby for more liberal refuge laws in the USA if he really wants to do something?

• "because of Arab and British opposition it was tragically not available at the time of greatest need, in the 1930s and 1940s."

The British promised it in the first place, so they are clearly in the wrong. They are doubly in the wrong for having dealt away the Arab independence they promised in the First World War when they needed Arab help against the Turks - then handed Syria to France, and all that. Arabs were open to the concept of a Jewish-settled binational state in Palestine, it is clear in Ali Hussein and Lawrence of Arabia's agreements and proposals. Their opposition comes from being cheated. So this can be laid firmly at the door of the British.

• "a democratic, scientifically sophisticated, secular culture into a part of the world that for centuries had been despotic, technically backward and obsessed with religion."

This is of course the typical view of colonialism, anywhere in the world. The Ottoman Empire is responsible for a great deal of that despotism, backwardness (although not in military matters), and use of religion to control people. Much of this could have changed had the British and Americans not found it so useful. But trying to smear Arabs as backward seems like just racism.

• "if Orthodox zealots succeed in making Israel a theocratic state"

Then they will be doing exactly what the Biblical Israelites did. This was he whole problem with creating a refuge in Palestine, and easy to anticipate.

• "By attacking Zionism, it is very convenient to express solidarity with the poorer non-Western people of the world, without having actually to make sacrifices to help them."

Surely colonialism is best fought simply by freeing people?

• "the continuing one-sidedness of international opinion regarding the relations between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs."

This has only been extant since 1967 and the invasion of the West Bank and Gaza. Before then it was more even. What nation has more UN demands to pull out of territory than Israel? Saddam in Kuwait was dealt with very very differently than Israel in (what used to be part of) Jordan. Why was that?

• "the efforts of Israel to preserve existence in a fraction of a fraction of the original Palestine mandate"

They were never promised the whole mandate, ever. Except as a binational state should everyone have found that agreeable. It's never too late.

• "views the building of housing projects in Jerusalem as being on a moral plane with the firing of machine guns at school buses."

This is nonsense. But uprooting olive trees that have sustained people for centuries and which provide erosion protection, shade, and food, is indeed on a moral plane with the firing of machine guns at school buses. Maybe worse.

• "make liberals see Zionism again as they used to, as a natural part of the liberal agenda."

But they do. It is the Communists, the Greens, the Anarchists, and the aboriginal peoples, who see it as colonialism. The liberals are well duped. This fellow has what he wants. Unfortunately. EofT

Liberal?

And this is different from secular right wing 'defenses of zionism' e.g. frontpagemag how? Dejitarob 01:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)