 |
|
|
Sunday, September 16 2007National Aspirations: A Psychological ProblemJohn Whitbeck got op-ed space in the Christian Science Monitor to peddle a one-state solution: Traumatized by the Holocaust and perceived insecurity as a Jewish island in an Arab sea, Israelis have immense psychological problems in coming to grips with the practical impossibility of sustaining forever what most of mankind views as a racial-supremacist, settler-colonial regime founded upon the ethnic cleansing of an indigenous population. What Whitbeck really wants to say is that Jewish aspirations for a national homeland are nuts. But being too inhibited to say so outright, he has to rely on the "racial supremacy" charge. See Professor David Bernstein's response to Whitbeck's logic.
TrackBackTrackBack URL for this entry: Listed below are links to weblogs that reference National Aspirations: A Psychological Problem: Comments"... what most of mankind views as a racial-supremacist, settler-colonial regime founded upon the ethnic cleansing of an indigenous population." Of course that's not antisemistism - just "legitimate criticism of Israeli policies". By the way... what "indigenous population"? Apart from Bernstein's arguments (which predate Whitbeck's piece), South Africa is a perfect example of what NOT to do. The world has not woken up to it yet but South Africa is crumbling. It is the most dangerous country on earth including Iraq, has racist laws and corruption is rampant. The ruling party seems to be settling in for a multi-decade rule. South Africa also supports the earth's most heinous regimes. The lesson is that we should not demand that working states are given over to unknowns. "Settler-colonial regime", today's Big Lie. The simple comparative question that could pierce through it ("could" because the anti-Zionists prefer to ignore it--my experience in the blogosphere): France is to the French colonials in Algeria If you talk about colonialism, then you must say what the motherland is. The plain fact of the matter is that the Land of Israel is the motherland of the Jews. It would make as much sense to talk of "Basque colonials in Navarra". "... what most of mankind views as a racial-supremacist, settler-colonial regime founded upon the ethnic cleansing of an indigenous population." Of course that's not antisemistism - just "legitimate criticism of Israeli policies". If those remarks were about the Chinese in Tibet, would they be "anti-asian"? If they were about American treatment of Indians, would they be anti-European? If they were about German treatment of the Jews, would they be anti-German? Post a comment[Comments are held for approval before appearing.]
|
