Rashid Khalidi is a professor at Columbia University who has announced his retirement, partly in disgust over the university’s shameful repression of its students’ legitimate protests against Israel’s ethnic cleansing and its outrageous efforts to prevent open debate about Palestine.
Max, you wrote in part: “The reality that Israel was the only available refuge for European Jews after the Holocaust sits uncomfortably alongside the Faustian, colonial bargain underlying the creation of the state.”
Not correct. Before the end of the war FDR/Churchill/DeGaul had a plan to resettle surviving Jews in US/ENgland/France/Australia.
FDR picked a messenger to take this plan to the major Jewish congregations … and to a synagogue the U.S. Jews fiercely opposed resettlement ANYWHERE … except Palestine.
Force, violence & the withholding of food were punishments used in the DP camps to force survivors to choose Palestine.
Few Jews ended up in Israel by choice … coercion was the principle means of getting Jews to Palestine after WWII
Apparently the idea was rejected because FDR suggested the Jews be "spread out thin"? I suspect they would have been fine with, say, relaxing restrictions on Jewish immigration to the US.
I read his book and I thought it was quite good as an analysis of how the Palestinian resistance has been weakened by fragmentation. There are also some interesting comments about the counterproductive effects of violent resistance in the Israeli context (Having become a bit obsessed with Chenoweth in recent years, I think this is a more general problem than he realizes), and of both Palestinian and Zionist nationalist identities being modern constructions. One thing that did weird me out was his idea, if I read it right, that the Palestinians would have been wise to line up behind the Mufti, whom he criticizes only for "spending the war in Germany," as I believe he puts it. At least Gilbert Achcar acknowledges that he was a "mouthpiece for Nazi propaganda." Another very good book I read recently (History of the Modern Middle East) called him a "moderate." Weird....
Looking at the interview, I think this widespread semantic obsession with the word "colonize" is a bit stupid. I seems to me it was used as essentially a synonym for "settle," which you'll find in a dictionary, and which you'll find is a pretty common usage. The British were really not in the habit of sponsoring settlement projects for the purpose of expanding their empire. Typically there were various independent settlement projects around the world, because that's what people do, and the British would at some point would decide to get involved for various reasons. In this case the British had taken over parts of the Middle East because the local leadership had defaulted on massive debts to them. The Zionists appealed to them for help (with great savvy) because the they happened to be in power at the time. The main focus of the British during the mandate period was on keeping order, which they handled ad hoc. When there was a large violent uprising in 1936, the British response was to 1) crush it with overwhelming force 2) restrict Jewish immigration (to which the Revisionists responded with terrorism); and 3) post WWII, drop it like a hot potato. All this seems to have been excised from his conspiratorial interpretation of the period. I do recommend his book though.
I agree that the American far right support for Israel is not deeply grounded in the Book of Revelation, although that has some influence. I think that much more of it is ideological. The Israelis are the only unapologetic wog-bashers in the world, and are an inspiration to their fellow ethno-nationalists. It can even make them temporarily forget that most Israelis are also, uh, Jews.
I'm evidence, btw, that Israel was not the only available refuge for European Jews. My father hung around the Italian dp camps for a number of years, until Truman let him (and others) into the US. My favorite story from him: he kept himself alive by smuggling cigarettes in Italy. Sometimes, the cops would catch him. He had a "get out of jail free" card that usually worked: "Polacki, polacki." Since Italian postwar jails provided three hots and a cot, he was no worse off in jail than in camp, but at the expense of the Italian government. The cops, knowing this, usually let him go.
Max, you wrote in part: “The reality that Israel was the only available refuge for European Jews after the Holocaust sits uncomfortably alongside the Faustian, colonial bargain underlying the creation of the state.”
Not correct. Before the end of the war FDR/Churchill/DeGaul had a plan to resettle surviving Jews in US/ENgland/France/Australia.
FDR picked a messenger to take this plan to the major Jewish congregations … and to a synagogue the U.S. Jews fiercely opposed resettlement ANYWHERE … except Palestine.
Force, violence & the withholding of food were punishments used in the DP camps to force survivors to choose Palestine.
Few Jews ended up in Israel by choice … coercion was the principle means of getting Jews to Palestine after WWII
Apparently the idea was rejected because FDR suggested the Jews be "spread out thin"? I suspect they would have been fine with, say, relaxing restrictions on Jewish immigration to the US.
Do you have a citation for that? It’s not a phrase “spread out thin” that I’ve heard b4
Well if you google <"spread out thin" fdr jews> it's quoted in a bunch of articles.
Ok
News to me.
This is one of those bits of history that’s conveniently forgotten
I read his book and I thought it was quite good as an analysis of how the Palestinian resistance has been weakened by fragmentation. There are also some interesting comments about the counterproductive effects of violent resistance in the Israeli context (Having become a bit obsessed with Chenoweth in recent years, I think this is a more general problem than he realizes), and of both Palestinian and Zionist nationalist identities being modern constructions. One thing that did weird me out was his idea, if I read it right, that the Palestinians would have been wise to line up behind the Mufti, whom he criticizes only for "spending the war in Germany," as I believe he puts it. At least Gilbert Achcar acknowledges that he was a "mouthpiece for Nazi propaganda." Another very good book I read recently (History of the Modern Middle East) called him a "moderate." Weird....
Looking at the interview, I think this widespread semantic obsession with the word "colonize" is a bit stupid. I seems to me it was used as essentially a synonym for "settle," which you'll find in a dictionary, and which you'll find is a pretty common usage. The British were really not in the habit of sponsoring settlement projects for the purpose of expanding their empire. Typically there were various independent settlement projects around the world, because that's what people do, and the British would at some point would decide to get involved for various reasons. In this case the British had taken over parts of the Middle East because the local leadership had defaulted on massive debts to them. The Zionists appealed to them for help (with great savvy) because the they happened to be in power at the time. The main focus of the British during the mandate period was on keeping order, which they handled ad hoc. When there was a large violent uprising in 1936, the British response was to 1) crush it with overwhelming force 2) restrict Jewish immigration (to which the Revisionists responded with terrorism); and 3) post WWII, drop it like a hot potato. All this seems to have been excised from his conspiratorial interpretation of the period. I do recommend his book though.
I agree that the American far right support for Israel is not deeply grounded in the Book of Revelation, although that has some influence. I think that much more of it is ideological. The Israelis are the only unapologetic wog-bashers in the world, and are an inspiration to their fellow ethno-nationalists. It can even make them temporarily forget that most Israelis are also, uh, Jews.
I'm evidence, btw, that Israel was not the only available refuge for European Jews. My father hung around the Italian dp camps for a number of years, until Truman let him (and others) into the US. My favorite story from him: he kept himself alive by smuggling cigarettes in Italy. Sometimes, the cops would catch him. He had a "get out of jail free" card that usually worked: "Polacki, polacki." Since Italian postwar jails provided three hots and a cot, he was no worse off in jail than in camp, but at the expense of the Italian government. The cops, knowing this, usually let him go.
Yes the supreme court has a catholic cartel
Ready to legitimize
The demands of millions
of Hog tied adherents of
Good old country bible mash
Si long as it cloaks or escorts
a serious corporate purpose or 2