But I don’t see how you can support self-determination for Palestinians while declaring yourself anti-Zionist—and therefore opposing self-determination for Jews—without being anti-Semitic. If you support self-determination for one people, you cannot deny it to another.
I reject the idea that an ethnic group has an automatic right to its own state or homeland. As much as many Jews in the nineteenth century and earlier wanted a homeland, and Israel in particular to be that homeland, I don't believe they had any right to that. I don't see the Palestinian right to Palestine accrues to them as an ethnic group; it accrues to them as the original inhabitants of that territory.
I don't support a right to self-determination for ethnic groups. On the other hand, if the majority of the population of a territory want to form an independent state, that preference should be prima facie respected, as an exercise of the principle of democracy. But that right is not absolute; we must consider other factors, such as the impacts on minorities, the circumstances by which they came to form a majority, etc.
I don't support a right to self-determination for ethnic groups. On the other hand, if the majority of the population of a territory want to form an independent state, that preference should be prima facie respected, as an exercise of the principle of democracy. But that right is not absolute; we must consider other factors, such as the impacts on minorities, the circumstances by which they came to form a majority, etc.
To me, Palestinians are the indigenous population of Palestine; the more recent Zionist immigrants and their descendants are not. I see the situation of the Palestinians as similar to the Native Americans in North America, Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in Australia, the Maoris in New Zealand, etc. Whether the Palestinians are a people in an ethnic sense is irrelevant; they have rights, not as ethnicity, but as a population. Australians need to acknowledge and make amends for the crimes against Aborigines by which Australia was founded; in the same way, Israelis need to acknowledge and make amends for the crimes against Palestinians by which Israel was founded.
Of course, the Zionists will say, the Jews were there before the Palestinians, so the Jews have more claim to be the indigenous population. In my view, there is a clear difference between a claim based in the last few centuries to one which is two millenia old. I also think it likely that much of the Christian and Muslim population of Palestine are the descendants of Jews who converted to Christianity and Islam, so if Jewish occupation of the land two millenia ago justifies Zionist claims, it justifies Palestinian claims also. Therefore, the Jewish claim to Palestine is much more distant and tenuous than the Palestinian one, and should be given less weight.
From that perspective, one can favour the Palestinian position, not on the basis of some double standard of refusing to grant Jews rights one will grant others, but because the situations one is dealing with are genuinely different.
He says:
But you can be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic if you say, for instance, that you’re opposed to the idea of the nation-state in general. I think you’d be unrealistic, a utopian dreamer with a totally irrelevant argument, but I could believe that you’re not an anti-Semite. But I think there are very few people out there who genuinely believe that. Maybe some anarchists feel that way.
I disagree; I oppose ethnic-states, but I don't think there is anything utopian about that. I am an Australia. And Australia is a very different type of state from Israel; the type of state which Israel ought to be, but which Zionists do not want it to be. Israel defines itself as being a state for a particular ethnic/religious group, Jews. Other ethnicities or religions may be citizens, but they can never be citizens in the fullness of the sense in which Jews are citizens. Supporters of Israel will object, that all citizens of Israel are equal. From a formal legal perspective, it may well be true that Jews and non-Jews can be equally citizens of Israel. But, from the point of view of the Zionist ideology which justifies the state of Israel, a non-Jew can never be a citizen of Israel in the sense in which a Jew can be. The State exists for the sake of its Jewish citizens, in a sense in which it does not exist for its non-Jewish citizens. Whereas, a non-ethnically particular state, such as Australia or the United States, exists for the sake of all its citizens, not for the sake of some of its citizens more than others.
Whereas, to be an Australian is not to be a member of any race or religion or ethnicity. Australia does not exist for the sake of any particular race or ethnicity or religion. Yes, Australia has its particular ethnic and racial composition. But that composition changes over time, and is not essential to Australia being Australia. That composition has and will change, yet Australia will still be Australia. Whereas, Israel views ethnic change (dimunition or loss of a Jewish majority), as an existential threat. They estimate that by 2050, minorities (Hispanic, African, Asian, etc.) will be the majority in the US. It will be a different America, but it will still be America. Whereas, if non-Jews became the majority in Israel, then from a Zionist perspective, Israel would cease to exist, even if some state continued under that name.
Whereas, to be an Australian is not to be a member of any race or religion or ethnicity. Australia does not exist for the sake of any particular race or ethnicity or religion. Yes, Australia has its particular ethnic and racial composition. But that composition changes over time, and is not essential to Australia being Australia. That composition has and will change, yet Australia will still be Australia. Whereas, Israel views ethnic change (dimunition or loss of a Jewish majority), as an existential threat. They estimate that by 2050, minorities (Hispanic, African, Asian, etc.) will be the majority in the US. It will be a different America, but it will still be America. Whereas, if non-Jews became the majority in Israel, then from a Zionist perspective, Israel would cease to exist, even if some state continued under that name.
Anyone can become an Australian – all you need to do is immigrate here, and live here long enough to become an Australian citizen, and then you are an Australian. But, how does one become fully Israeli – and, only Jews can fully be Israelis, in the sense that only Jews can be the people for whom the state exists, and non-Jews can only ever be hang-alongs or fellow-travellers? One must convert to another religion.
Israel’s “Law of Return” reminds me of Australia’s White Australia Policy. Despite its name, it wasn’t purely about race – they wanted to keep Chinese people out of Australia, but also non-British Europeans, such as Eastern Europeans, including Jews. Precisely who was in, and who was out, varied at different stages – in the later stages of the policy, they began to accept groups like Italians or Greeks which in the earlier stages they rejected. But, I think it is a great achievement for Australia, that it has moved beyond its racist past, and adopted an ethnically-neutral immigration policy. To me, Israel’s ethnically and religiously discriminatory immigration policy is just as immoral as the White Australia Policy was. But the difference is, does anyone say Australia has ceased to be Australia for rejecting this immigration policy? And yet, many will say, if Israel did the same, Israel would cease to be Israel. And that is the difference between Israel and Australia.
So, I see Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States, and others, as very different types of states from Israel. Israel represents a backward, ethnically exclusivist notion of statehood. Due to increasing immigration from other parts of the world, many European states are in the process of transition to the non-ethnic statehood which Australia and others represents. And I fundamentally oppose Zionism, because I fundamentally oppose the type of state which Israel under Zionism represents.
He says:
There is also a great deal of criticism of Israel that isn’t criticism. Criticism implies a certain degree of rationality, analysis, and objectivity. Much of what is regarded as criticism is actually an assault. It is intended to wound and cause pain. It is intended to demonize. The way, for example, some people off-handedly accuse Israel of genocide, as if this is not even in question. This, to me, is obviously intended to be as hurtful as possible. I can’t even begin to explain to you how offensive the Nazi comparison is.
Clearly, what the Nazis did to the Jews is several orders of magnitude worse than what the Zionists have done to the Palestinians. Yet, the Holocaust is not the only genocide; genocides take many forms. Genocide can occur without mass extermination. I think, the genocide of the indigenous Australians, is a better comparison to what the Zionists have done. So, although Israel has not committed a Nazi-style genocide, that is not to say that Israel is not guilty of other kinds or degrees of genocide.
He says:
It’s like a person who raped and murdered your child stands up in court and says you did it. That’s what it feels like. It’s difficult to even respond because it’s so unthinkably cruel to say something like that. To compare us to our worst enemies, enemies who decimated us, our fathers, our grandfathers within living memory—it’s not just that this isn’t within the realm of rational discourse, it isn’t even in the realm of human decency.
I think its legitimate to point out the sad irony of history, by which victims become perpetrators. Zionist crimes are not the same as Nazi crimes, but they are still crimes. When those who are themselves victims become perpetrators, when the persecuted becomes the oppressor, that is a tragedy worthy of note.
I think a lot of this comes from the anger of Palestinian victims, that while there is so much focus on the crime of the Shoah, the crime of the Nakba is widely denied and minimized and ignored. That is not to say that they are the same crime, or crimes of same severity. But, when you are the victim, it is the only crime that matters; by definition, the worst of all crimes is the one which affects you. The death of a single loved one is worse to you than that of a million people you don’t know. So, to Jews, the Shoah is the worst of crimes; and to the Palestinians, the Nakba is the worst of crimes; and trying to compare these crimes is pointless.
But one day, eventually, most Jews will acknowledge the crime of Nakba; and I think that will free most Palestinians to acknowledge the crime of Shoah. The Zionists have created the situation, by seeking to use the crime of the Shoah to justify the crime of Nakba, where it is difficult for Palestinians to acknowledge Jewish suffering without denying their own suffering. Once Jews are finally liberated from Zionism, the Palestinians will be liberated also. And I think then, everyone will acknowledge, that while we cannot treat the two crimes as identical, it is nonetheless a great tragedy of human nature that many of the victims of one crime became the perpetrators of the other.
