Arab rights movements need to purify themselves of anti Semitism

[Carla786]

The historical roots of anti Semitism in Arab nationalist movements are very important. It does not make the cause itself wrong.

What it does do, though, is ensure that very unhealthy patterns are handed down.

A prominent example is Nasser's use of Nazis to write anti Israel propaganda.

Thank you, I understand. I was a bit confused because you @ the post to me, but I hadn't mentioned Tantura at that point.

Just a misunderstanding. When accusations are so serious pertaining to historical conflict, I really do believe they can't go unaddressed. The PP's second post on Tantura, well I will leave it up to others to delve into the background.

I see, thank you. I agree misunderstandings are really serious with conflicts and events like this

Honestly I think if you feel something I said was not accurate you should say what it is and how it is inaccurate otherwise I can’t actually defend my post, or maybe that is the point of not giving details? Multiple soldiers admitted to deliberate murder of civilians and went deep into their psychological state at the time, they said they witnessed rape, mass murder and other war crimes. Settlers said there was peace and cohabitation before massacre, relationship never recovered after the massacre. Local Palestinians say mass grave yard under the car park that some of them had to dig. Judge says she never heard the tapes and had she heard them the outcome would be different. Which of these statements is inaccurate? It literally came from soldiers own mouths.

The Guardian article from 2003 about the Nirim Affair I think shows several significant things.

Quoting :
He and most of the soldiers at the outpost were tried in secret. Some said they were carrying out their commander's orders. The military judges rejected that line of defence. Moshe denied rape. "Morally speaking, it was impossible to sleep with such a dirty girl," he told the court.

(This shows clear dehumanisation of civilians on the part of this group of soldiers : the fact that they were tried in secret does ALSO show that at the height of the war there were Israelis willing to stand up for human decency against their own soldiers. The most danger is when a country cannot do this. The question remains to what extent, if any, war crimes were encouraged from higher up).

He was acquitted of rape but convicted of murder and sentenced to 15 years in prison. The judges likened his stated willingness "to murder even women and children in cold blood" to "Hitler's methods in France".
Nineteen other soldiers received light sentences of between one and three years, mostly for "negligence in preventing a crime".

(So the judges at least have strong condemnation. Why the light sentences?? This is of course, in context, sadly not unique . Wartime sexual violence was hushed up and taboo by all kinds of armies until recently).

The appeal court reduced their sentences, saying: "At the time there was a general feeling of contempt for the life of Arabs ... and sometimes wanton events occurred in this sphere. All this helped create an atmosphere of 'anything goes'."We are convinced that this atmosphere existed at the Nirim outpost, too."

(So the appeal court themselves admitted that there was a 'general feeling of contempt for the life of Arabs'. Very disturbing.
At the same time, I've read a lot of accounts that DO show soldiers then avoiding harming civilians. Clearly most soldiers did NOT behave the way the soldiers in Nirim & other atrocities did.
The fact 'general feeling of contempt' was used to justify lighter sentences makes me wonder if they were arguably to some extent unfairly condemning the army as a whole when plenty of soldiers did NOT succumb to this 'general feeling', so as to try and get these men lighter sentences.)

That's a good point: abuse is not an excuse but it is one reason.

War rape definitely wad done by all armies by Red Army seemed to have a revenge element for the horrors of Germany's attack on Russia (though German Jewish women hiding, French women in Ravensbruck, Polish women and many others were all assaulted too, which implies deeper issues). Similar as you say in shaving etc of women for collaborating. It's complex though- as you say some were assaulted by Germans and had no choice but others did willingly have affairs/collaborate. Obviously this doesn't justify public shaming though: men were usually tried, women often judged automatically guilty.

The unified group identity did not exist as we see it today, people living there were from a mixture of the surrounding Arab states. Arafat was the main promoter of the modern Palestinian identity for political reasons and he was born in Cairo.

Yes, I'm not arguing with that. What I'm saying is that the modern identity of the displaced/refugee Palestinian was created for political reasons to mobilise against Israel and gain support for 'antizionism' ie destruction and 'reclamation' of the Jewish state.

My family has been displaced more times than I can count - they had to leave all belongings behind, lose family members, change their names, start from nothing. In no part of me do I want to terrorise children and adults from those countries, kidnap or harm them, drive them out of their homes, cheer over their tragedy.

@KoalaKoKo if you wish to believe everything you watch and read that's your choice. I prefer to take such serious issues with more than a pinch of salt, rather than getting my 'facts' from a documentary on Prime. The documentary had to be based on historical facts, shame the makers relied on the PhD thesis that was full of flaws. No, Katz did not confess to that under oppression, he feebly tried to retract his confession. This all happened in a court of law in a defamation case.

I'll address this more fully later. For now I'll say it seems a bit tautologous to say that the modern identity of a 'displaced/refugee Palestinian' is 'modern', when by definition it would be since they've only been refugees/displaced since 1948.

I agree that the actions of those Palestinians who want to drive Jews away has been terrible. It's unfair to conflate any and every desire to return to Palestine/have a 2-state solution etc with the desire to commit atrocities though.

May I ask which countries your family was displaced from? I understand if you'd rather not give info.

Can I clarify this : are you saying the Arabs living in Palestine then originated from Jordan etc, not from what it is now Israel and the West Bank/Gaza? Or something else?

Most originated from what is now Jordan AFAIK.

That's not accurate.
There WAS definitely migration from Jordan, as well as Egypt, Syria and other Arab countries in the 19th century (as well as some in the 18th) but most historians agree the majority of Palestinian Arabs are descendants of people who lived in Palestine for centuries, with some admixture from nearby regions. This includes fellahin (peasants) linked to specific villages, urban families from Jaffa, Nablus, Jerusalem etc, Bedouin tribes with longstanding ranges there etc
Genetic studies show Palestinians cluster closely with Lebanese, Syrians, Druze and Jews (especially Mizrahi and ancient Levantine lineages) which supports long-term Levantine continuity. Culture like dialects, agricultural practices, cuisine, village traditions all show local evolution, not wholesale transplantation, too.

Supporting Zionism doesn't need to entail denying Palestinians' ancestral connection to the land.

I'll address the first point in a minute.

Re Arafat, I'm not sure his origins delegitimise Palestinian identity as a whole. Theodore Herzl was a secular Jew who didn't speak Hebrew, he wanted Israel to be a German-speaking Europeanised state. Had it not been for anti Semitism, he would probably have happily stayed the patriotic Austrian he had initially wanted to be. I say this as someone who admires him very much : the point is not to criticise his vision but to point out that modern Israeli Jewish identity is clearly very different in many ways from what Herzl envisaged. Does that make Israel illegitimate?

I've seen bad-faith arguments against Zionism which point out Herzl considered Uganda. This is of course disingenuous because despite being the founder of Zionism, Herzl was pretty untypical of his own movement. To religious, and of course also many non religious Zionists, Zion could not just be transplanted to Uganda (or anywhere else), and they naturally rejected this.

Other bad-faith arguments are that Israeli (as opposed to Jewish) identity is a modern construct, as Israel now has different borders to the ancient one, speaks a language that lots of ancient Israelites didn't speak except for religious purposes (Jesus, for instance, is thought to have spoken Aramaic not Hebrew), comprises people with very different cultures (French Jews, Iraqi Jews, Ethiopian Beta Israel Jews, Karaite Jews etc etc ), and is to a large extent secular. This is clearly wrong and unfair.

Another good example is Ahad Ha'am. He was one of the early cultural Zionists who promoted revival of Hebrew culture. But by his own admission he grew up not particularly connected to Jewish identity, that came later.

I'm not equating Arafat to these people : I don't think he was a positive figure. But I do think that his upbringing isn't really a gotcha that Palestinians are a post-1948 construct.

Re Kuwait, it actually hasn't withdrawn from Pisa rankings.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=al-fanarmedia.org/2019/12/arab-countries-rank-poorly-in-latest-pisa-tests/&ved=2ahUKEwir9pf2nqKSAxWZUkEAHZnuDTAQFnoECBkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2_venOggqOAiNxvzJCLlIj

Kuwait & other Arab countries do rank consistently low, and I agree that a lot of leaders use Jews & Israel as a scapegoat/distraction.

There definitely are examples of Zionist racism towards Arabs. Tragically also Mizrahi, Bene Israel Indian, Ethiopian etc Jews suffered from leaders who had ironically internalised the racial & cultural hierarchy which had proved so harmful.

But I think the case now is much more complex. Palestinian Arabs within Israel are able to freely practice religion, vote, serve in Parliament (the system is not very conducive to Arab parties, tied to wider Haredi domination issue caused by the coalition system, which must change). There is prejudice but it's more complex than simplistic colonial/apartheid comparisons, within Israel.

The West Bank is more difficult : the settlements need to stop, among other things.

Agree mostly with your post.
The life for those in the West Bank and Gaza can’t simply be put to one side as “more difficult.” This is the essence of the problem on which reflection and action is required.

I think you are honestly looking at the movement backwards. The movement is based on antisemitism, and wanting to destroy the Jewish state, and uses practical points to support that, rather than antisemitism being a coincidental element of a good faith movement. Hamas' written mandate calls for elimination of Jews and the Jewish state.

I'm not saying that these practical points don't exist, but they are a means, they are not the true focus.

There is a reason why there is not the same outcry about returning to Jordan, or about any other humanitarian issue that does not involve Israel.

So asking why the antisemitism can't be removed is difficult because antisemitism is the reason why the movement exists.

I think you have to separate desire to return to ancestral land/have more say in governing that land (obviously Arabs can sit in the Knesset but they have very little say in coalitions) from support for Hamas.

An analogy could be to the IRA. A lot of Catholics in Ireland would have agreed with a united Ireland achieved by peaceful means. That wouldn't by default make them IRA supporters.

Clearly Hamas' 'education' system & political program is violently genocidal and those Palestinian Arabs governed by Hamas are to a large extent dangerous and in need of deradicalisation.

A lot of Israel's Arab citizens though would probably want Arabs to have more say in the Knesset (the coalition system has become increasingly difficult for secular Jews, the majority, as well), some form of refugee return (I think allowing actual refugees, mainly elderly now, would be reasonable potentially- not reasonable to count descendants as refugees too), Rabbinate less involved in marriage etc (the lack of a civil marriage system is a bone of contention beyond Arabs), Arabic as a second official language (which was the case during the British Mandate).

Does this mean any Palestinian Arab, Israeli or living elsewhere, who supports changes like that is automatically a Hamas supporter who wants the elimination of Israel and Israeli Jews?

Palestinian Arabs' desire to return to ancestral homeland predates Hamas and can't be written off as anti Semitic by default.

Sorry, I wanted to do more than one post as I have a few more points...

Re the Jordan point, I don't really think it's a comparable situation : Jordan annexed the West Bank and granted citizenship to many Palestinians, and millions still live there today. Jordan is not the ancestral homeland. Palestinian nationalism, like other national movements, is rooted in specific land, villages, and family history — not just in generic Arab identity.

No, I agree it can't be put to one side.

I honestly think the best way to fix this and many other issues would be to reform the coalition system. It was never meant to be permanent. The kingmaker role of the Haredi parties is not sustainable : clearly a growing proportion of Israeli Jews being exempt from army & doing less or no paid work is unworkable, among other issues.

Hamas need to be stopped & dismantled but as you say, civilians there have legitimate grievances and problems which need to be honestly addressed.

'There is a reason why there is not the same outcry about any other humanitarian issue that does not involve Israel.'

Do you mean that Palestinian Arabs don't speak about any other issue they face that doesn't involve Israel? Or more that Western campaigners for Palestine don't mention it?

This ties into the issue with Arab anti semitism not being critiqued in -movement. There's evidence of people who do oppose Hamas within the West Bank but are intimidated with the threat of death. Also, it seems (like Afghanistan and many other countries), a lot of the issue is complicated by tribal fighting and clan allegiances which would tie into reluctance to speak out about serious problems which are not caused by Israel.

The Haredi do seem issue for Israel in more ways than one.
However, I am not so sure that it’s only this sector of the Israeli population that hasn’t supported Netanyahu’s approach to dealing with Arabs within Gaza and West Bank. I have read that Israeli youth are also quite right wing, which shows how deep some of the prejudices run (both ways).

Edward Said and other historians would disagree with you on the no group identity and the recent migrants onto the land mythos.

Yasser Arafat was born in Cairo to Palestinian parents in 1929. He was as Egyptian as Boris Johnson is American.

Arafat was the first to link being Arab to being Palestinian and this was for political reasons as he wanted his co-religionists in neighbouring states to back his cause for a Palestinian State.