In answer to The Guardian's Michelle Goldberg : on bi-nationalisms
[the comment placed on the Guardian's 'comments section' along the lines discussed here was removed by their 'moderator'. Makes me wonder after the meaning of 'moderate' and the possible Zionist inclinations of The Guardian. This site is pro-integration, and therefore, by implication, anti-Zionist.]
Said Michelle Goldberg in the Guardian,
“To plenty of people on the left, and not only on the left, there's an easy solution to the Israel dilemma: a single, bi-national state. Like Communism, this seems just in theory but would be catastrophic in practice. Who really believes that the Israelis and Palestinians could coexist in a way that Serbs, Croats and Bosnians could not? The end of Zionism would merely be the beginning of a new nightmare for Jews and Palestinians alike.
Yet Israel is doing much to make even the pained, conflicted love of liberal Jews impossible. Without a two-state solution, the country will soon consist of a Jewish minority ruling over an oppressed Arab majority. Comparisons to South Africa will become ever more apt. And when the Arabs living under Israel's thumb demand their vote, they'll have justice and the sympathy of the world on their side. The idea of liberal Zionism will become an outright contradiction.”
(source)
Now that sounds like something straight out of the BNP's manifesto, or a paraphrasing of Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech, unless I’m reading it incorrectly.
[image by a2ed.com]
Everything can be discounted as 'theory' on the basis of people being trained out of the perspectives required to put a 'theory' into practice reflexively. Habituation is the midwife of reflex, and enforcement is the conceiver of habituation.
Arguing by stating that since it didn't work for the Serbs, Croats and Bosnians, it wouldn't work for anyone, seems like the rubbish one might hear in a 'Legalist/Confucian' state where people, regardless of ethnicity, are trained to not appreciate the detail in reality for absorption with the familiar. The Serb, Croat and Bosnian situation, rather than serving as an argument against integration, points out the factors that compromises it. In that, we are empowered to do more. Thus, a 'bi-national' state, as Michelle call’s it, is achievable, prior to it moving on to become a 'national' state via integration.
Perhaps the problem lies in our approaching it as 'bi-nationalism'. That is backward-looking and not progressive as it detracts our attention from the potential of any people to form a unitary whole where all 'nationals' can comprise a singular race of people of different dialect groups. I'd prefer to focus on what people can be through integration instead of relying on their past or existing biases to maintain an exclusive status quo. After all, that is how 'national races’ taken for granted today were united in the past. That is how the 'chinese' became chinese where it would certainly not have been the case a couple of thousand years ago across such a vast land. If they had observed Michelle's stance, they would probably be fragmented like India today - which might not be that bad a thing since this enriches the perspectival arsenal of the people as a whole.
Michelle’s approach toward the issue would not be dissimilar to those that fuel that of some Arabs whom as erroneously think that the best way to resolve this situation is to 'nuke Israel' or 'push it into the sea' since integration or 'bi-nationalism' is just 'theory'. In fact, it isn't 'theory' but an ideal that requires a change in an insecurity-induced mindset for the greater good of what might be garnered from different others via integration. And I don't think much of Michelle's perspectival sleights-of-hand in reinforcing her argument via association with 'communism' which might be 'just' but is just 'theory'. Are all theories to be discounted because one has been proven to be untrue? Is Palestinian and Jewish integration to be assigned to the theoretical bin because of the Yugoslavian situation? Was Hitler justified in slaughtering millions of Jews because one kicked him in the shins? And anyway, I'm really tired of saying this, the USSR and China were 'state capitalist' nations, not 'communist'. Assumptions based on fallacies. Michelle is recommending that a bi-national state is less-preferable to a 2-state solution to get around oppressive Zionism. Quite the paradox. At the end of the day, it seems that her main goal is to maintain the Judaeo-ethnic purity of the Israeli state.
If Michelle Goldberg isn't a card-carrying member of the BNP, she ought to be given one, whilst I’m sure the BNP would appreciate her flashing it outside of the UK.
according2,
ed
 |
| image by ed |
Said Michelle Goldberg in the Guardian,
“To plenty of people on the left, and not only on the left, there's an easy solution to the Israel dilemma: a single, bi-national state. Like Communism, this seems just in theory but would be catastrophic in practice. Who really believes that the Israelis and Palestinians could coexist in a way that Serbs, Croats and Bosnians could not? The end of Zionism would merely be the beginning of a new nightmare for Jews and Palestinians alike.
Yet Israel is doing much to make even the pained, conflicted love of liberal Jews impossible. Without a two-state solution, the country will soon consist of a Jewish minority ruling over an oppressed Arab majority. Comparisons to South Africa will become ever more apt. And when the Arabs living under Israel's thumb demand their vote, they'll have justice and the sympathy of the world on their side. The idea of liberal Zionism will become an outright contradiction.”
(source)
Now that sounds like something straight out of the BNP's manifesto, or a paraphrasing of Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech, unless I’m reading it incorrectly.
[image by a2ed.com]
Everything can be discounted as 'theory' on the basis of people being trained out of the perspectives required to put a 'theory' into practice reflexively. Habituation is the midwife of reflex, and enforcement is the conceiver of habituation.
Arguing by stating that since it didn't work for the Serbs, Croats and Bosnians, it wouldn't work for anyone, seems like the rubbish one might hear in a 'Legalist/Confucian' state where people, regardless of ethnicity, are trained to not appreciate the detail in reality for absorption with the familiar. The Serb, Croat and Bosnian situation, rather than serving as an argument against integration, points out the factors that compromises it. In that, we are empowered to do more. Thus, a 'bi-national' state, as Michelle call’s it, is achievable, prior to it moving on to become a 'national' state via integration.
Perhaps the problem lies in our approaching it as 'bi-nationalism'. That is backward-looking and not progressive as it detracts our attention from the potential of any people to form a unitary whole where all 'nationals' can comprise a singular race of people of different dialect groups. I'd prefer to focus on what people can be through integration instead of relying on their past or existing biases to maintain an exclusive status quo. After all, that is how 'national races’ taken for granted today were united in the past. That is how the 'chinese' became chinese where it would certainly not have been the case a couple of thousand years ago across such a vast land. If they had observed Michelle's stance, they would probably be fragmented like India today - which might not be that bad a thing since this enriches the perspectival arsenal of the people as a whole.
Michelle’s approach toward the issue would not be dissimilar to those that fuel that of some Arabs whom as erroneously think that the best way to resolve this situation is to 'nuke Israel' or 'push it into the sea' since integration or 'bi-nationalism' is just 'theory'. In fact, it isn't 'theory' but an ideal that requires a change in an insecurity-induced mindset for the greater good of what might be garnered from different others via integration. And I don't think much of Michelle's perspectival sleights-of-hand in reinforcing her argument via association with 'communism' which might be 'just' but is just 'theory'. Are all theories to be discounted because one has been proven to be untrue? Is Palestinian and Jewish integration to be assigned to the theoretical bin because of the Yugoslavian situation? Was Hitler justified in slaughtering millions of Jews because one kicked him in the shins? And anyway, I'm really tired of saying this, the USSR and China were 'state capitalist' nations, not 'communist'. Assumptions based on fallacies. Michelle is recommending that a bi-national state is less-preferable to a 2-state solution to get around oppressive Zionism. Quite the paradox. At the end of the day, it seems that her main goal is to maintain the Judaeo-ethnic purity of the Israeli state.
If Michelle Goldberg isn't a card-carrying member of the BNP, she ought to be given one, whilst I’m sure the BNP would appreciate her flashing it outside of the UK.
according2,
ed
Comments
Post a Comment
The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.
Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.