It always baffles me to think how much abstractions that Einstein's mind could contain. His philosophical, political, and scientific views reflect his sheer ability to make abstractions from first principles. Also, what is more baffling is his sheer ability to sustain those thoughts in his minds for years. The whole progression of thoughts regarding special relativity/general relativity went on for more than a decade with few years of intense work in-between. Einstein exemplified the power of devising thought experiments in mind and then substantiating those thought experiments with reasoning, observation and math for years to come. Interestingly, he failed to persuade the world leaders to destroy nuclear weapons that were threat to human kind and were not that useful in the actual war events.Say something about our greatest mind finds hard to do. Btw, I love his humor.
I'll put that one right next to my copy of "Nietzsche as an Aryan and a Scholar".
But seriously, this whole identifying as "Jew" like it were a Dr. Pepper commercial is getting tiresome. When are we going to be happy just being "Human"? Of what I read, Old Dr. E would have liked that title better. And I am 100% certain while he supported the creation of the new Israel in the early days, we wouldn't have been at all happy about what has become of things now.
The whole premise of the book is looking at some of Einstein's actions through the lens of his Jewish identity and heritage (and also as a philosopher). Which is quite different compared to the prism he's usually viewed through, namely as a scientist.
I don't understand why that bothers you so much. Are you equally bothered when people identify as a 'coder' or 'entrepreneur' as is quite common in this forum?
For me the issue is that Jewish identity is presented as always being good, while Aryan/White/European/Whatever_you_want_to_call_it identity is presented as being evil and racist.
Sure, these things exist at a different granularity, but that doesn't explain why one is ok and the other is evil.
Many of Einstein's actions were driven by the fact that he detected growing anti-Semitism early on. In fact, he relinquished his German citizenship twice because of this, and it was largely his fear and prediction of persecution that brought him to the US.
I don't think it's a question of Good vs Evil, but rather what was happening at that specific point in time - the fact that Jewish Germans were very publicly discriminated against (to the point where Jewish University academics in Germany were forced to hand in their resignation and barred from ever being public servants almost overnight).
Actually, you are right. He didn't at all like the development of Israel and he has expressed it several times in both personal letters and as undersigned.
Nietzsche was co-opted by his sister (who was a proto-National Socialist) and was strongly misinterpreted. In fact, Nietzsche was strongly anti-German nationalism and anti-Anti-Semitic, which lead to a fallout with his idol, Wagner.
Well, since Jews believe that the quality of being a Jew is inherited from the mother (for the more Orthodox amongst them), regardless of one's degree of adherence to the religion, then identifying as a Jew seems kosher (pun intended).
It's instructive to me to compare Zionism with the process of the invasion of the Americas by Europeans.
The majority of European invaders of America desired to establish new nations where old ones existed, wiping out, marginalizing or assimilating the existing ones, and creating societies where White Europeans were dominant, and which existed to preserve White European culture. This is equivalent to mainstream Zionism.
Now Einstein was a Labor Zionist. Imagine a European who roundly condemned the atrocities of European invaders of America, but supported them because he believed that ordinary Europeans and Native Americans had more in common than they had differences, and there were no real barriers to living in peace in a socialist democracy. Rings kind of hollow, doesn't it?
European nations didn't invade america or later part of Africa, to create new nations. That's why it's called colonianism : they wanted to extend their own territories.
Zionism is a process for a people to find a land where it would be autonomous ( under the principle that every people should have the right to be master of its own destiny). In that regard, the desire for palestinians to create a palestinian state, or for the kurds to create a kurdish state is the exact same principle. I guess you wouldn't call that colonialism.
Whether you are extending an existing nation or creating a new one is an irrelevant distinction. The point is that people bring in a group that did not live there previously, and establish a new society in that land.
You seem to treat it as a detail that the land where Zionists would be autonomous, was already occupied by non-Jews. The desire for Palestinians or Kurds to create a state is a different matter since they already lived there.
Your argument reminds me of the "terra nullius" argument used to justify the invasion of Australia. Being pedantic about the definition of a nation does't fly when discussing the terra nullius doctrine, and it's no more reasonable when discussing Zionism.
I suggest you look for the term "old yishuv".
Jerusalem for example has always had jews living there, and this also is also the only land where a jewish people had ever had a kingdom or any kind of autonomy ( althoug that was a really long time ago indeed). Also, the land they arrived in "belonged" to the ottoman empire, and then the british colonial empire, which both ceased to exist. Only then did the state of israel began to exist.
But you're right, the ideology came from europe, and the vast majority of israelis came from other part of the world. Also, there aren't any part of the world where jews would have had lived long enough to claim the right for an autonomous regime (thanks in good part to antisemitism).
All that makes it indeed a very specific story, which is really hard to compare to anything else really.
You are still trying to restrict the concept of a nation to a narrow definition that suits your needs. Palestinians have been continuously living in the area for as long as Jews. But their claim to the land is stronger since they were still living there at the turn of the century, while the European and other Jews who emigrated after the establishment of Israel did not.
I suggest you look into the history of Palestinians, their genetics and history. For example, Ashkenazi Jews and Palestinians are genetically very similar. Some hypothesize that Palestinians are descendants of Jews who converted to Islam.
Regarding the solution to the problem of Jewish people lacking a homeland, I don't have an easy solution for that. But at the very least a solution would involve acknowledging the similarities between Zionism and European Nationalism. You say the Jewish story is incomparable to other situations, but I think the parallels I've drawn are sufficient for most people to see that there is some discrepancy between how American liberals approach Israel, vs other kinds of ethnic nationalism.
I'm sorry but the only similarity i see is that some people moved to another place for some reason.
The people are different, the reasons are different, the people's histories are different, the places are different and the place's histories are different... I have seen more relevant analogies.
As for the legitimity of arabs to live in that place as well, i don't know who you're trying to convince, because to my knowledge nobody denied that right, as the OP proves. The difference between the various zionists parties lies in regard to the importance of maintaining good relations between arabs and jews to prevent wars, and its ability to prevent them (or not).
My point regarding Palestinians is that only the Palestinians had a right to sovereignty in that area (just like only Aboriginal Australians had a right to sovereignty over Australia). Unlike the old yishuv, the Palestinians were the vast majority, making them the only legitimate rulers of that area of land, and also making the establishment of Israel and mass immigration by Jews illegitimate.
I can't help you see an analogy that you are unwilling to see. At some point people have to use judgment and intuition, beyond mere facts. In any case, here are the key points
1. A group of people wish to establish a new society in an area of land.
2. There are already people living in that land.
3. Some attempts are made to justify this by claiming that the people living there do not comprise a nation.
4. Arguing for peaceful coexistence in such circumstances is hollow.
I see your point, but the land itself has a very different history.
European never lived in america, or in australia, no matter how far you go in the past. Jewish people only historical land is in judea ( where it got its biblical name) / palestine. English or french or spanish didn't claim to "return" to america, and not a single archeological american item features scrolls written in english telling how life was when english lived there..
No palestinian kingdom or nation has ever existed, and this land was under the ruling of turks since the 13th century, and it has belonged to many different people througout history. Saying that only the arabs are legitimate there is a strange view of history. It is just one of the multiple people that has a strong connexion with that land ( the most recent one, that is right , and as such a very important one).
The history of the land is irrelevant here. The idea that you can claim ownership of a land because it used to be your homeland thousands of years ago is completely abstract. While the hard reality is that in order to take, or retake, ownership of that land, you have to displace other people that has been living there for many generations. You can't do it peacefully. You have to take their houses, their fields, evacuate and destroy their villages, steal their property, and push them back each time they try to defend themselves against all this.
Remote history won't convince anybody, anywhere, to leave their houses and live in a refugee camp. Though it might work to give a veneer of reasonableness to this expropriation, for the exclusive benefit of those who won't lose anything in the process.
They didn't claim "ownership". People seem to forget jews didn't invade this land militarely. Under the ottoman empire or the british empire that would have been foolish. They purchased pieces of land.
Only when the empire collapsed after two world wars, and israel was created, did people start to fight overall the country.
Let's not inverse the chronology here. They didn't come from russia and ukraine with guns, but with agricultural tools. The Tel aviv region was built from scratch out of swamps and rocks that noone wanted. It wasn't "claimed". The fact that population got displaced is a result from wars, that happened after the state was created, and which were absolutely not part of the initial project.
I agree that the existence of Jews in Israel for thousands of years presents a difference but I think this difference is small for the following reasons.
1. The Jewish connection to Israel has been exaggerated by Zionists. The Jewish people were one of many living in present day Israel/Palestine (see [0])
2. The existence of a Palestinian nation or kingdom is irrelevant, because a group of people can have a unique identity regardless of who is ruling them. Furthermore, there is no reason why the granularity of Jewish identity is the only relevant kind of identity. If Palestinians really only did possess a pan-Arab identity, it doesn't logically follow that they can be pushed out of where they live into any other Arab country.
3. Palestinians have been a recognizable nation since 700AD
3. Having left Israel and lived in Europe and other places for so long, Jewish people lost their right to return.
Starting with your point number 1: Yes, perhaps Zionists stress the Jewish connection to Israel. But that's what makes them Zionists in the first place. Zionism is the belief that the Jews should return to the land of Zion--Israel (in Latin, Palistine). And it is also true that there has existed a strong desire to return to Israel in the Jewish people from the begining. Leaving Egypt, one could argue, was about returning to the land of Israel. A little more concretely, I suggest you read the book of Lamentations. Lamentations is a poem about returning to Israel after the Babylonian exile. After reading passages such as "If I forget Jerusalem, I will forget my right hand," it is evident that a passionate desire to return to Israel is not a fabrication by modern Zionists, but rather an integral part of the identity of the Jew. You then proceed with a non sequitor. Why does the existance of other people living in the land of Israel lessen the Jewish tie to the land of Israel? Finally, the website that you link to is officially recognized to be anti-semetic, so don't count on impartial information from it.
I don't quite understand what you're getting at in your second point. Are you saying that the Palestinians have their own identity? I'm sure they do. It just isn't clear to me how that backs up your argument. I'm genuinely curious.
As for your first point number three, I don't see its validity. There was no such thing as a nation until the rise of nationalism--far after 700 C.E.
Next, in response to your second point number three, going into the Diaspora was not a choice for the Jews. They were forced out. Do they lose the right to return after being forcefully evicted?
Finally, we can argue about political theory all we want. The bottom line is that Israel exists. Even if you do not agree with its policies, you should not advocate for its destruction. Israel is a sovereign and democratic nation (not to mention a center of growth and innovation) and by virtue of existing, it deserves to exist as much as any other nation does.
Whether Palestine was ever a nation or a kingdom is completely irrelevant to the issue, it seems we agree on this. So the argument made by bsaul that
"No palestinian kingdom or nation has ever existed, and this land was under the ruling of turks since the 13th century, and it has belonged to many different people througout history. Saying that only the arabs are legitimate there is a strange view of history."
has no relevance whatsoever. The only thing that matters is who was occupying the land, and by what means they have been displaced.
IfAmericansKnew.com is not recognized to be an anti semitic website save from those who have a political interest in declaring so (namely, zionist organizations like the Anti Defamation League).
Sure, having being evicted loses you the right of return, at least after a couple thousands years. Living people matters, remote history is an abstract concept.
Finally, I think nobody here has advocated the destruction of Israel. To me, the same principles apply to Israel than those that I've been applying to Palestine: you can't displace people against their will. Settlers are few and recent, they can be removed from the land they're illegally occupying. The rest of Israel will stay where it is, it just has to stop the aggression and the land grabbing.
It would have certainly helped that any entity (kingdom, province, nation, whatever you want) was ever called "Palestinian" whenever you want to claim that "palestinians arabs" are the only legitimate people for this land.
Don't forget that even the term "palestinian" to designate arabs is very recent (1960s). Before that, the conflict was called a conflict between arabs and jews, and didn't even involve the concept of a palestinian right to have its own nation.
And it's fine with me, i don't mind palestinian arabs defining themselves as a people, and wanting an independant state. Just don't claim that it's something that's been there forever and is therefor the only legitimate political construct for the area.
>It would have certainly helped that any entity (kingdom, province, nation, whatever you want) was ever called "Palestinian" whenever you want to claim that "palestinians arabs" are the only legitimate people for this land.
No, it wouldn't, and I have explained why in this and in the other comments on this thread. You should try to address my arguments.
Ok, maybe i didn't understand your point. Then why do you think the palestinians arabs are the only legitimate people on this land (emphasis on "only") ?
And by legitimate, i don't meant the right to steal or kill. Just purchase some land and become autonomous.
You're attributing to me a statement that I haven't made, but only reported from one of your comments in response to one by formulaT. I've never said that Palestinians are the only legitimate people in Palestine now (note the now, I'll get back to it later). What I'm saying is that the fact that in a remote or recent history a Jewish, or Palestinian, or Martian political entity or group or people has existed on the territory is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, as long as those people had been away for long enough for other people to consider that place their own home, and that of their fathers and grandfathers.
Now, you seem to think that it's fine for any group of people in any number to move in mass to some land, as long as they buy their lot of ground and don't steal from others. But as you must certainly understand, it doesn't work like that. There's plenty of empty space in the US, do you think that US citizens would be ok if a few tens of millions of Chinese, or Mexicans, just moved to some empty part of the country and started to build a new nation? Of course not. Every nation in the world, including Israel, has strict immigration laws to prevent immigration in uncontrolled numbers - building a new sovereign state is completely out of the question. And the reason every nation has such a law is that a people rightly considers the land it lives on its own, even the unoccupied parts, and even the privately owned parts to some extent. You can't declare the independence of your house from the nation, even if you paid for the ground it stands on.
Ok, so the mass immigration of Jews in a country in which their number was absolute minority (Jews were 13% of the population in Palestine in 1890) was wrong, and illegitimate. They took advantage of the fact there was no organized nation in place, and all the support they could get from a colonialist state, Great Britain, to move in mass to a land that was occupied by other people. The reason it's wrong is clear when you look at what came from it: mass displacement of the native population, pogroms, war and terrorism from both sides. Clearly it's something that doesn't bring anything good.
But let's get back to that now. Israel was born officially in 1948, and its population was already of one million. That means that most Israelis are born there, and probably their parents were born there as well. Most of them literally don't have anywhere else to go. What are we meant to do to repair the wrong of the illegitimate constitution of Israel, move war to it and force its population to abandon their belongings and disperse again? That would be doing to them exactly what they've done to the Palestinians, and that would be as horrible. So Israel is there to stay.
So, to recapitulate:
1) The remote history is irrelevant, it doesn't change the fact that to take possession of a land you have to displace the native population with violent means - and that's exactly what the Jews did.
2) Moving peacefully to an empty land and do what you please with it is an idea that might seem reasonable to an eight years old; that's not how it goes and facts show it.
3) Therefore, mass immigration in Palestine with the purpose of building a Jewish state was illegitimate and wrong.
4) Now that the Israelis are there you can't force them out of what has become their home. What you must do is to force them to establish a clear border line with their neighbours and to recognize them as an independent and sovereign State (yes, with an army and planes and bombs); to dismantle their illegal settlements and force the settlers to live inside those borders. Dismantle the wall, that they will rebuild as they please inside their own borders, not outside as they did before.
I appreciate your pragmatism when looking at the current situation, and i'm sorry for not understanding your divergence of opinion with formulaT. I still think your analysis is incorrect in many ways :
1/ you complete ignore the fact that, once again zionist didn't invade militarely any land, until the second part of the XXth century after wars that they never wanted. You depict the process of building israel as an intentionnal violent process which it never has been. You'll probably call them utopists or naiv people, and that's a fair thing to say ( although many of them were simply hopeless), but at least you should admit that it is a very different process from a military invasion.
2/ then you seem to forget that until 1945, the immigration of jews on that land was absolutely controlled by the ruling empire ( be it the ottomn empire, then the british). They were not all allowed to come ( tragically, for those who ended up exterminated by the nazis).
2.5/ you call this process illegitimate. But as i've shown, this was a controlled process by ruling empire. Unless you think the ottoman empire , then the british empire were illegitimate, because they weren't democratically elected by the local people ( which have never been ruled by a local organization). But that's a very anachronic judgment. You also compare it to mexican immigrant building a nation inside the US. But zionism wasn't first about building a nation, it was about owning a land that would be used for jews as a safehaven. Then, once it was clear that the british colonial empire would fall or could leave, did the project of having a true nation was put in place. But never was the state of israel proclaimed until no other organization ruled the land.
3/ finally, you dismiss the importance of the historical relation between the jews and the land, as something of no importance. That is something completely subjectiv. It may have no importance to you, or to the local arabs that didn't want jews as neighbours but as others have pointed out it is the major difference for jews. At least you should take this part of the equation into account.
