Mar 11, 2013

On Questioning the Jewish State and Finding Palestine





On Questioning the Jewish State


The Stone
The Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers on issues both timely and timeless.
I was raised in a religious Jewish environment, and though we were not strongly Zionist, I always took it to be self-evident that “Israel has a right to exist.” Now anyone who has debated the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will have encountered this phrase often. Defenders of Israeli policies routinely accuse Israel’s critics of denying her right to exist, while the critics (outside of a small group on the left, where I now find myself) bend over backward to insist that, despite their criticisms, of course they affirm it. The general mainstream consensus seems to be that to deny Israel’s right to exist is a clear indication of anti-Semitism (a charge Jews like myself are not immune to), and therefore not an option for people of conscience.
What does it mean for a people to have a state “of their own”?
Over the years I came to question this consensus and to see that the general fealty to it has seriously constrained open debate on the issue, one of vital importance not just to the people directly involved — Israelis and Palestinians — but to the conduct of our own foreign policy and, more important, to the safety of the world at large. My view is that one really ought to question Israel’s right to exist and that doing so does not manifest anti-Semitism. The first step in questioning the principle, however, is to figure out what it means.
Leif Parsons
One problem with talking about this question calmly and rationally is that the phrase “right to exist” sounds awfully close to “right to life,” so denying Israel its right to exist sounds awfully close to permitting the extermination of its people. In light of the history of Jewish persecution, and the fact that Israel was created immediately after and largely as a consequence of the Holocaust, it isn’t surprising that the phrase “Israel’s right to exist” should have this emotional impact. But as even those who insist on the principle will admit, they aren’t claiming merely the impermissibility of exterminating Israelis. So what is this “right” that many uphold as so basic that to question it reflects anti-Semitism and yet is one that I claim ought to be questioned?
The key to the interpretation is found in the crucial four words that are often tacked on to the phrase “Israel’s right to exist” — namely, “… as a Jewish state.” As I understand it, the principle that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state has three parts: first, that Jews, as a collective, constitute a people in the sense that they possess a right to self-determination; second, that a people’s right to self-determination entails the right to erect a state of their own, a state that is their particular people’s state; and finally, that for the Jewish people the geographical area of the former Mandatory Palestine, their ancestral homeland, is the proper place for them to exercise this right to self-determination.
The claim then is that anyone who denies Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is guilty of anti-Semitism because they are refusing to grant Jews the same rights as other peoples possess. If indeed this were true, if Jews were being singled out in the way many allege, I would agree that it manifests anti-Jewish bias. But the charge that denying Jews a right to a Jewish state amounts to treating the Jewish people differently from other peoples cannot be sustained.
Leif Parsons
To begin, since the principle has three parts, it follows that it can be challenged in (at least) three different ways: either deny that Jews constitute “a people” in the relevant sense, deny that the right to self-determination really involves what advocates of the principle claim it does, or deny that Jews have the requisite claim on the geographical area in question.
In fact, I think there is a basis to challenge all three, but for present purposes I will focus on the question of whether a people’s right to self-determination entails their right to a state of their own, and set aside whether Jews count as a people and whether Jews have a claim on that particular land. I do so partly for reasons of space, but mainly because these questions have largely (though not completely) lost their importance.
The fact is that today millions of Jews live in Israel and, ancestral homeland or not, this is their home now. As for whether Jews constitute a people, this is a vexed question given the lack of consensus in general about what it takes for any particular group of people to count as “a people.” The notion of “a people” can be interpreted in different ways, with different consequences for the rights that they possess. My point is that even if we grant Jews their peoplehood and their right to live in that land, there is still no consequent right to a Jewish state.
However, I do think that it’s worth noting the historical irony in insisting that it is anti-Semitic to deny that Jews constitute a people. The 18th and 19th centuries were the period of Jewish “emancipation” in Western Europe, when the ghetto walls were torn down and Jews were granted the full rights of citizenship in the states within which they resided. The anti-Semitic forces in those days, those opposing emancipation, were associated not with denying Jewish peoplehood but with emphatically insisting on it! The idea was that since Jews constituted a nation of their own, they could not be loyal citizens of any European state. The liberals who strongly opposed anti-Semitism insisted that Jews could both practice their religion and uphold their cultural traditions while maintaining full citizenship in the various nation-states in which they resided.
But, as I said, let’s grant that Jews are a people. Well, if they are, and if with the status of a people comes the right to self-determination, why wouldn’t they have a right to live under a Jewish state in their homeland? The simple answer is because many non-Jews (rightfully) live there too. But this needs unpacking.
Leif Parsons
First, it’s important to note, as mentioned above, that the term “a people” can be used in different ways, and sometimes they get confused. In particular, there is a distinction to be made between a people in the ethnic sense and a people in the civic sense. Though there is no general consensus on this, a group counts as a people in the ethnic sense by virtue of common language, common culture, common history and attachment to a common territory. One can easily see why Jews, scattered across the globe, speaking many different languages and defined largely by religion, present a difficult case. But, as I said above, for my purposes it doesn’t really matter, and I will just assume the Jewish people qualify.
The other sense is the civic one, which applies to a people by virtue of their common citizenship in a nation-state or, alternatively, by virtue of their common residence within relatively defined geographic borders. So whereas there is both an ethnic and a civic sense to be made of the term “French people,” the term “Jewish people” has only an ethnic sense. This can easily be seen by noting that the Jewish people is not the same group as the Israeli people. About 20 percent of Israeli citizens are non-Jewish Palestinians, while the vast majority of the Jewish people are not citizens of Israel and do not live within any particular geographic area. “Israeli people,” on the other hand, has only a civic sense. (Of course often the term “Israelis” is used as if it applies only to Jewish Israelis, but this is part of the problem. More on this below.)
So, when we consider whether or not a people has a right to a state of their own, are we speaking of a people in the ethnic sense or the civic one? I contend that insofar as the principle that all peoples have the right to self-determination entails the right to a state of their own, it can apply to peoples only in the civic sense.
After all, what is it for a people to have a state “of their own”? Here’s a rough characterization: the formal institutions and legal framework of the state serves to express, encourage and favor that people’s identity. The distinctive position of that people would be manifested in a number of ways, from the largely symbolic to the more substantive: for example, it would be reflected in the name of the state, the nature of its flag and other symbols, its national holidays, its education system, its immigration rules, the extent to which membership in the people in question is a factor in official planning, how resources are distributed, etc. If the people being favored in this way are just the state’s citizens, it is not a problem. (Of course those who are supercosmopolitan, denying any legitimacy to the borders of nation-states, will disagree. But they aren’t a party to this debate.)
But if the people who “own” the state in question are an ethnic sub-group of the citizenry, even if the vast majority, it constitutes a serious problem indeed, and this is precisely the situation of Israel as the Jewish state. Far from being a natural expression of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, it is in fact a violation of the right to self-determination of its non-Jewish (mainly Palestinian) citizens. It is a violation of a people’s right to self-determination to exclude them — whether by virtue of their ethnic membership, or for any other reason — from full political participation in the state under whose sovereignty they fall. Of course Jews have a right to self-determination in this sense as well — this is what emancipation was all about. But so do non-Jewish peoples living in the same state.
Any state that “belongs” to one ethnic group within it violates the core democratic principle of equality, and the self-determination rights of the non-members of that group.
If the institutions of a state favor one ethnic group among its citizenry in this way, then only the members of that group will feel themselves fully a part of the life of the state. True equality, therefore, is only realizable in a state that is based on civic peoplehood. As formulated by both Jewish- and Palestinian-Israeli activists on this issue, a truly democratic state that fully respects the self-determination rights of everyone under its sovereignty must be a “state of all its citizens.”
This fundamental point exposes the fallacy behind the common analogy, drawn by defenders of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, between Israel’s right to be Jewish and France’s right to be French. The appropriate analogy would instead be between France’s right to be French (in the civic sense) and Israel’s right to be Israeli.
Leif Parsons
I conclude, then, that the very idea of a Jewish state is undemocratic, a violation of the self-determination rights of its non-Jewish citizens, and therefore morally problematic. But the harm doesn’t stop with the inherently undemocratic character of the state. For if an ethnic national state is established in a territory that contains a significant number of non-members of that ethnic group, it will inevitably face resistance from the land’s other inhabitants. This will force the ethnic nation controlling the state to resort to further undemocratic means to maintain their hegemony. Three strategies to deal with resistance are common: expulsion, occupation and institutional marginalization. Interestingly, all three strategies have been employed by the Zionist movement: expulsion in 1948 (and, to a lesser extent, in 1967), occupation of the territories conquered in 1967 and institution of a complex web of laws that prevent Israel’s Palestinian citizens from mounting an internal challenge to the Jewish character of the state. (The recent outrage in Israel over a proposed exclusion of ultra-Orthodox parties from the governing coalition, for example, failed to note that no Arab political party has ever been invited to join the government.) In other words, the wrong of ethnic hegemony within the state leads to the further wrong of repression against the Other within its midst.
There is an unavoidable conflict between being a Jewish state and a democratic state. I want to emphasize that there’s nothing anti-Semitic in pointing this out, and it’s time the question was discussed openly on its merits, without the charge of anti-Semitism hovering in the background.
Joseph Levine is a professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, where he teaches and writes on philosophy of mind, metaphysics and political philosophy. He is the author of “Purple Haze: The Puzzle of Consciousness.”

The Beautiful Alvin Lee, British Blues-Rock Guitarist, Dies at 68


Alvin Lee, British Blues-Rock Guitarist, Dies at 68

  • FACEBOOK
  • TWITTER
  • GOOGLE+
  • SAVE
  • E-MAIL
  • SHARE
  • PRINT
  • REPRINTS
Alvin Lee, whose fire-fingered guitar playing drove the British blues-rock band Ten Years After to stardom in the 1960s and early ’70s, died on Wednesday in Spain. He was 68.
Gijsbert Hanekroot/Redferns, via Getty Images
Alvin Lee, the guitarist of Ten Years After, performing in Amsterdam in 1972. He played with the band, which broke up and reassembled, until 2003.
Arts Twitter Logo.

Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow@nytimesarts for arts and entertainment news.
Arts & Entertainment Guide
A sortable calendar of noteworthy cultural events in the New York region, selected by Times critics.
He died “after unforeseen complications following a routine surgical procedure,” according to a brief post by family members on his Web site. His manager, Ron Rainey, said that Mr. Lee had been living in southern Spain for some time.
Mr. Lee was not as well known as other emerging British guitar stars of the era, including Eric Clapton, Jimmy Page, Jeff Beck and perhaps even Albert Lee, with whom he was occasionally confused (and with whom he once recorded alongside Jerry Lee Lewis). But he was among the nimblest when it came to musicianship.
On his Gibson ES-335 Mr. Lee could shift instantly from speedy single-string leads to rhythmic riffs while doing his best to sing like his American blues heroes. He grew up listening to his father’s Big Bill Broonzy and Lonnie Johnson records in Nottingham, England.
Ten Years After attracted a following during its first tour of the United States, in 1968, and the band would tour the country many more times through the early ’70s, known less for hit songs than for extended jams.
“The strange thing was we had gone to what I considered to be the home of the blues, but they’d never heard of most of them, and I couldn’t believe it — ‘Big Bill who?’ ” Mr. Lee recalled in a 2003 interview with Classic Rock magazine. “We were recycling American music and they were calling it the English sound.”
The live album “Undead,” released in 1968, captured the tight sound and feel of the band’s shows in smaller performance spaces, and its success helped put the band on bigger stages. Ten Years After played at the Woodstock festival in August 1969, and its climactic song, a version of the band’s signature blues vamp, “I’m Going Home,” was included in both the movie “Woodstock” and the accompanying album.
More successful tours and albums followed, including “Cricklewood Green” and “Watt.” Then, during a break in 1971 intended to provide time for musical exploration, Mr. Lee wrote the band’s only Top 40 hit, “I’d Love to Change the World.” The song’s more commercial sound was a departure, and Mr. Lee later said he was not sure it had been a wise one.
“I hated it because it was a hit,” he said in 2003. “By then I was rebelling, and I never played it live. To me it was a pop song.”
By the mid-’70s Ten Years After had disbanded and Mr. Lee was pursuing other genres. He even recorded an album, “On the Road to Freedom,” with a gospel singer, Mylon LeFevre, accompanied by George Harrison, Ron Wood, Steve Winwood and other big names. By the end of the decade he was touring as a solo act and at one point put together a band he called Ten Years Later.
Ten Years After regrouped in 1983 and Mr. Lee played with the band off and on until 2003. After that, it continued to tour and record with a new guitarist, Joe Gooch.
Alvin Lee was born on Dec. 19, 1944, in Nottingham, and began playing guitar at age 13. Two years later he was performing with the bassist Leo Lyons, and by the 1960s they were playing in a band called the Jaybirds in small clubs in England and Germany. The band changed its name to Ten Years After in 1967.
The name was a homage to the emergence of Elvis Presley about a decade earlier. In 2004 Mr. Lee recorded a solo album, “In Tennessee,” with the guitarist Scotty Moore and the drummer D. J. Fontana, who had both worked with Presley in his early years. Mr. Lee’s most recent album, “Still on the Road to Freedom,” came out in the fall.
Survivors include his wife, Evi, and his daughter, Jasmin.
  • SAVE
  • E-MAIL
  • SHARE

Mar 1, 2013

Finding Palestine...BIKE PALESTINE



Finding Palestine......


On the news, here in San Diego, we only hear about a war-torn Palestine.......

Being of a curious nature, call me Larry King, I had to find out more.....

My thing...bringing the world together with food and fabric; getting the kids ready for school in the morning--the focus is not really politics--moms and dads, just trying to get through the activities of daily living.

How to get there and see it for myself.....

Finding a tour.......

I can't resist this one--its seems friendly and like an awful lot of fun.

BIKE PALESTINE  PALESTINE CYCLE TOURS...

please click on the link below to see more of this beautiful website:


Oh my gosh, I'm there!

I want to talk a little bit about the website:

I copied this from the website.......

Hello- my name is George Snow. I'm a filmmaker working in London but living in Italy. I am responsible for organising the Bike Palestine tour in concert with the Siraj Centre in Bethlehem, Palestine.

On the following pages I'd like to give you an idea of what to expect on a Bike Palestine tour- but most especially I want to tell you why I love this country, its people and why I have spent a great deal of my time there- away from my desk and daily responsibilities and revelling in a land steeped in history, endowed with divine scenery and blessed by the kindest and most generous people on this planet.

Email me on george@bikepalestine.com for more information


to be continued....chloe louise........

Feb 24, 2013

Personally, I'm Starting to Get a Bad Feeling About the Oscar--Reeva Story


  1. OSCAR PISTORIUS
.........copied from    the telegraph.co.uk

Oscar Pistorius 'was told to back off from Reeva Steenkamp'

Oscar Pistorius subjected Reeva Steenkamp to such intense emotional pressure in the early days of the relationship that her best friend's father was forced to warm him to "back off".

Athlete back in court over premeditated murder charge after killing his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.
Reeva Steenkamp and Oscar Pistorius 
Cyril Myers, who Miss Steenkamp lived with in Johannesburg said he had found Pistorius to be "very moody" as he wooed the young model who felt caged in by his attentions.
"Very nice and charming to us when they started dating. Then he always came in to say hello. But when they began to date steadily, he just dropped her and picked her up.
"That's not right. I call it respect. If you're in a relationship and you pick up the 'daughter' in the house, at least come in and say hello." After the couple's first date, Pistorius "would not leave her alone", Mr Myers said.
Reeva Steenkamp with Oscar Pistorius at the SA Sports Awards (Reuters)
"He kept pestering her, phoning and phoning and phoning her. Oscar was hasty and impatient and very moody – that's my impression of him.
"She told me he pushed her a bit into a corner. She felt caged in. I told her I would talk to him. I told him not to force himself on her. Back off.
"He agreed, but his face showed me what he was thinking: 'Oh, this guy is talking nonsense'."
Mr Myers described his anger when he heard about Reeva's death, and that it was Pistorius who had killed her.
"She was my little girl, and he shot her four times from behind a closed door. One shot may have been a mistake – but four times?," he said.
"I have a printing business, and I had large, framed photographs of Oscar and myself. I smashed them all. I don't want to know anything about him.
Miss Steenkamp had lived with Mr Myers, a commercial printer, and his wife Desi since September, and the couple's daughter Kim was the model's closest friend in the city.
Pallbearers carry the coffin of Reeva Steenkamp into the crematorium building in Port Elizabeth (AFP/Getty Images)
He said the Paralympian would have to live with his conscience regardless of the outcome of the forthcoming trial.
"I wouldn't do anything to him, because when it's finished and done, he must live with it. I hope he gets a long sentence. Gets what he deserves.
"People will stay away from him now. Women too, they will be too afraid, no girl wants her a**e shot off. And if my daughter wanted to go out with him, the pawpaw would hit the proverbial fan." Mr Myers said he had decided to talk to the newspaper because, "everywhere you go, it's just Oscar, Oscar".
"But Reeva was the victim, her voice must be heard too. People must know who Reeva Steenkamp was," he said.
did not originally plan to stay with Oscar Pistorius the night she died but changed her mind because it became too late for her to drive home safely, her best friend's father has said.
Oscar Pistorius with Reeva Steenkamp at a friend's engagement party in January
Miss Steenkamp, who grew up in Port Elizabeth, used to introduce him to her friends as her "Joburg dad".
"I've got this thing with all three children (Reeva, and his daughters, Kim and Gina), if they don't come home at night, they must text me," Mr Myers told South Africa's City Press newspaper.
"Then Reeva sent the (SMS) message: 'Hi guys, I'm too tired. It's too far to drive. I'm sleeping at Oscar's tonight. See you tomorrow'.
"Tomorrow never dawned for her I have nightmares at night thinking how frightened she must have been. Can you imagine how terrified she was?"
Police asked Mr Myers, his daughter, Kim, and his son, David, formally to identify Miss Steenkamp's body the morning that she was killed.
"We looked at her through a glass window. She was . . . you know . . . the way someone looks who has been shot . . . The police tried to make it easier for us," he said.
He did not describe Miss Steenkamp's injuries further. Police on Sunday denied reports that Pistorius used a cricket bat found at his house to assault his girlfriend before shooting her.
Mr Myers, who identified Miss Steenkamp's body, told the Daily Telegraph that he was "surprised" by reports that she had been assaulted with a cricket bat.
"When I identified Reeva, I saw no indication of that", he said. "The first I knew about it was when I read it in the papers. I do not know where that came from".
No such evidence was entered by the prosecution during pre-trial proceedings to decide if Pistorius would be granted bail, even though it would likely have affected the magistrate's ruling.

cl.......to me this story has many of the hallmarks of domestic violence........
Share
76
Facebook
21
Twitter
55
LinkedIn
0