(edited highlights from my post to a GPEW discussion list. I thought it was worth republishing as I put more thought/effort than normal into it. If some of the points seem like non-sequiturs, it’s because I was responding to another email.)
It’s odd how people fail to understand ideas of a nation of people, and the States that those nations form. Most States are formed as quirks of geography. The citizens are connected to that State through their connection to that State’s soil. In my case, I was allowed to live in the UK, because my father’s grandfather was from Yorkshire. Arbitrary, no?
In general, and aspirationally I am in favour of global equality and open borders, on the basis that in general (again), people like to live where they have grown up, and in a place they have a connection to, and should not be forced out of those places through economic necessity. Equally, if you are in the minority, like me, of people who were born in one country, grew up in another, and found you had more in common with your new home than your old one, you should be allowed to remain there.
However it is the presently the case, in terms of international law that we recognise States’ rights to control of their borders. Many of us are against military invasion/occupation of States that were constructed arbitrarily, because we feel we should accept their territorial sovereignty (perhaps spuriously). So we have States discriminating on who is allowed to live there within their borders, based on people’s connection to geography, or through recent heredity. But the nation of the British, is not the same as the Jewish nation who have been diasporic and and are connected primarily through ethnicity and religion. And this is not at all trying to rationalise use of force, by Israel (or Palestine), but we are engaging in hypocrisy if we call Israel’s border policies racist, but we don’t call any other State’s policies xenophobic…
The situation of having two nations of people with a claim to the same land is far from ideal. But it is a reality. There is no more chance of every Jew being kicked out of Israel than there is of every Palestinian being kicked out Palestine (or the indigenous people of Canada rising up and sending white Europeans back where they came from).
So, striving towards peace, what is served by calling Israel illegal, deciding that one set of ethnic histories is less valid than another, or demanding that people in Israel somehow disconnect themselves from their subjective experiences, emigrate and end all conflict by themselves? Why do we not hold ourselves to the same standards of objectivity?
What is the end goal of BDS, and how can it be achieved diplomatically rather than antagonistically?
What has BDS done to save one Palestinian’s life?
Was boycott against the US acceptable during the invasion of Iraq? Should we have been buying British produce?
How is the character of a State summed up by the government that a minority of its people elect?
What’s the difference between saying “I’m not racist, but…” and “did you know some Jews are anti-zionist…?”
Why have I got so many question, and so few answers…?
…because no-one [including our friend in Kent] has figured it out yet?
Green Party members with policy-making ambitions single out Israel year on year for negativity ranging from self-righteous finger wagging to the circulation of antisemitic materials. There’s a sense that Israel represents everything that Greens should defy and oppose, in one package. Israel has become emblematic in the Green Party. It’s simple scape-goating. It is a disturbing problem for Greens which we haven’t dealt with.
And sure enough, looking at the Hove 09 Green Party conference agenda, there is the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, whose leaders epitomise the exploitation of Palestinian oppression as a fig leaf for hatred of Israel. There is a workshop dedicated to Palestine and Israel, one of only two workshops on states, and only a few on international issues. So Afghanistan and Israel and Palestine are Green international priorities? And Russia, Pakistan, China, Sudan…? Forget it.
It’s an imbalance that reflects on us badly.
It sets up a false dichotomy, as well. If I disagree with the PSC (or the SPSC….) am I anti-Palestinian? Am I pro-Israeli?
(In short, no)
Unfortunately I had to come back from Spring conference and do some proper reading to really to get to grips with quite why ’7 Jewish Children’ had left me feeling so uncomfortable. To the point where I needed to go somewhere else. Particularly more uncomfortable than I was when reading the script in advance.
It wasn’t the earnest didactic dialogue about things which every active political type is perfectly well aware. It was the binary characterisation (with a bit of ‘p.s. I hear some Jews are nice’ thrown in.)
Sectarianism seems to be an important part of radical political identities.
And more than sectarianism – schismism. Lumping and splitting.
“Zionists out of the peace movement”-type sentiments and vicarious Palestinian nationalism at the same time.
Yours was a good post because it thoughtfully and undogmatically emphasised the singularity of the BDS campaign. But I fear your Qu 1 can’t be answered. BDS objective is to end the state of Israel (this is in the BDS call disguised as the demand – requirement for boycott to be lifted – that Israel open its borders to 8 million with Palestinian heritage, and that Israel be denied defence) and that can’t be achieved diplomatically.
Anyway, to my horror it looks like I’m going to have to get off my blogging arse and actually tangle with these people in earnest. And the problems go right to the top. It might take me many months to work up to this, but it seems inevitable. Either that or leave the Greens. Is it more likely that Greens will kick out antisemitism, or Labour will develop good ecosocialist policy, I wonder?
Please don’t use the ‘L’ word. It falls foul of my swearing policy.
But no, there’s no hope in Labour.
And haven’t there been unhelpful things coming out of ‘Labour Friends of Israel’? Is there a ‘Labour Engage’?