[Assam] From NYT-- A Thoughtful Article

[Chan Mahanta]

THE FOLLOWING IS FROM TODAY'S NY TIMES. IT IS THOUGHTFUL AND BALANCED.  
THERE ARE SEVERAL ARGUMENTS
HERE THAT APPLY TO THE ASSAM VS INDIA  CONFLICT TOO. AND OH, ABOUT  
"TERRORISM" .

CM







OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Israel Without Clichés
By Tony Judt
Published: June 9, 2010
FACEBOOK
TWITTER
RECOMMEND
E-MAIL
SEND TO PHONE
PRINT
REPRINTS
SHARE

THE Israeli raid on the Free Gaza flotilla has generated an outpouring  
of clichés from the usual suspects. It is almost impossible to discuss  
the Middle East without resorting to tired accusations and ritual  
defenses: perhaps a little house cleaning is in order.
Enlarge This Image

Yossi Lemel
No. 1: Israel is being/should be delegitimized

Israel is a state like any other, long-established and internationally  
recognized. The bad behavior of its governments does not  
“delegitimize” it, any more than the bad behavior of the rulers of  
North Korea, Sudan — or, indeed, the United States — “delegitimizes”  
them. When Israel breaks international law, it should be pressed to  
desist; but it is precisely because it is a state under international  
law that we have that leverage.

Some critics of Israel are motivated by a wish that it did not exist —  
that it would just somehow go away. But this is the politics of the  
ostrich: Flemish nationalists feel the same way about Belgium, Basque  
separatists about Spain. Israel is not going away, nor should it. As  
for the official Israeli public relations campaign to discredit any  
criticism as an exercise in “de-legitimization,” it is uniquely self- 
defeating. Every time Jerusalem responds this way, it highlights its  
own isolation.

No. 2: Israel is/is not a democracy

Perhaps the most common defense of Israel outside the country is that  
it is “the only democracy in the Middle East.” This is largely true:  
the country has an independent judiciary and free elections, though it  
also discriminates against non-Jews in ways that distinguish it from  
most other democracies today. The expression of strong dissent from  
official policy is increasingly discouraged.

But the point is irrelevant. “Democracy” is no guarantee of good  
behavior: most countries today are formally democratic — remember  
Eastern Europe’s “popular democracies.” Israel belies the comfortable  
American cliché that “democracies don’t make war.” It is a democracy  
dominated and often governed by former professional soldiers: this  
alone distinguishes it from other advanced countries. And we should  
not forget that Gaza is another “democracy” in the Middle East: it was  
precisely because Hamas won free elections there in 2005 that both the  
Palestinian Authority and Israel reacted with such vehemence.

No. 3: Israel is/is not to blame

Israel is not responsible for the fact that many of its near neighbors  
long denied its right to exist. The sense of siege should not be  
underestimated when we try to understand the delusional quality of  
many Israeli pronouncements.

Unsurprisingly, the state has acquired pathological habits. Of these,  
the most damaging is its habitual resort to force. Because this worked  
for so long — the easy victories of the country’s early years are  
ingrained in folk memory — Israel finds it difficult to conceive of  
other ways to respond. And the failure of the negotiations of 2000 at  
Camp David reinforced the belief that “there is no one to talk to.”

But there is. As American officials privately acknowledge, sooner or  
later Israel (or someone) will have to talk to Hamas. From French  
Algeria through South Africa to the Provisional I.R.A., the story  
repeats itself: the dominant power denies the legitimacy of the  
“terrorists,” thereby strengthening their hand; then it secretly  
negotiates with them; finally, it concedes power, independence or a  
place at the table. Israel will negotiate with Hamas: the only  
question is why not now.

No. 4: The Palestinians are/are not to blame

Abba Eban, the former Israeli foreign minister, claimed that Arabs  
never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. He was not wholly  
wrong. The “negationist” stance of Palestinian resistance movements  
from 1948 through the early 1980s did them little good. And Hamas,  
firmly in that tradition though far more genuinely popular than its  
predecessors, will have to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.

But since 1967 it has been Israel that has missed most opportunities:  
a 40-year occupation (against the advice of its own elder statesmen);  
three catastrophic invasions of Lebanon; an invasion and blockade of  
Gaza in the teeth of world opinion; and now a botched attack on  
civilians in international waters. Palestinians would be hard put to  
match such cumulative blunders.

Terrorism is the weapon of the weak — bombing civilian targets was not  
invented by Arabs (nor by the Jews who engaged in it before 1948).  
Morally indefensible, it has characterized resistance movements of all  
colors for at least a century. Israelis are right to insist that any  
talks or settlements will depend upon Hamas’s foreswearing it.

But Palestinians face the same conundrum as every other oppressed  
people: all they have with which to oppose an established state with a  
monopoly of power is rejection and protest. If they pre-concede every  
Israeli demand — abjurance of violence, acceptance of Israel,  
acknowledgment of all their losses — what do they bring to the  
negotiating table? Israel has the initiative: it should exercise it.

No. 5: The Israel lobby is/is not to blame

There is an Israel lobby in Washington and it does a very good job —  
that’s what lobbies are for. Those who claim that the Israel lobby is  
unfairly painted as “too influential” (with the subtext of excessive  
Jewish influence behind the scenes) have a point: the gun lobby, the  
oil lobby and the banking lobby have all done far more damage to the  
health of this country.

But the Israel lobby is disproportionately influential. Why else do an  
overwhelming majority of congressmen roll over for every pro-Israel  
motion? No more than a handful show consistent interest in the  
subject. It is one thing to denounce the excessive leverage of a  
lobby, quite another to accuse Jews of “running the country.” We must  
not censor ourselves lest people conflate the two. In Arthur  
Koestler’s words, “This fear of finding oneself in bad company is not  
an expression of political purity; it is an expression of a lack of  
self-confidence.”

No. 6: Criticism of Israel is/is not linked to anti-Semitism

Anti-Semitism is hatred of Jews, and Israel is a Jewish state, so of  
course some criticism of it is malevolently motivated. There have been  
occasions in the recent past (notably in the Soviet Union and its  
satellites) when “anti-Zionism” was a convenient surrogate for  
official anti-Semitism. Understandably, many Jews and Israelis have  
not forgotten this.

But criticism of Israel, increasingly from non-Israeli Jews, is not  
predominantly motivated by anti-Semitism. The same is true of  
contemporary anti-Zionism: Zionism itself has moved a long way from  
the ideology of its “founding fathers” — today it presses territorial  
claims, religious exclusivity and political extremism. One can  
acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and still be an anti-Zionist (or  
“post-Zionist”). Indeed, given the emphasis in Zionism on the need for  
the Jews to establish a “normal state” for themselves, today’s  
insistence on Israel’s right to act in “abnormal” ways because it is a  
Jewish state suggests that Zionism has failed.

We should beware the excessive invocation of “anti-Semitism.” A  
younger generation in the United States, not to mention worldwide, is  
growing skeptical. “If criticism of the Israeli blockade of Gaza is  
potentially ‘anti-Semitic,’ why take seriously other instances of the  
prejudice?” they ask, and “What if the Holocaust has become just  
another excuse for Israeli bad behavior?” The risks that Jews run by  
encouraging this conflation should not be dismissed.

Along with the oil sheikdoms, Israel is now America’s greatest  
strategic liability in the Middle East and Central Asia. Thanks to  
Israel, we are in serious danger of “losing” Turkey: a Muslim  
democracy, offended at its treatment by the European Union, that is  
the pivotal actor in Near-Eastern and Central Asian affairs. Without  
Turkey, the United States will achieve few of its regional objectives  
— whether in Iran, Afghanistan or the Arab world. The time has come to  
cut through the clichés surrounding it, treat Israel like a “normal”  
state and sever the umbilical cord.



Tony Judt is the director of the Remarque Institute at New York  
University and the author, most recently, of “Ill Fares the Land.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: June 10, 2010


An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Israel has  
a written constitution.