White Greens

Jeff of greenthink and I are talking about how politically incoherent the Green's platform is in the comments section referring to this post in which Jeff rails against "Big Business". He agrees, but offers the following excuse:

Then what do the Democrats have that makes their positions so much more clear, Mano? Dems have a platform. Greens have a platform. But Dems get representation on every political talk show.

So the mainstream parties who the Greens organize in opposition to, basically on the principle that they are corrupt, don't have a platform that is coherent (duh, its bought and paid for by just about everyone with money). So I guess it's just fine that the Greens are incoherent. Coherent politics can wait.

But then theres always the question of how to attract the elusive voter. And no voter is more elusive to the Greens than the minority voter. Jeff says he is "puzzled about it too, as are many other Greens (yes, we do recognize our whiteness)."

In the same breath Jeff also says,

...no, I'm not worried about the racial makeup of the student body at Cal. It's one of the most diverse student bodies in the nation. That's not to say it shouldn't be more diverse, but diversity should be left to chance. Diversity should not be a goal.

Interesting. Apparently the Greens own platform is so incoherent that one of their ten key values "respect for diversity (#8)" does not even rise to the level that their own members consider it a "goal". Puzzlement or no, I think that their failure to prioritize their own key values is going to keep the Green's pretty white, which really isn't going to help them politically, given the changing demographic of the US and their own internal belief -- as demographically wealthier whiter folks -- that their policies are the key to helping demographically darker, less wealthy folks.

Are there limits to your Zionism?

A letter written in Friday's Daily Cal by blogger Devora Liss says that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism:

Zionism is the belief Jews are entitled to self-determination in their ancient homeland, Israel. Nothing more, nothing less. When those rallying against Israel fail to acknowledge the right of the Jews to to a homeland, their arguments take a turn toward hate speech.

So just what kind of homeland are we entitled to? What are we allowed to do in the name of our "entitlement to a homeland"? Does part of this entitlement include 4 Billion dollars in yearly US tax aid? Does this entitlement have any limits?

What limits do I mean? Well, can we commit ethnic cleansing? Can we systematically violate human rights? Can we violate international law? Can we commit terrorism?

And what if Zionists insist that these unfortunate things are inseparable from their right to a homeland in Israel? The Achilles heel of Zionism is that most Zionists do feel these things are inseparable. It takes a pretty hardcore Zionist to admit this publicly -- and even to themselves -- but when you boil things down, you really aren't a Zionist if you are willing to put limits on the "right of Israel to exist". "Nothing more, nothing less," as Devora points out. But don't take it from Devora. The founders of Israel took pride in their stubborn tenacity, they would accept nothing less than a Jewish State, whatever it took. And you can't get "Jewish self-determination" when there is a large indigenous, non-Jewish population living on the land. You can't get "self-determination" without doing some pretty fucked up things, things which are now in the historical record. These fucked up things continue to be written into the historical record: by the formidable apparatus of the Zionist Israeli government (and no that is not redundant) and by renegades such as the settlers (think Baruch Goldstein).

Aside: The dichotomy actually makes for quite an interesting parallel to the war for the official formation of the state of Israel. Zionists should still technically be considered in a war for their independence. They depend on US $$$ and they still have to solve - among many other things - the demographic time bomb (high Palestinian birthrate), the problem of water security, and an economic timebomb that is now exploding. And the strategy from 1948 remains largely intact. Haganah has become the IDF. The Jewish terrorist gangs (the folks who really won the war for the state, and although their groups were outlawed, the individuals were thanked with the highest governmental offices) have become the settlers now overtaking the West Bank and the extremists. The good-cop/bad-cop push for the rest of WBGS is underway, a push never "officially" recognized but "unofficially" sanctioned by the shared ideology of Zionism, the same way the Jewish terrorist gangs were. And Americans think the problem is bickering negotiators.

Anyway, back to my original point. I want to know at what point should the rest of the non-Zionist world (including non-Zionist Jews) draw the line? [Note to critics: this is where you point that I'm a self-hater for even suggesting there should be some limit to US support for Israel] What other countries demand for themselves an entitlement to violate any and all standards of ethical human behavior if it leads to the fulfillment of the "right" of the Jews to a homeland in ancient God-given Israel? What other countries demand that critics recognize their right to exist, no matter what?