I loved this. My principal feeling about the Israel/Palenstine situation has always been confusion. The times I have ventured to admit lack of understanding in hopes of gaining some insight to the situation have never proven useful. I look forward to comments.
Great post. I have a lot to say on this issue, but I don't really have my thoughts together at the moment. I may do a post later.
I don't think that people avoid it because of confusion - I think it is because of fear.
Whenever you say anything about Israel's conduct, accusations of anti-Semitism with ugly undertones of "and therefore you must be a Nazi and want to eat babies" get tossed at you.
Within Israel, this is a major control mechanism - the first time it was tossed at me, my "Nazi" offense was being a 12-year old girl who did not want to help her mother clean the house before the sabbath. This meant (so I was told) that I wanted to eradicate the very foundation of Jewish life, which put me right up there with Hitler.
Godwin's law had not yet been invented.
My parents (orthodox Jews) also used the word "anti-Semite" to describe people who did the television programming such that things they wanted to see were on the sabbath (no TV on the sabbath...), people who drove on the sabbath, and neighbors who used light-switches on the sabbath. It was really easy to be an anti-Semite in good ol' Rehovot...
But it is way easier to be one now. All you have to do is say:"well, bombing Lebanon into the stone age, bombing civilian infrastructure anywhere, using road-blocks to stop a woman in labor - these are not ok and should never be done" - saying that means that you're an anti-Semite. Saying "children should never die in wars" means you're an anti-Semite (unless you say "Jewish children should never die in wars". That's ok. But if you say it about children in general, you could be deemed to be criticizing Israel, and that counts as an anti-Semitic attack).
So no wonder it is unclear here - anything said about the conflict leads to accusations of murderous racism.
But you know what? If by saying that children should be actively protected from the effects of warfare - and that using Israel's armed-to-the-teeth airforce to bomb populated villages is a war crime means that I am an anti-Semite, so be it. My concern is with the welfare of children, indiscriminately - not only the Jewish ones.
And if I get a pile of invective because of that - I'm used to it.
You need to read some Chomsky.
and some Robert Fisk.
In addition, it sometimes helps to have a picture of the pain:
http://
www.informationclearingho...rticle14069.htm
Chomsky and Fisk, noted.
Also, Teo, thanks. I'm looking forward to reading your response.
Also read some books by Tom Segev.
One Palestine Complete is particularly good by way of explaining what happened in the run-up to 1948 - complete with the British mandate over Palestine exercised by Jewish commissioner generals with Zionist leanings, and the cooperation of Jews with Palestinian Christians and Moslems being smashed due to political expedients.
Also read Benny Morris' books about Israeli history. Morris believes that an ethnic cleansing would be an acceptable solution, so use your critical facilities while reading him... ...but his factual representation is reliable.
And if you want to read some fierce debating about the entire situation, keep reading Haaretz. While Israel does not guarantee free speech, freedom to debate is practiced there.
I agree with the commenter who suggested Chomsky and Fisk. I would also recommend Norman Finkelstein.
The thing is, though, certain kinds of criticism of Israel do have a 'it's the Jews!' feel to it. And I say this as (1) someone who isn't a Jew but (2) who knows a lot of Jews, all of whom are very critical of Israel while still believing Israel has a right to exist and (3) who also knows a lot of leftists who hate Israel with the heat of a thousand suns. In other words, I think I'm a pretty disinterested party.
There's a kind of bitterness to some critiques of Israel and a definite underlying view that Israel is by definition an immoral state--it should not exist. Thus, anything Israel does is automatically unjustified and evil and immoral, etc. (I find this in many reflexive leftist critiques of Israel.) Then, sometimes the anger spills over to the influence of American Jews on U.S. foreign policy. And to a sympathy with the Palestinians that involves condoning whatever their leaders do. Etc.
I think the charges of anti-Semitism don't come from nowhere. I don't think they *only* arise from the underlying assumption that you can never criticize Israel because criticizing Israel is automatically anti-Semitic. I think they come from the fact that structurally, some criticisms of Israel do have an anti-Semitic feel to them or are structurally similar to anti-Semitism. I.e., 'Israel should not exist in the first place' leads to (with some intervening steps) 'Israelis deserve to die in terrorist attacks' leads to rage at anyone who defends Israel in any way(usually, they *are* Jews) and it kind of goes from there.
Anti-Semitism usually has a narrative along the lines of: Jews are incredibly powerful. And they are also conspiratorial. And evil. Behind the scenes, they are shaping everything to ensure they, the Jews, benefit at the expense of everyone else.
So, e.g., a story that sounds a little like "American Jews are evilly conspiring to control American politics for the benefit of the Jewish people at the expense of everyone else" echoes the anti-Semitic narrative. Yes, that's a huge oversimplification since AIPAC has a troubling influence on U.S. policy--so there is an issue that is real behind the ideas. It very much depends on how the critique is made--when it is made with rage and hatred then it sounds scarily like Anti-Semitism even when it may not be.
The charge of Anti-Semitism may cut off conversation, reflection, critique. Worries about sexism and racism can cut off free and open discussion at times also. But we still have to make our way through that minefield. We can't toss out those things, nor can we toss out Anti-Semitism. I guess what I mean is: Let's try not to blame the Jews for being concerned about Anti-Semitism. They have their reasons.
Public opinion in this current is rapidly turning against Israel and much of it is justified in my opinion. So people do feel relatively free to criticize Israel. I think those criticisms are more effective and fair when they are made from a position that tries to understand Israel and what it's up against.
Embryonic Beginnings
There's a diary entry up over at The Agonist that attempts to philosophically explain the anti-enlightenment attitudes prevalent today, and which touches upon this furious nationalism of Isreali's, among many other things.
It's very interesting. Perhaps an overreach, but very interesting.
Damn - make that "Isrealis" - I'm up too early.
For reporting from the home team:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/home3.asp
I have distant family who live in Beirut, near the US embassy. So far, they are safe, as are the cousins in the hills north of the city. But it’s increasingly a dire situation. The infrastructure seems thoroughly smashed. Additionally, the US reporting on this is pretty feeble. For a good analysis please see:
http://www.juancole.com/
Cole is a first-rate scholar with terrific analytic skills. Of course, he’s despised by the neo-cons.
Please... anybody *BUT* Finkelstein.
OR read him, but know this his political ties, his rhetoric, and his tactics are really very suspect.
There's a whole bunch that I can't go into here because of pseudonymty, but I have a months-long history of the reason why we ought to take seriosuly that concern that Finkelstein is quite at ease encouraging anti-semitism, and of profiting from it.
Also, while all criticisms of brutal behaviour and policy on the part of *ISreal* are, imho, legitimate... I remain concerned that the reality is that the regional force majeur would be to do away with Isreal. And that brings to mind a world in which the Jews cannot be citizens anywhere... where all they have is a global diaspora (I also happen to think that using "diaspora" to speak of any group who has been forced or compelled to leave a homeland is rather like referring to any gathering place as "Mecca" -- grossly insensetive to the specifics).
But I digress.
Without a place to whcih to go, I worry that in a dreadful world -- one in which my students arrive in first year classes saying things like "YOu can't deny that the Jews rule the world" -- we would return to a world in which boats carrying hundreds of Jews would be turned away from countries (like Canada) asked to offer refuge. I am fortunate enough to carry two passports. I can claim not just one country but two as territories of safety.
Without an Isreal, and in a changeable world that could easily again decide that the Jews are citizens of nowhere...
Well... to say that the path that would lie ahead of such a scenario scares me really fails to capture the point.
And Minerva,
Thank you for putting forward with such clarity a set of observations that mirrors my own and lays it out all so much better than I could have possibly done.
You have captured what I think the problems are.
Especially with those lefties I know ho just can't wait to start the hate, in the name of *Marxism*. It really shocks me.
I don't know any Jews and have never lived anywhere with a significant Jewish population. A synopsis of my understanding is that people have hated Jews forever. For the last 2000 years it has been because they killed Jesus. I don't know why they were hated before that. Shortly before WW2 the Zionists (a radical group of Jews) started collective farms in the Palestinian area. Then Hitler decided to exterminate all the Jews. By and large this was ignored by the rest of the world until the war was over and then everyone was properly horrified over the extermination camps. The Jews that survived then began a mass migration to Palestine. The Allies decided to create a new country named Israel for them. The Palestenians who already lived there weren't happy about it but they were considered nobodies and got no say in the matter. They've been pissed off ever since. The Palestinians have been trying to get their territory back and the Jews keep trying to expand theirs. Is this accurate?
I sometimes wonder if the Israeli/PLO/(now Lebanon) conflict is the one that people pay attention to in order to make themselves feel like foreign policy experts, given the large-scale conflicts killing hundreds of thousands in Africa, or the pitiful purges in Chechnya, or Sri Lanka.
Jane,
"The Jews killed Jesus"?
A statement like that needs some consideration.
I think there's a less superficial reading of that which, rather than tying the modern Israeli Jews to the 'Jews who killed Jesus' would acknowledge that the rejection of Jesus by the Jews of the Bible is a matter for Christians.
That rejection is, I think, best read within the context of Christianity as prefiguring the rejection of Jesus by Christians - not as an indictment of Jewish people.
Norbizness: Like it or not, the Israel/Palestine conflict is the one in which America, and the tax dollars of individual Americans, are very directly involved.
As such, I think participation by Americans in the Israel/Palestine debate can only be a good thing.
Minerva said the charges of anti-Semitism don't come from nowhere. . . . structurally, some criticisms of Israel do have an anti-Semitic feel to them or are structurally similar to anti-Semitism.
Absolutely--which is why in the post I said that one doesn't one to ally oneself with those who are genuinely anti-Israel and anti-Semitic.
And I agree: Juan Cole is excellent reading.
Jane: Brendan's right; actually it was the Romans who killed Jesus. But the anti-Jew thing there doesn't come out of nowhere: both the gospels and the history of Christianity has tended to emphasize the Jewish rejection of Christ in large part as a way of distinguishing Christianity (which started out in a way as a Jewish sect, if you think about it) from Judaism. The rest of your summary is reasonably correct; there were Zionist arguments about resettling Jerusalem before WWII, but it was after the holocaust, obvs., that such claims were given legitimacy and backing by Europe. Partly I believe this was out of guilt (Europe as a whole was pretty anti-Semitic, as was America, and in some ways both still show that), and part of it was also, I think, out of a desire to create a "European" state in the Middle East as the area was being carved up into post-colonial states. The treatment of the Palestinians was therefore on a continuum with the way that the former colonial powers carved up middle eastern territory in order to create weak states that divided tribal/national groups into different political countries, or that combined conflicting groups into one country. So, Arab empathy with Palestine is partly due to this history (as opposed to the simple explanation that it's Arab/Islamic religious solidarity); partly, too, it's about wanting the Palestinians *out* of neighboring Arab states, kind of the way that a lot of white Americans supported initiatives to ship former slaves back to Africa during the 19th century.
I think a lot of (sane, non-racist) commentators on the left share your trepidation, Dr. B., at commenting on the situation. But I don't think they are keeping quiet so much out of fear of being labelled anti-semitic. I think they can see the basic problem here might be political as well ethnic, religious and cultural.
How does one voice support of those fighting Israel without (implicitly)supporting the repressive and retrograde worldviews these parties (i.e.: Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, etc.) propagate? Who wants to stick up for regimes that proudly and publicly execute homosexuals? Who wants to be perceived as supporting cultures that believe in - and seek to institute - new repressive ideals of gender segregation? Yes, there are Jews that believe in strict segregation of the genders; but Israeli law is liberal, and this fringe cannot press demands on all citizens. Israel is fundamentally politically different from its neighbors. Arabs can vote in Israel, Arab women can drive cars, and there are even Arabs in the Israeli Knesset. In fact, Israeli Arabs are doing better than just about any other Arabic population in the Middle East - economically, socially, and politically. While being gay is punishable by death throughout the Arabic world (both Sunni nations/Saudi Arabia - and shi'ite/Iran) this year's World Pride Festival is being held in Jerusalem with wide support for both the Israeli government and people.
None of this excuses the invasion or behavior of Israel's politicians or military. It is only an attempt to explain the reticence some people on the left have with commenting.
Unfortunately, the right in America has coopted the rhetoric of patriotism from the revolution. Yet - as recent events here in the US have shown - it is the left that most fervently believes in ideals of equality, separation of church and state, and basic concepts of liberty. Israel certainly is not perfect - but it has a far better track record of instituting these ideals than its Arabic neighbors.
Honest observers from the left know this. And it makes them uncomfortable.
I've got my suit on. Flame away.
Canuckdoc writes: "I remain concerned that the reality is that the regional force majeur would be to do away with Isreal. And that brings to mind a world in which the Jews cannot be citizens anywhere..."
I agree that this is an eminently reasonable fear. It is quite clear that a number of regional powers are opposed to Israel's existence, and some are committed to its "destruction." But I have a problem with the assertion that without Israel Jews "cannot be citizens anywhere." In a way, this is the crux of the problem: Israel is a state founded on a religious/racial/ethnic idea. Jews can be and are citizens of many other nations, but not *on the basis of* their Jewishness. Is the founding of a state based on identity a defensible idea, even given the extraordinary history of the Jews? It's hard to see how this can *not* continue to be the basis for regional conflict for years to come.
A second point, which may seem nitpicky, but I care about language: Arabs are "Semites," too. Now, obviously we all understand what is meant by the adjective "anti-Semitic," but I think there's a subtle bias underlying this consensus (check out the discussion on wikipedia's entry for "anti-Semitism" for an interesting discussion of this). "Semitic" is a relic of 19th-century race theory (Shem was one of Noah's sons; Ham went south into Africa & fathered black people, Japheth went north & gave us the Aryans, so the story goes) and essentially reinforces the idea of essential difference between "us" in the West (and our Aryan brothers in [northern] India) and "them" in the Orient. So there's that not to like about it. But I also think it's deeply problematic to name an anti-Jewish (or anti-Israel) prejudice after a category that includes the very people with whom Israeli Jews are most directly in conflict (although "Aryan" Iran is vying to be the 1st place antagonists). So how about using "anti-Jewish" or "anti-Israel" depending on which you mean? Another advantage is that it gets rid of the confusion between taking a position against Israel and harboring a hatred for the Jewish people.
I had a brief letter to the editor published in my local paper a few days ago in which I noted that the bombing of the power plant in Gaza left over a million people without electricity, meaning that no water could be pumped or purified, among many other consequences to the civilian population. I characterized this as an act of cynical cruelty on the part of the Israeli government. I then received an anonymous letter in the mail (I'm in the phone book) which equated me to Hitler and called me some unpleasant names. Oh, and someone shit on my front lawn.
So, yeah.
Some other reading: Rashid Khalidi, a scholor of Arab nationalism, has a book called Palestinian Identity: The Construction of National Consciousness. His other book Resurrecting Empire: Western Footprintsand America's Perilous Path inthe Middle East relates the conflict in Iraq to the larger history of US politics in the Middle East, and to the much wider context of European Empire building in the region previously.
Put Edward Said and www.electronicintifada.net on your reading list, too.
And Arabs wanting Palestinians out of their states and back in Palestine is nothing like white Americans wanting to ship slaves back to Africa during the 19th century. The history of Palestinians in other Arab countries is nothing like the history of slaves in 19th century America.
Me, I have no trouble articulating my position on the conflict. Israel needs to declare a boundary, stay behind it, and acknowledge the right of return. The occupied territories should be unoccupied, and a real Palestinian state with a government and an army to defend its borders should be established *by Palestinians*. This nonsense of Israel and the US deciding the fate of a Palestinian state with no Palestinian input needs to stop. I could go on, but I won't.
Brendan's right; actually it was the Romans who killed Jesus.
Well ... not really. Left to themselves, it's unlikely the Romans would have executed Jesus, at least not as soon. Even with the most anti-Roman and pro-Jewish reading of the Gospels - which, apart from a couple of scraps of Josephus and Tacitus, remain the only available documents, so one has to cope with them and their obvious biases - the Romans executed Jesus when they did because the Judean leaders decided that he made them nervous, and the Romans were the ones who officially had the power to put people to death. I'm not saying the Romans didn't have good reasons to want Jesus dead, but so did the Jewish authorities - he was seriously destabilizing the power structure in the reason by preaching the message he did and attracting as many followers as he did. But unless the Gospels are flat-out lying, it seems that Pilate was worried that executing Jesus would be as bad as, or worse than, letting him off, and it was Caiaphas and company who really wanted him out of the way.
None of which justifies any kind of large-scale blaming of the Jewish people qua people for the Crucifixion - it was clearly the people in power who wanted him put away, not the public in general. The overinterpreted line "his blood be upon us and on our children" is spoken by a mob that's being led on by agitators and has already lost its head as it demands the release of the "hero" Barabbas as an act of resistance against the occupying Roman government, and sees Jesus as a distraction to be got rid of however possible.
But the anti-Jew thing there doesn't come out of nowhere: both the gospels and the history of Christianity has tended to emphasize the Jewish rejection of Christ in large part as a way of distinguishing Christianity (which started out in a way as a Jewish sect, if you think about it) from Judaism.
It WAS a Jewish sect until at least the destruction of the Temple (AD 70) - certainly Paul, the "real" inventor of Christianity, saw it that way (or, a fortiori, as the "true Judaism" if only his fellow Jews could be brought to believe). The Jewish "rejection" was an expression of deep-seated feelings of betrayal on the part of Jewish Christians toward those who had not accepted Jesus as the promised Messiah, and also as a justification for turning to the Gentiles for the majority of Christian converts.
Sorry, that should be "region" not "reason".
zzz asks, Is the founding of a state based on identity a defensible idea? *Most* states are founded on a religious/racial/ethnic sense of identity: France is French and Catholic; Spain is Spanish and Catholic; the UK is composed of England, Scotland, Wales, and northern Ireland, and has a national church; and so on. That's the "nation" part of nation-states. I think it's problematic to argue that this is uniquely a problem for Israel, with the implication that the Jews want something others don't have.
Brendan says, the Israel/Palestine conflict is the one in which America, and the tax dollars of individual Americans, are very directly involved. The tax dollars argument? So beside the point. We're militarily and diplomatically allied with Israel and one of the consequences of this is a lot of foreign aid to Israel. But the tax money thing is a consequence, not a cause.
Not to mention the idea that the only reason to care about major world conflicts is if it costs us money. Ick. And the idea that the national treasury is really the money of "individual Americans," rather than a national treasurey. Ick again.
Israeli Arabs are doing better than any other Arab population in the Middle East.
First, the correct term in Palestinians. Calling them Israeli Arabs conceals the fact that they are Palestinians. Second, they are not doing better than any other Arab population. They are victims of harsh discrimination. They cannot buy any land owned by the Jewish National Fund - which is most of the land in Israel. They cannot hold any job for which military service is a prerequisite - which is most of the good civil service jobs. Many of them live in villages which are unrecognized and thus do not receive any government services, eg, electricity. Their schools are much worse than the schools for Jewish children. Doing better? Hardly.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/israel2/
http://www.assoc40.org/index_main.html
unless the Gospels are flat-out lying, it seems that Pilate was worried that executing Jesus would be as bad as, or worse than, letting him off, and it was Caiaphas and company who really wanted him out of the way.
It seems obvious to me that when the gospels attribute motivations to Pilate, that's fiction. How would the gospel writers, mostly obscure folks composing stories many years after the fact, have access to the thoughts or words of the governor of Palestine about a fairly minor incident decades or centuries before? And doesn't it stretch credulity to believe that the Roman governor of Palestine would be so concerned about the opinions of his colonial subjects? Imperial Rome was not a democracy.
*Most* states are founded on a religious/racial/ethnic sense of identity:
Because the people who live in them can trace their ancestry back thousands of years. That is what gave them a national identity. The state of Israel is more like the US than like France or Spain. We can admit that what the European colonizers did to the Native Americans was wrong. But in 1947 we couldn't see that repeating those actions in Palestine was wrong, and we still can't see that what is being done to the Palestinians is wrong. Converted Incan Jews from Peru are being granted Israeli citizenship, but Palestinians whose grandparents owned land in what is now Israel have no right to that land. That's wrong, and founding a country on that idea is wrong.
Brendan,
I probably should have stated that I'm not a Christian and I don't know why it is I'm suppose to hate Jews. The killing Jesus thing is something I've heard dozens of times during my lifetime. The other criticism I usually hear is that Jews are astute businessmen. I don't understand either argument but thought the Jesus thing was the biggie. What I was asking here was if my basic understanding of the conflict was accurate, totally wrong or somewhere in the middle.
Much of Europe had Christianity-inspired laws that forbade money-lending at interest. So, no Christian bankers. But the Jews in Europe weren't bound by such restrictions and were able to become bankers, moneylenders, etc. And that brings with it a whole set of stereotypes.
On the Israel thing. I think a lot of it is that every incident, rightly or wrongly (I don't pretend to know), is seen as a threat on Israel's very survival in a way that other terrorist attacks aren't. So, the argument goes, if one doesn't care about Israel's very *survival*, given that Israel was intended as a Jewish haven, you obviously don't care about the Jews if you're not taking Israel's side in the conflict.
Frumious B, that's an oversimplification. Jews can (obvs.) trace *their* ancestry back thousands of years to Palestine. The problem, obvs., is that both Palestinians and Jews lay claim to exclusive rights over the same piece of territory. None of which is to say that Palestinians losing their homes is okay, but it doesn't follow that Israel is analogous to the European settlement/invasion of the new world.
Seriously, who gives a fucking rat's ass who killed Jesus, assuming Jesus existed? If you're a Christian, then good, he got to be resurrected, etc. etc. If you're not, then stop indulging and derailing the conversation away from a very real foreign policy dilemma in a fragile region killing hundreds to possibly thousands of actual people.
So do we have both sides demanding an all or nothing solution?
Book Recommendation the First: I strongly recommend David Fromkin's A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East.
The story he lays out, in brief, is this: when the British and French felt confident that they were on their way to winning WW1, they started negotiating among themselves to carve up the Ottoman Empire. Since they were clueless about the region, looked down on the natives (both the Arabs and the Jews), and assumed that they would be able to maintain colonies there forever, they did a piss-poor job of it.
In the specific case of Palestine, the British were trying to curry favor with both Arab and Jewish leaders in the region, and so they effectively promised the same land to both. Thanks a lot, guys.
Since this book covers events that took place long before 1948, the author has no incentive to slant it in favor of one side or the other. (One thing to keep in mind when reading about the conflict is that nobody sells books by writing even-handedly about it. Everyone has an axe to grind for or against Israel.)
Book Recommendation the Second: Once upon a time, Thomas Friedman was a real journalist rather than a guy who goes around pontificating about how globalization is a wonderful thing and the next six months will decide whether or not Iraq is a basket case. From Beirut to Jerusalem is his book about what it was like to cover the Lebanese civil war. The chapter on how the US Marines arrived in Lebanon--and how they left--is especially poignant.
frumious b, thanks for putting that more clearly than i was able to.
bitchphd, i maintain that there's a difference between *founding* a state based on a category of identity, as Israel did in 1947, and a state that maintains or promotes a sense of itself through categories of identity (e.g. France or Spain). although i agree that the pre-1947 story of Israel/Palestine is not as clearcut as "this was Palestine until the Jews moved in," the Law of Return (permitting any Jew to "return" to Israel and acquire citizenship) is, as far as i know, unique--and uniquely problematic.
I'm not going to say much about this topic other than to paste a comment from another blog I was reading. The blog in question was trying to explain, "Why Israel is 100% Justified on its Attack on Lebanon."
To explain: many people are writing in to dispute some of the statements made in this blog. The tone has been mostly cordial. Here's the posting that fits with B's today. I haven't changed a thing except to put it in quotes:
"I love seeing all the smug, elist, jew-hating snobs on this message board who sit back on the fat asses and there beach chairs by the pool, sipping margeritas, watching golf on TV and telling Israel to accept the constant barrage of missiles across its borders and years of terrorist attacks. Youre pathetic."
As far as the nation-states thing, I think it's much more fruitful to compare Israel to the new (post WWII and especially post-Cold War) states that got matched up with national identities--like the Balkans, the former Soviet republics, etc.
The right of return for Jews is certainly problematic. There is no question that there is a national project to bring Jews from all over the world to Israel, and many American Jews resent this because it's part of the intentional equation of Israel to Jew (Ampersand has blogged this, though I don't have a link right now).
This being said, though, Frumious, you are intentionally removing this from context--that's the only way you can make this as simple as you are. Israel needs to establish a boundary and stay out and let Palestine forge its own path. And yet the separation wall/fence/barrier is called an attempt at apartheid. In many cases, it does create checkpoints and pinch points that are very difficult.
I'll use the example of Qalqilyah. Look at this map. Go to 6C-6D. You can tell just how close Qalqilyah is to Kfar Sava, Herzeliah, and Tel-Aviv. When things are in this proximity, it's really hard to say to residents of these Israeli cities that what goes down in Qalqilyah does not concern them. At the same time, the residents of Qalqilyah have suffered very badly as a result of this barrier, which looks very different from the Palestinian and Israeli sides.
When someone is in extreme danger, it is very hard to hear, "You must do this because it is just." The response is, "Assure my safety and I will give you justice." Not that this happened, of course, during the Oslo years when Israel was fairly safe--construction in disputed zones continued unabated. Yet to tell someone that they must give up opportunities to ensure their safety because they are unjust...I don't mean that you're wrong about the steps Israel should take. Just that you need to realize what it is you are expecting of them.
zzz - I agree with your semantic nitpicking.
A comment about France and Spain: Primarily "Frenh and Catholic" and primariyl "Spanish and Catholic" - who are you kidding? Even if you completely ignore the African and Arab populations in France or Spain - neither of which is homogeneous....do you mean France is mostly genetically Frank, or Norman or Celt? And ask your average Spanish person if they think Spain is all of a piece. Catalan, Galicia, Basque, Romany, etc....
I think most people would agree with what you say:
"One knows that this is not the case--that Jews as a class are not responsible for nor representative of the actions of the Israeli government..."
But, one also needs to ask: how long can you expect people to make the distinction between a state's policies and the people who live in that nation? A friend of mine who lives in Mumbai asked me this question - he takes the trains daily, and missed being on the train that was bombed by 30 minutes. He understands that he cannot blame all pakistanis for such a terrorist act and that its the state apparatus that should be blamed. But he is no longer sure he can justify that distinction any longer. At the end of the day, he now feels, one has to hold people responsible to some extent for their state's actions [yes, big assumption that the pakistani state is somehow responsible for the blasts, but i'm only using this as an example here].
It seems like asking for too much if we expect average people living under a non-democratic regime to influence state policy in any way. Question is: how long we can expect folks in Lebanon to say yes, we understand that not every Jew in Israel wants our country wiped off the map and our anger and frustration is only directed at the Israeli state apparatus? How reasonable an expectation is this?
But, one also needs to ask: how long can you expect people to make the distinction between a state's policies and the people who live in that nation?
Actually, that's hardly the point here. Many Israelis oppose the actions in Lebanon, but the government is acting as it is because of strong support from the people (much stronger support than among Jews outside of Israel, I'd say, though I don't have evidence on that).
What is the point is that Israelis hope to limit civilian casualties. The IDF is not doing what it needs to do to get there, because bombing the roads out of southern Lebanon is making it much more dangerous for people to leave. The hope is to prevent Syria and Iran from re-arming Hezbollah, but it's pretty clear that Hezbollah has plenty of firepower already (though the Israelis are doing their best to wipe that out...)
Many of the targets in this situation have been dangerous targets...I read last night about an attack on a truck which may or may not have been carrying rocket launchers, but when Lebanese residents took a look at the truck, they said it sure as hell looked like launchers.
This is part of what makes the whole thing so difficult. Israel is trying like hell to stop the movements of rockets and launchers, which are their main concern. So, they're hitting pretty much any trucks that are coming through, which is making shipping food, medicine, fuel, etc, really difficult. Some would probably say that unless you know for sure that it's carrying missles, don't hit it. But the people saying this are also not the ones with rockets landing in their towns.
Bitch Phd: Re your statement: “The tax dollars argument? So beside the point. We're militarily and diplomatically allied with Israel and one of the consequences of this is a lot of foreign aid to Israel. But the tax money thing is a consequence, not a cause.”
I’m not familiar with the ‘tax dollars argument’. I was responding directly to Norbizness' statement.
He said: “I sometimes wonder if the Israeli/PLO/(now Lebanon) conflict is the one that people pay attention to in order to make themselves feel like foreign policy experts”.
Because so much American money finds its way to Israel, the American taxpayer is directly involved in that part of the world in a way in which he or she is not in the other examples cited.
You live in a democracy, there is a direct connection between the actions of the American government and the people governed.
“Ick” indeed.
On the other point, as I tried to say already, it’s probably better to see the Gospels as theological documents, rather than histories.
For the record: Pilate, the governor, ‘washes his hands’ of Jesus. The Roman soldiers do the actual killing of Jesus. The “Jews demand that Pilate have Jesus crucified, he accedes saying, basically, do whatever you want with him.
Again, these “Jews” of the Bible are, in Christian theology as I understand it, a metaphor for pretty much everybody (i.e. everybody who accepts the Bible's teaching - it is the fate of every Christian to reject Jesus quite frequently. The Crucifiction story is a working out of this theme, which ends with Jesus forgiving everyone - nice!).
Finally, Kiko; that’s some of the best barely literate, pointless-ad-hominem-nothing-to-do-with-the-
debate-abuse I’ve seen all day. Thanks!
P/S: The 'direct connection' I'm talking about relates only to debating the issues.
primarily "French and Catholic" and primarily "Spanish and Catholic" - who are you kidding? Even if you completely ignore the African and Arab populations in France or Spain. . . .
Actually I was thinking about the immigrant population in France, and French racism as I wrote the post. But point taken that the African presence in France has been there for quite some time and that mamy African-Americans who emigrated to France did so because they found it less racist than the U.S.
What I was trying to say is not that the race/religion/ethnicity = nation/state link is unproblematic, or that one can't point out facts that demonstrate that, for instance, "race" doesn't exist. I suppose I had in mind more what Anderson called, a while back, "imagined communities." The point being that the founding of nation/states depends on an *imagined* (but nonetheless real, inasmuch as it has the power to create a sense of national identity) sense of "Frenchness" or "Spanishness" (admittedly, a problematic example what with Catalonia and the Basque territories. The Roma, as far as I know, are perceived as outsiders all over Europe.
But the basic idea, that it isn't especially unique for Israel to have a sense of the political state as tied to a nationalized ethnic identity, stands. I think Matan put it better than I did. I'd add that the creation of modern states based on matching up territory with modern claims of national identity, which is I think the right comparison, is based on the older creation of national states that supposedly arose organically (although, if you think historically, also involved a fair bit of fighting and killing over boundaries and borders).
zzz... I agree with you in principle and with regard to the way that *current* policies are -- and should be imho -- regarding citizenhip status But the point of being a diasporic people is that the Jews were not citizens of anywhere.
This is the main reason why I do not use "diaspora" to refer to any group except for the Jews -- generally because I mean to indicate a people without passports. The only similar groups I can think of right now would be the Irish "Travellers" and the European Gypsies... people without a land to call home...
I am not convinced that our future (gien persisten anti-semitism) would be a future in which Jews would not have their passports and citizenship revoked by any given country.
Ashwin, of course there's a natural tendency to extrapolate from the acts of state governments and/or individuals to the beliefs of everyone in a nation, especially if the nation is democratic. That's the down side of democracy and the nation/state concept. Same thing as when fundamentalist Muslims who object to the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia hold all Americans responsible.
And it's easier for us to see, of course, that the latter position is wrong, because we're more familiar with the nuances and differences here about American foreign policy. But that should help us realize that it's the same anywhere else. Even if a given action/war/bomb run is broadly popular among Israelis, that doesn't mean it's supported by all Israelis (it would stagger credulity to think that everyone in a large area agreed about much of anything). And it certainly isn't valid to extrapolate from Israel's foreign policy to Israelis to Jews. The Israeli government /= all the Israeli people, who certainly /= "the Jews."
Canuckdoc, the Bedouins are pretty much stateless. And I think the term "African diaspora" is a good one, inasmuch as people of African descent all over the world don't even know what state/tribe/geographic locale their ancestors came from; they may hold (for example) American passports, but then many Jews held European passports while nonetheless being treated as permanent outsiders/others. I think the parallel is pretty valid.
All nations are "imagined communities" because they involve the construction of a fictive sense of belonging. It really doesn't make a lot of sense that I care more about a bus crash in California than about one in Mexico.
And what kind of "community" are we dealing with? My wife is a Jew of Russian and Polish descent--she doesn't look remotely like anyone from the Middle East, and her ancestors probably converted to Judaism in the diaspora. Yet our son has the right to "return," while Palestinians don't.
Yes, Israel does have the right to defend itself against rocket attacks, but that defense should be proportional to the threat.
Take a look at Billmon's posts this week. He points out what all military historians know: air power can't defeat anybody without a ground campaign, and a one-week search and destroy operation in South Lebanon won't work either (see Iraq.) Israel is not going to wipe out Hezbollah this way--it will potentially emerge stronger.
"Some would probably say that unless you know for sure that it's carrying missles, don't hit it. But the people saying this are also not the ones with rockets landing in their towns."
Matan: I had some thoughts about this. I'm not even sure you would disagree with me. It's just I've heard these points made about how people from the outside don't know what it's like. When you fear your own death and the death of your children, then you will hope for swift, decisive action and worry a lot less about other people's children.
I think the Israeli army is probably trying to avoid civilian casualties to some extent. But there are way too many civilian casualties. The only way to avoid too many civilian casualties is not to fire on everything that looks like it might be a target. The U.S. comes too close to doing this--this is why it has too many civilian casualties in the wars it has fought--all of them, WWII, Vietnam, Korea and Iraq--there is too much of what Rumsfeld wants to call 'collateral damage.' A huge difference is that Israelis are in immediate danger whereas U.S. citizens have never been in immediate danger(even though they are afraid of future terrorist attacks and will probably suffer from these in the future).
I think that the cost you pay for following the rules of war is greater danger to your own side. You can't have it both ways: eliminate everything that appears to be a danger and abide by the rules of war (If there is a just way to fight a war, it requires this.) The best way to ensure the safety of your citizens and soldiers when you have huge amounts of fire power is to bomb the hell out of everything. I don't think Israel is going this far but they have to change their tactics. They are hitting too many non-military targets. (I realize that's also complicated because Hizbollah doesn't have real bases. But the unfortunate thing is that just because they don't, this doesn't make it OK to hit whatever looks like a center of support in the hope you won't kill many civilians.) Too many innocent Lebonese are dying and that on its own indicates there is something wrong with the Israeli response.
But I'm not there and there's a lot I don't know or understand because I'm not there.
I wonder why there is not more anger at Hizbollah for civilian casualties as well--they are obviously not at all concerned about the Lebonese who will get caught in the crossfire. An increase in civilian casualties is probably beneficial to their cause.
In regard to blaming a people for their government’s actions, that is in large Israel’s justification for their strategy of collective punishment. They blame the people of Lebanon for allowing Hezbollah to be a threat; they blame the Palestinian people for allowing Hamas and other such groups to be threats. This was true when such groups simply existed in the shadows amongst the general population. Since they have become a part of the legitimate government structure the blame on the people has increased. Hezbollah, Hamas and other groups aren’t very different in how they view Israelis, as it was for their benefit that the Palestinians were displaced, and not originally by the Israeli government. Unfortunately, these are the views held by those with the bombs and missiles, not necessarily those being killed by them. The impression I get from most of the citizens is they simply don’t want to be blown up.
I have to disagree with the assertion that Israel has much concern for not killing civilians. Such a claim is not compatible with them destroying food stores and infrastructure, bombing towns, especially in northern Lebanon where Hezbollah has little to no presence, and cutting off or blocking transportation indiscriminately.
Minerva: “I wonder why there is not more anger at Hizbollah for civilian casualties as well--they are obviously not at all concerned about the Lebonese who will get caught in the crossfire. An increase in civilian casualties is probably beneficial to their cause.”
The Lebanese are already quite polarized in their like of Hezbollah. Many do blame them for invoking Israel’s wrath, as well as the government for being corrupt and unable to control the country, but that doesn’t absolve Israel of blame for destroying their homes and killing their friends and family. In the south Hezbollah is generally liked, as they provide for the people and are seen as the liberators of the southern occupied regions. It’s rather hard to blame the people who rebuild your house and give you food because someone else destroyed your house and crops.
Minverva:
The best way to ensure the safety of your citizens and soldiers when you have huge amounts of fire power is to bomb the hell out of everything. I don't think Israel is going this far but they have to change their tactics. They are hitting too many non-military targets.
Agreed.
I wonder why there is not more anger at Hizbollah for civilian casualties as well--they are obviously not at all concerned about the Lebonese who will get caught in the crossfire. An increase in civilian casualties is probably beneficial to their cause.
There is actually a lot of anger. I don't know if it comes from those same Lebanese civilians who are getting hit. But people have argued (including in a thread at Feministe) that if nothing else, Hezbollah even sending rockets from among civilians is in itself a war crime.
People have said that at first many Lebanese civilians were pissed off at Hezbollah for starting something so dangerous and stupid, but that Israel is losing this advantage as time goes on because the shells and missles are coming from Israel, after all. I've also seen it said that civilian casualites on both sides serve Hezbollah. It's seeking to radicalize people against Israel, and what better way than to have their family blown up?
It is all this that is leading Israelis to say, Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Of course the international community wouldn't be pissed off at Israel if it hadn't launched this offensive, but I think there's a strong case to be made that neither would the international community do all that much to enforce resolution 1559 (I think that's the #).
Thomas, I have not been able to figure out what anyone actually *means* by this: Yes, Israel does have the right to defend itself against rocket attacks, but that defense should be proportional to the threat.
What does proportional mean? People are saying "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"--this seems exactly like that. I understand that it doesn't make sense to bring out the bombs for someone shooting at you with a slingshot. But the decision over whether to drop a bomb on Nasrallah's head should be about who else is in the area (civilians vs. his inner circle, say) rather than some consideration along the lines of, "you know, they've launched fewer missles in the past two days, maybe we should hold off..."
Matan:
I agree that firing rockets into civilian population centers is a war crime. Juan Cole has also been very clear on that point. And Hezbollah should not be using Lebanese civilians as shields.
A proportional response would be hard to define, but I imagine it would involve Israeli soldiers or special forces in south Lebanon, rather than a sustained air campaign as far north as Beirut, which is by its very nature indiscriminate. A proportional response would not eliminate the attacks, but neither will the present disproportionite action.
The long-term challenges in the region are confusing and difficult, yes, but bombing innocent civilians isn't acceptable, and we should be able to say so even if this isn't our area of expertise.
I'm not an expert on Iraq either, yet I and my peers opposed the Iraqi war on the grounds that attacking civilians is unnaceptable. I'm not going to adjust my principles just because it's often more difficult for me to be critical of Israeli leaders resorting to brute force than it is difficult to be critical of President Bush or the leaders of other Western Countries.
An excellent blog on this topic...really...a must read website.
warincontext.org
Mostly news aggragation with occasional insightful comments by the editor.
My response got really long, so I've done it as a blog post instead...here, for the interested.
Well done on this post.
--IP
Agreed Dr. B, I just don't like the use of comparisons when it comes to vocabulary that has a very specific history. Others may disagree, and I respect the reasons. I myself chooes to use "diaspoa" only to refer to conditions for Jews.
Yes, please please please read Edward Said.
I am tempted to say this thread reaffirms my faith in humanity, except that of course halfway around the world people are continuing to kill each other for head-slappingly dumb reasons. The subject of Israel/Palestine does tend to turn reasonable people into raving lunatics and I really really appreciate everyone's measured, careful comments.
At my otherwise awesome, intellectually-rigorous leftist college, people sometimes checked their brains at the door on this topic. Once a smart kid I knew turned in a seminar paper that referred to Israel as "racist" and "the militant Jewish state." This was for an American History class! And he was astonished when his conclusions turned out to be controversial.
Also, on a campus radio show, I heard several guys discussing Israel that same way -- as a vicious colonial power bent on taking over the whole region. "So why haven't they invaded Syria yet, in your opinion?" one guy asked the other. "I really can't tell you," the other replied. "They must be waiting for the right moment."
Ugghh. In that environment, I developed a precondition for discussing the issue: I would only if people would acknowledge IT'S COMPLICATED and that nobody has access to the high ground.
I highly recommend Micheal Neumann's articles that he has collected at his Israel-Palestine Page. Also check out Counterpunch. Alexander Cockburn has an excellent article on this horrible situation. As far as all this talk and fear about being -or comming across as being- anti-Semitic if you are critical of Israel, I do think Neumann is especially instructive.
This is a great blog. I just started checking it out reugarly and I love it, so thanks Dr. B.
Canuckdoc writes: "I remain concerned that the reality is that the regional force majeur would be to do away with Isreal. And that brings to mind a world in which the Jews cannot be citizens anywhere..." and later "This is the main reason why I do not use "diaspora" to refer to any group except for the Jews -- generally because I mean to indicate a people without passports. The only similar groups I can think of right now would be the Irish "Travellers" and the European Gypsies... people without a land to call home..."
If Canuckdoc can only think of two groups of stateless people, this should convince us of nothing besides the fact that he didn't put much thought or research into his position. One of the things regarding Israel that makes absolutely no sense, *except* in the context of a racist or at least chauvinist discourse, is the idea that Jews are somehow unique in their desire and need for a homeland.
What about the Euskadi?
What about the Kurds?
What about the Biafrans?
What about the Navajo?
What about the Ainu?
What about the Lapps?
What about the Maya?
What about the Uighurs?
What about the Ojibwe?
What about the Berbers?
What about the Tamils?
What about the East Timorese?
What about the Maori?
What about the Lakota/Dakota/Nakota?
What about the Mohawks?
What about the Oromo?
What about the Palestinians? (Oh, I forgot, according to the AIPAC shills, "Palestinians" don't exist and are absolutely indistinguishable from Egyptians or Lebanese or Jordanians).
If you've never heard of half the groups I mention above, that's because here in the developed West we're only allowed to talk about one genocide, one diaspora and one set of historically oppressed people who are deserving of a contiguous, sovreign homeland within which they may live in peace and freedom.
The thing that always gets me going in these discussions is the fact that anyone, regardless of race, color, ethnicity, religion or creed can wrap themselves in the Israeli flag in order to legitimize their own racism and reactionary politics, which then allows them to deflect all criticism by screeching "Anti-Semite!" at their critics.
I have to say, I think the 'I don't know enough about this to really comment' is a bit of a cop-out. (And I say that as one who's used it more than once myself). You don't have to be an expert to know massive bombing of civilians in response to ongoing skirmishes between soldiers is wrong and a war crime. I think what distinguishes this issue from others is not that it's complex (lots of issues are) but that a lot of otherwise progressive people have a blind spot that allows them to support things like massive bombing of civilians, ongoing occupations, etc. So progressive types who are used to fulminating against wingnuts who aren't around have to deal with sometimes disturbing views coming from our friends. But our government is now sending bombs--we need to suck it up. (Again, this is not directed at anyone & I've certainly been guilty of this myself.
Erik that is a bunch of racist, western elitist BS. I’m surprised anyone would attempt to make a white man’s burden argument here.
Erik's comment (now deleted on grounds of racist obnoxiousness) was not only racist, it was factually inaccurate. I was almost sorry to delete it instead of pointing out the errors. It always surprises me when people believe that Islam and science/reason have nothing to do with one another--'tis ironic when folks make that claim in order to accuse others of ignorance.
lt, agreed: what's going on now is heinous. I think that the "not knowing enough to comment" thing generally means, not "I don't want to say anything at all" but rather, "aside from being horrified, I have no analysis or opinion to offer." FWIW.
Pasolini, I think your comment identifies something that *is* at the root of the problem. A lot of us, on the one hand, respect the argument that the holocaust and Jewish diaspora are unique and uniquely horrible--and within European history this is true. (More broadly, there are of course unique features of Jewish history as well; I'm speaking roughly here). On the other hand, it isn't true, and the claim to a unique kind of suffering (which often is mistakenly represented or received as a claim to *more* suffering, as if suffering were hierarchical) effectively places Jews in a position beyond criticism: if my suffering is uniquely beyond everyone else's, everyone else can't comment on it. We shouldn't allow that to happen, but since all of us are steeped in European history/culture (and therefore have learned the lesson of the uniqueness and seriousness of the holocaust), it makes us very uncomfortable to step over that boundary.
"This cultural deficit produces shame and rage in their populations. Seems to me that Israel is fed up living next to a people who- because of this fear of free thought- will not focus on science or civics, and cannot manage to govern themselves. Israel is not willing to let such a rat's nest fester on their borders."
I wasn't going to dignify this with a response, but the more I think about it, the more I have to affirm the principal of naming the oppressor and the oppression.
If you can read the above quote and not be shamed and enraged to live in a world where we still allow fascism to exist, then you don't have my sympathy for any of your concerns. When it's perfectly acceptable in the mainstream U.S. and Israeli media to refer to a "demographic time bomb" (racist code words for "those Palestinians breed like vermin, let's wipe them out now while we still can!"), then all this talk about a "right to exist" or "proportionality" is just so much shuck.
I want to make it clear that my post above should not be read as some kind of apologia for nationalism. I have no patience with nationalists of any stripe. Rather, what I was trying to convey is that the claims for "uniqueness" that Israel and its allies rely on to justify their oppresive behavior are nonsense. Look anywhere in the world and you will find persecuted people who aren't lucky enough to be the recipients of $4 billion in U.S. aid every year.
As for this idea that the Israelis are somehow the last redoubt of civilization and culture, it's more nonsense. You can keep your false gods and your force-propped authority and your lousy "culture" (as if the filthy detritus of capitalism could ever merit the term).
To quote an old slogan: "These are not my troops, this is not my country."
My nationality is Worker.
My heritage is Rebellion.
My creed is Freedom.
My ancestors are George Jackson and Assata Shakur, Emma Goldman and Louise Michel, John Brown and Harriet Tubman, Nestor Makhno and Lucy Parsons.
Someday, we'll live in a world where everyone has equal access to our common material inheritance, and an equal chance to live up to their full potential as free human beings. Zionism, Judaism, Islam, capitalism, Christianity, fascism, racism and all the other errors of ideology will perish. Until then however, count me on the side of the people fighting back against their oppressors, wherever they may be and whatever they may look like.
First, I want to apologize for posting as "anonymous coward." I have no idea where that came from. In any case I am happy to sign my name to my recommended reading list (whether doing so undermines it more or less than the previous sig is debatable).
In any case, this gives me the excuse to be a little bit more descriptive.
I would recommend these books in the following order. They are all heavy-going and not at all optimistic. Sorry.
1. Robert Fisk: The Great War for Civilization. This is very current, but at the same time gives the reader a very useful historical context. Robert Fisk is a foreign correspondent who works for the Independent (London) and outside of the US is recognized as the best in the field. He resides in Lebanon, but has lived quite a bit in Iraq since the 2003 phase of the US attack. It would be hard to find anyone in the UK/US who can speak with more informed authority and passion on Lebanon than Robert Fisk. He has an earlier book, on Lebanon, entitled "Pity the Nation." Chapter 1 describes his visit to Auschwitz in preparation for writing the book. It is not an anti-Israel (or anti-Jewish) screed, much to his credit. It is a very informed critical historical analysis. The new book is better, but if you have time and strong enough anti-depressants to read two Fisk books, Pity the Nation is also extremely valuable.
These are amazon.com links:
http://tinyurl.com/m57tm
http://tinyurl.com/qqexj
2. Noam Chomsky probably needs no introduction, but I'll quickly mention he is the inventor of the modern theory of linguistics and possibly the smartest person alive. I really like his writing style, though many find it to be a bit hard-going. He is probably the most erudite critic on the "left" of US foreign policy. His book Middle East Illusions is now a couple of years out of date but well worth the read. He is also Jewish, FWIW.
http://tinyurl.com/rh4bq
3. I neglected to mention the late Edward Said. Said was a Professor of Literature (I think) at Columbia. He was also Palestinian. He is from a well-off, non-Muslim background, but his insight is if anything enhanced by this perspective. The End of the Peace Process is a good book that dispels the idea that Israel has tried to go the extra mile at Oslo.
http://tinyurl.com/qa377
4. In addition, there are some valuable web resources:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
http://electronicintifada.net/new.shtml
http://www.zmag.org/
The idea of 'proportionate response' to terrorist provocations may be workable, but in practice it seems unlikely that it will ever be attempted. In response to the unrelenting hostility of their Arab neigbours, successive Israeli governments appear to have embraced an ethic of total retaliation: repayment tenfold for any injury.
The only occasions on which Israel has stayed its hand in the past have been those on which it has been clear that the US administration of the day would not support Israel's actions. On this occasion, George W. Bush and Tony Blair have given Israel carte blanche to pursue what is in effect a time-limited war against Hezbollah.
Whatever the historic rights and wrongs of the Palestine situation, the issue now is the continued survival of Israel as a state. Since it seems unlikely that either the Israelis or the American Jewish diaspora will accept its disappearance, it may be that the price of Israel's survival is unending conflict with its irreconcilable neighbours. There is every indication that the Israeli government may see this as the least evil of the many possible courses of action. There are curious parallels here with the USA itself: another country that loudly trumpets its democratic credentials yet sees no contradiction in practising a profoundly antidemocratic foreign policy. As a non-Jew, an atheist and a stereotypically cynical Brit, who has watched for forty years as religious nationalism has torn Northern Ireland apart, I can't find any words of comfort. But it's nice to see the issue for once addressed rationally and with good will.
Here is my few cents on the topic.
1. Criticism of Zionism (especially when there there no similar criticism of any other nationalism) sounds a bit close to anti-semitism to me. I would put it in these terms. If a white person went on and on about how evil affirmative action for African-Americans was, as the main focus of their advocacy, many folks might wonder if they are racist. Yes, both Shelby Steele and Strom Thurmond oppose affirmative action. Same policy view. I am far more skeptical of Strom's motives.
2. Regarding Chomsky, Finkelstein and Said. You must understand that they are very much anti-Israeli partisans. Reading them will only give you one side of the issue. I suggest Alan Dershowitz's The Case For Israel and Efraim Karsh's Fabricating Israeli History for the other side of the case, and Howard Sachar's history of Israel as a more balanced view.
3. On the topic of the US-Israel relationship. Yes, the US does have close ties with Israel for various reasons, only of which is the role of US Jewry. There is also a common democratic and cultural heritage and a common interest in opposing Islamic fundamentalism. The other aspect that doesn't get heard from anti-Israel advocates is that fact that UN is a puppet to Palestinian nationalism, with the EU to a slightly lesser degree. Finally, Palestinian nationalism can draw upon the Muslim world, those who consume Arab oil and the western media (which in turn shapes western public opinion). It is a fallacy that Palestinian nationalism is some powerless victim.
4. Finally, as a leftie, Israel is the one state in the region that has trade unions, gay rights, freedom of religion, real democracy and womens' rights. All of which are very good reasons for lefties to support Israel
@ Pasolini,
I am in a very bad mood today and it has nothing to do with your charge, and I will only say that by my comment I meant"off the top of my head" and that for at least some of the groups you mention like First Nations and Aboriginal groups the issue if far more complicated than you make it seem. I am not an expert on international policy regarding citizenship. I worry that when we get into comparisons we roam into the land where differences are elided as inconsequential.
I think that you misconstrue my point -- which in the end I think is not so far away from your own -- that each groups of people has its own unique set of challenges and when we draw comparisons we might lose some of the nuance.
You might not agree with *my* choice to be very literal about the diaspora -- which, imho, would be a *terrible* term to apply to any aboriginal or native group for it risks telling such groups that the land they have never left is a land to which they have no claim -- but it doesn't make me a damned fool. It makes me goddamn tired.
Now, because I'm especially tired and agitated today, having had it completely crapped on by family, I'll refrain from furhter comment.
Very good post, B. And an excellent essay by Tony Judt that I hadn't read. You should also check out this essay by him, http://www.peacecouncil.net/pnl/
...adtoNowhere.htm. It's two years old, but still relevant.
Jaron, I haven't read much Chomsky or any Finkelstein, so I can't speak to those two, but Said really isn't anti-Israel. He's pro-Palestinian, but in a pretty measured and thoughtful way.
And Dershowitz? Who's currently arguing that there is a difference between civilians who are held hostage against their will by terrorists who use them as involuntary human shields, and civilians who voluntarily place themselves in harm's way in order to protect terrorists from enemy fire.
Place themselves in harm's way by living where Israel is bombing? Isn't that a pretty disgusting argument to be making?
If you are more fond of Said's academic approach, I would recommend Fuad Ajami, Efraim Karsh's Arafat's War, or Bernard Lewish as his stylistic equivalent and opposite view. I also suggest Irshad Manji's thoroughly feminist The Trouble With Islam. For what it is worth, Said's views on orientalism are flawed in several ways IMO.
The other point I would make about the now departed Said is you need to look beyond the at times opaque prose and nice manners. He advocated all his life for Palestinians born for several generations outside historic Palestine to not only have a right to immigrate to within the borders of a soon to be established Palestinian state, but also to within whatever would be the borders of Israel. Think that one through. 5,000,000 Palestinians born abroad and raised from birth to hate Jews moving into a Jewish state that has 5,000,000 Jews. That is recipe for at minimum massive bloodshed and at maximum a state of Palestine that would have no living Jewish population. There is clear recent historical record of what happens when a Jewish population center falls under Arab rule. From 1948-67 every single living Jew was killed or ethnically cleansed by the neighbors from the west bank, gaza and east Jerusalem. In some cases, Jewish populations that had been there for centuries. The Palestinian view on having a living Jewish population couldn't be clearer, even for Jews born in a particular house for generations.
The late Prof. Said essentially proposed, with erudite prose and tasteful advocacy, a policy that would have repurcussions on the ground in the real world of ethnic conflict that would resemble Rwanda at its worst.
"The" Palestinian view? I don't agree that Palestines all hate Jews. That's nuts. And what you're describing (which Said may or may not have proposed--it doesn't sound familiar, and I have read some Said, but maybe I missed that) is pretty much the same as the Israeli right of return, no?
A scholar for whom I have great respect, with a unique biography as the daughter of a Palestinian father and a Jewish mother, Jasmin Habib has a book that many might ignore simply because it's been published in Canada, and her name has thus far been missing from the reading list here.
http://www.cjnews.com/viewarticl...cle.asp?
id=4140
In one sense, the original post, that the situation is horrifically complicated, is accurate. On the other hand, it's pretty clear that most people who have an opinion on this issue are NOT perfectly neutral-most people are either mostly pro-Israeli or mostly pro-Palestinian. I know I certainly am.
What it comes down to is this: Hezbollah and Hamas do not believe in Israel's right to exist- in their view the State of Israel is as illegitimate as Maximillian's Empire of Mexico. So long as that's true, what is Israel supposed negotiate with?
I point out that Egypt and Jordan once had the same position, and once they renounced it Israel made the peace and kept it. The PLO also renounced it, in Oslo, but went back on it. Peace in the Middle East will not come until all parties are convinced that Israel is there to stay.
Speedy
It is "the" Palestinian view in that I challenge you to produce even one Palestinian who will openly say they are a Zionist. Not that they will reluctantly accept Israel because they have no choice, but a Palestinian who will believe and say in public that they believe that Israel has a legitimate right to be a sovereign state as the organic homeland of the Jewish people in the same sense that the Poles have Poland, Kurds have Kurdistan and Palestinians have...Palestine. Such a Palestinian is a rare bird and considered a traitor by their fellows. Anti-Zionist Jews (which to my mind smack of Clarence Thomas, but that is just my opinion) abound as do Jews critical of Israel to various degrees. You won't find a "anti-Palestinian nationalism" Palestinian. Maybe "all" is too broad a generalization, but if you look at the Palestinian education system it is just scary. Things like adorable 4 year old kids being dressed up like suicide bombers by their families and saying how they want to be a shaheed on TV while their teachers and classmates applaud. Many Palestinians describe this as being "anti-Zionist" without being "anti-Jewish". The problem with that is when a Palestinian says they are "anti-Zionist but not anti-Jewish" (s)he is actually talking about a world in which Jews exist at best as a 2nd class minority under Arab rule. Think women before feminism or African-Americans in the Jim Crow south. Someone who likes women just fine but is "anti-feminist". Not many Jews find that offer very tempting. In that sense, being "anti-Zionist" but not hating Jews is a bit like me having no problem with African-Americans as people but stauchly opposing all modern civil rights measures. Or saying I am fine with Palestinians as human beings and so can't be labelled "anti-Palestinian", but at the same time saying I oppose "Palestinian nationalism" and won't let them have a state.
It just doesn't hold up to close scrutiny. One can be "anti-nationalist" in the sense you oppose all forms of nationalism, but such a person would, in addition to opposing Israel's right to exist, would also oppose Palestine's. And Japan's and Russia's.
One way to analyze it is to look at it from what the person is seeking. Clarence Thomas and David Duke both oppose affirmative action. Same policy preference. I would suggest that Justice Thomas (although I think he is wrong and misguided), is not deliberately trying to harm African-Americans the way David Duke is. So, I look at the criticism of Israel from Michael Lerner (a Jewish leftie) and it sounds a lot like Palestinian criticism. Until I look and see that Rabbi Lerner isn't teaching his children that the Protocols Of The Elders of Zion are fact (as is the case in Palestinian society). See what I mean?
In terms of right of return, Israel allows Jews (and those closely related) to immigrate to Israel and become citizens. It also allows those same folks to live not only within the green line 1967 cease fire line, but also in the west bank and gaza. Palestinians and many others (including many Jews) strongly oppose Jews living in the WB&G. What Said and Palestinian advocates of what they call awda (return) propose is the equivalent of Jewish settlers born abroad moving to the WB&G. For them it would be Palestinians born abroad moving NOT to within the borders of a Palestinian state, but inside Israeli borders next to a Palestinian state. Picture 5,000,000 Palestinians moving into a Jewish state with currently 5,000,000 Jews and 2,000,000 Arab citizens. Next to and instead of into a state of Palestine next door with no living Jewish population. In this real world of ethnic conflict. At very best the Jews go back to their 2000 year history of being a persecuted minority under the rule of another. My sense is it would be far bloodier with the Palestinians acting to past form with Jews under their rule. In any case, I don't see why folks even as gullible my fellow Jews would be so dim as to support that. If I asked the Palestinians to accept 5,000,000 Jewish immigrants to Palestine tomorrow, I think I know their answer.
Finally, to underscore the clout the supposedly helpless Palestinians have, is refugee status. There are 2 types of refugee recognized by the UN, thanks to Palestinian contol at the UN. Palestinian and every other. Every other person made a refugee is only a refugee if they were personally expelled. Their kids born abroad are not. Palestinians born anywhere on earth, no matter how many generations along, are considered refugees. So a Palestinian born in Michigan in 2000 can claim to be a "refugee".
"I mention above, that's because here in the developed West we're only allowed to talk about one genocide, one diaspora and one set of historically oppressed people who are deserving of a contiguous, sovreign homeland within which they may live in peace and freedom."
Really? Who are you talking to? Do you read the major newspapers? I hear a lot of talk about many genocides. All of it is based on a conceptual scheme that arose from reflection on the horrors of the Holocaust. The genocide against the Armenians by the Turks was not well understood as genocide. After the Holocaust, it is. The concern that the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia would be another Holocaust played a significant role in the U.S. decision to intervene (badly, and too late).
Reflection about the Holocaust inspired the whole idea of crimes against humanity. It is now used in many other contexts. There is now a legal framework in place--one that arose out of the Holocaust.
Your claim is also that the victims of genocide--if they survive-- do not also get to claim their own nation states as insurance against further harm. Sometimes there is no place for them to go, sometimes they only get limited sovereignty (as in the very problematic U.S. reservation system), sometimes an attempt is made to reconfigure populations to ensure ethnic national homogeneity--as in the case of Bosnia and Kosovo. But it would be ridiculous to say that the fact that Jews have Israel as a result of the Holocaust somehow prevents other peoples from claiming a sovereign nation. In fact, it provides precedent for threatened people to make geopolitical claims. Kurdish claims to a Kurdish state are not threatened by the existence of Israel--Israel is a precedent for such a claim.
I know only a few people who have relatives murdered in the Holocaust and ALL OF THEM are politically active to work against genocide against other peoples. They had Guatemalans and Bosnians living in their homes. They fought for people to get refugee status in the U.S. They pressured their political representatives to do something to stem the violence they feared would turn into genocide.
Acknowledging the Holocaust rarely makes people callous to similar horrors--it makes us attentive to them. The whole point of such acknowledgement is to remind us what people are capable of and to guard against it happening again--to anyone.
We should get worried when people want us to forget the Holocaust.
Minerva,
If Rwanda, Sudan, the Balkans and Kurdistan are any indicators, I wouldn't get your hopes up about genocide (or attempts at it) being a thing of the past. Human nature doesn't change and never has. Human technology (for better and/or worse) just helps us put that human nature into action better. From modern medicine to nerve gas.
I want to go back to an idea in the Ha'aretz article for a minute. The contention is that the Holocaust does not give Israel carte blanche to do just anything it wants and justify it using the Holocaust, especially because the Holocaust is behind us. (I'm paraphrasing from what I remember.)
I agree with this. Still, it's hard to not be motivated by the Holocaust mentality of fear and defensiveness when people (who are clearly trying to kill you) pull shit like this:
Nasrallah said in 2002 (and this is getting new reporting recently): "If they [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." The citation is from this article which also talks about the idea that the opposition to Israel among Iran's leadership stems as much from anti-Semitism as from anything else.
When a person shoots rockets at Israel, and says they want to kill Jews all over the world, it is hard not to hear this as an attempt to return to the Holocaust.
Note that I'm not saying this has anything to say about justification for Israeli actions. Nor do I think the memory of the Holocaust is the major motivator in modern Israelis' minds when it comes to military actions--they are much more likely to think about what has happened between them and their neighbors for the past 50+ years.
But when it comes to that defensive impluse, there's nothing to get that going faster than someone saying they will not rest until you and everything you love is gone.
I am just wondering what other options there were. Israel occupied no Lebanese land, so the "its the occupation" line won't fly. Hizballah sent 700+ rockets into northern Israel with every intent to do more. It should be obvious what a sustained rocket campaign does to life in a small state for months on end. The Lebanese government refused to do anything about it. The "international community" did nothing. Then Hizballah grabs 2 prisoners.
For those who advocate Israeli restraint in this: give me another option. One other than just sit there let Hizballah bombard Haifa forever into the future.
Jaron, you are misrepresenting a lot of what has and is occurring. A lot of Palestinians do recognize Israel as a legitimate state for the Jewish people. That is in fact a major point of contention between the newly elected Hamas officials and the pre-existing officials. I don’t thing you would find any that would proclaim to be a Zionist however, as for them that goes rather beyond simply recognizing Israel as a legitimate state in that it would proclaim the Palestinians have no right to the land they once and currently reside on. You go on to place a lot of words into the mouths of Palestinians. While some certainly would agree with the sentiments you present for them, many would not. The greatest fallacy is to think all Palestinians are of one voice. It is no better to claim Hamas speaks for every Palestinian as it would be to claim Abbas does.
Some more specific exceptions:
From 1948-67 every single living Jew was killed or ethnically cleansed by the neighbors from the west bank, gaza and east Jerusalem.
This is an exaggeration at best. There are to this day still some, albeit a very small number, of Palestinian Jews living alongside Palestinian Arabs in the occupied territories. The statement is also misleading due to the absence of its context. That time period, as well as before and after, was a time of war between Israel and its neighbors. The atrocities committed against Jews was reflected by those committed against Arabs.
Finally, to underscore the clout the supposedly helpless Palestinians have, is refugee status. There are 2 types of refugee recognized by the UN, thanks to Palestinian contol at the UN. Palestinian and every other. Every other person made a refugee is only a refugee if they were personally expelled. Their kids born abroad are not. Palestinians born anywhere on earth, no matter how many generations along, are considered refugees. So a Palestinian born in Michigan in 2000 can claim to be a "refugee".
Bold: wtf?
For the rest of it, where is that coming from. From what I’ve seen of the UN statements and polices, refugee status for Palestinians specifically only applies to those displace by the creation of Israel.
I am just wondering what other options there were. Israel occupied no Lebanese land, so the "its the occupation" line won't fly. Hizballah sent 700+ rockets into northern Israel with every intent to do more. It should be obvious what a sustained rocket campaign does to life in a small state for months on end. The Lebanese government refused to do anything about it. The "international community" did nothing. Then Hizballah grabs 2 prisoners.
Hizbollah is not concerned solely with Israel offenses against Lebanon. Even if they were though, Israel isn’t pristinely innocent of any offense against Lebanon since withdrawing in 2000. I have no desire to defend Hizbollah, your misrepresentation warrants it however. Hizbollah’s capturing of Israeli soldiers was the start of the current situation, not the zenith of it. Their missile campaign didn’t begin until Israel started its assaults on Lebanon. Previously there were only sporadic attacks aimed at the IDF as part of a continual back and forth with Israel’s airspace violation.
Your charge about the Lebanese government is bogus. You’d be as accurate to blame the current Iraqi government for the insurgents there. They do not have the political power, nor do they wish to start another civil war by making a forced attempt. I would agree however that you are largely correct about the international community.
None of that however has any bearing on why Israel would attack Lebanon at large. Attacking Hizbollah to whatever extent has a connection, bombing Tripoli does not. Collective punishment is simply the strategy they have always used that has never worked.
For those who advocate Israeli restraint in this: give me another option. One other than just sit there let Hizballah bombard Haifa forever into the future.
That can be easily turned around, what other options does Hizbollah have than to sit there and let Israel bombard Lebanon forever into the future? It’s not a one sided issue. Both sides could to agree to a cease fire. Either side could initiate a cease fire, then see if the other followed suite. Asking why Hizbollah doesn’t is just as valid as asking why Israel doesn’t.
None-the-less, it’s a false question. The real question would be how they should have responded to the capture of their soldiers. That is the point where restraint could have been significant. Though really, I don’t consider it restraint to not do harm to the uninvolved for the crimes of Hizbollah.
That’s still just something for the short term though. Any real long term solution would mean removing either Israel or those who oppose it. The latter certainly isn’t a valid option, imo. The latter would require removing a place for such groups as Hamas and Hizbollah. That would require a strengthening of the Lebanese and Palestinian governments so that they could provide for their people. And yes, Israel would have to stop attacking the governments, infrastructure and people of Lebanon and what may become the Palestinian state. While that may not be desirable in the short term, it would be necessary for Hizbollah and Hamas to be seen as obsolete by the people of Lebanon and Palestinians. As is, as long as Hizbollah and Hamas provide social services to the people and are seen as resistance to Israeli aggression, they will have some legitimacy amongst the people. Allow the governments to displace them for social services and remove the perceived aggression and they will dissolve over time. It would probably take several generations, but once the conflicts and insults can be solidly put in the past, the reason to start anew the conflict would be lost.
D, thank you.
Errata: 3rd sentance of last paragraph should be "The former," not "The latter."
And no problem Dr. B.
"A lot of Palestinians do recognize Israel as a legitimate state for the Jewish people. That is in fact a major point of contention between the newly elected Hamas officials and the pre-existing officials."
The did elect Hamas. Yes, I understand that part of that was disgust with Fatah corruption, but if the Hamas message was so repugnant, I doubt if it would have gotten so many votes.
"I don’t thing you would find any that would proclaim to be a Zionist however, as for them that goes rather beyond simply recognizing Israel as a legitimate state in that it would proclaim the Palestinians have no right to the land they once and currently reside on."
Not really. I consider myself a Zionist in that I believe Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people in the same sense that France is the homeland for the French people. I also believe that Palestine is the homeland for the Palestinian people. Yes, it is the same land. There are many Palestinians who believe in making a deal with Israel because they have to. But my Palestinian equivalent (i.e. someone who believes that Israel has a legitimate right to exist even if it couldn't defend itself) simply isn't there. If you are aware of such folks, please show them. Several generations of Jews have been born in the West Bank and Gaza, yet a large percentage of Israelis would say that such Jews have no right to live in the houses they were born in. That Palestinian equivalent doesn't exist. They have a clear majority that supports folks who have been born for 3 generations now outside historic Palesine having a "right" to move to houses that Jews have lived for generations. Not just a right to immigrate to a state of Palestine. But a supposed "right" to immigrate to an Israeli state (over the objections of that state and its people) they have been taught from birth to hate. It is a basic qualitative difference between Zionism and Palestinian nationalism.
" The greatest fallacy is to think all Palestinians are of one voice. It is no better to claim Hamas speaks for every Palestinian as it would be to claim Abbas does. "
I don't think that on most topics. But on a few core topics, there is at minimum broad concensus and at maximum near unanimity. First on Awda (return) and secondly on the real legitimacy question. Sari Nusseibeh is the one Palestinian I am aware of who comprised on those points and almost got lynched by his fellows for it. On the Jewish side there is a far broader (even anarchicly so) range of opinion.
"This is an exaggeration at best. There are to this day still some, albeit a very small number, of Palestinian Jews living alongside Palestinian Arabs in the occupied territories."
Can you list them? Can you tell me of a single Jewish population center from 1948-67 in the West Bank, Gaza or E. Jerusalem? Or a single Jew living in Gaza after the recent Israeli withdrawal? I can tell you of plenty of Israeli Arab population centers inside the green line from 48-67. The Jewish quarter of Jerusalam's old city had a centuries old Jewish community that was ethnically cleansed, as but one example.
Yes, I do understand this took place in the framework of a nasty conflict. But even so, 20% of Israeli citizens are today Palestinians and were so even from 48-67. Israel did NOT do what the neighbors did in qualitive terms (i.e. remove 100% of the "other" population) either from 48-67 or today.
In terms of the UN, if the Palestinians were so bereft of support, can you explain to me how the UN Zionism=Racism resolution was passed. Certainly no other state on earth I am aware has had its core beliefs publicly branded as racism at the UN. For the UN record on Israel, I urge you to look at these:
http://www.israelnationalnews.co...f/un-
israel.htm
http://www.unwatch.org/site/
c.bd...ntiSemitism.htm
"For the rest of it, where is that coming from. From what I’ve seen of the UN statements and polices, refugee status for Palestinians specifically only applies to those displace by the creation of Israel."
And their descendents. That is the catch right there. No other refugees on earth (and there are plenty) have children born abroad who are also legally considered refugees. Only Palestinians. That bespeaks Palestinians who aren't as helpless as they are made out to be. Power comes in many forms.
"Hizbollah is not concerned solely with Israel offenses against Lebanon. Even if they were though, Israel isn’t pristinely innocent of any offense against Lebanon since withdrawing in 2000."
Take a look at the Israel-Jordan and Israel-Egpyt borders today. Past history of conflict does not preclude a peaceful border.
"Your charge about the Lebanese government is bogus. You’d be as accurate to blame the current Iraqi government for the insurgents there. They do not have the political power, nor do they wish to start another civil war by making a forced attempt."
I agree that the Lebanese state would have challenges taking on Hizballah, especially given the soft power green money gives them in bought votes. But I wonder if many Lebanese Hizballah voters aren't wondering if the Hizballah provided social services didn't come with a heavy price tag.
"None of that however has any bearing on why Israel would attack Lebanon at large. Attacking Hizbollah to whatever extent has a connection, bombing Tripoli does not. Collective punishment is simply the strategy they have always used that has never worked."
The point of the exercise (which I may not agree with BTW) is to get the Lebanese state/population to pressure Hizballah in ways that Israel cannot.
"That can be easily turned around, what other options does Hizbollah have than to sit there and let Israel bombard Lebanon forever into the future?"
Because there is a fundamental difference between the parties in this. Israel can get along fine with Lebanon as a state right next door, provided they don't bombard it daily with rockets. Hizballah's explicitely stated raison d'etre is to destroy Israel and kill her population. In order to maintain its network of social services (which buy it votes), it must have constant infusions of "green money" from Iran, Syria and others. If it doesn't attack Israel, that funding dries up. That is a large impetus to launch attacks, whether Israel occupies any Lebanese land or not. The "occupation" argument was always bogus in my opinion, or there would have been peace from 48-67 when Israel occupied none what is today contested and STILL was constantly attacked.
"None-the-less, it’s a false question. The real question would be how they should have responded to the capture of their soldiers."
Well, lets say your had Ehud Olmert's job. 700+ rockets with more on the way. 2 captured soldiers. The Lebanese cannot and/or will not intervene to stop Hizballah. What do you do in tangible concrete measures to address the problem?
"That’s still just something for the short term though. Any real long term solution would mean removing either Israel or those who oppose it. The latter certainly isn’t a valid option, imo. The latter would require removing a place for such groups as Hamas and Hizbollah. That would require a strengthening of the Lebanese and Palestinian governments so that they could provide for their people. And yes, Israel would have to stop attacking the governments, infrastructure and people of Lebanon and what may become the Palestinian state. While that may not be desirable in the short term, it would be necessary for Hizbollah and Hamas to be seen as obsolete by the people of Lebanon and Palestinians."
Are you proposing that Israel just allow Hamas and Hizballah to kill Israeli citizens with impunity in the hope they will lose the next election?
" Allow the governments to displace them for social services and remove the perceived aggression and they will dissolve over time. It would probably take several generations, but once the conflicts and insults can be solidly put in the past, the reason to start anew the conflict would be lost."
You assume that the governments either can or will provide those social services. Arab states don't have a good record of doing so unless they have massive petrodollars. Secondly, no Israeli government that allows the neighbors to kill its citizens with impunity for a long period of time will stay in office. How many bus and market bombings would you tolerate in the city you live in before responding?
Good discussion
The did elect Hamas. Yes, I understand that part of that was disgust with Fatah corruption, but if the Hamas message was so repugnant, I doubt if it would have gotten so many votes.
As with most elections, people vote the options they have, not necessarily the options they want. And not finding a particular message totally repugnant is quite different than agreeing or supported said particular message.
If you are aware of such folks, please show them.
If you pay for the travel expenses. I’d suggest waiting for a while though; it doesn’t seem like the safest time to make a trip to Gaza. The catch with this whole bit is in fact geographically, Palestine and Israel are the same, but only Israel is an actual state. So to say Palestinians want to return to their lands in an Israeli state, but Israelis don’t want Jews to return to a Palestinian State is disingenuous. The latter can to an extent be said to have already occurred with the formation of Israel. If a Palestinian state were to be set up beside the Israeli state with definite borders and true autonomy, then you could criticize those still wishing to return to the Israeli state. My understanding is that for many Palestinians, the real question is not the existence/legitimacy of Israel, but rather the existence/legitimacy of their own state.
Can you tell me of a single Jewish population center from 1948-67 in the West Bank, Gaza or E. Jerusalem?
No, because Palestinian Jews are not Jews in Palestine, but Palestinians who are Jewish.
Or a single Jew living in Gaza after the recent Israeli withdrawal?
Yes, but again, they are Palestinians; refugees living next to their Palestinian Arab neighbors. Perhaps we can visit some of them too.
Regarding the UN, yes there was a backlash, primarily initiated by Arab nations. That is not to say much of the condemnation wasn’t warranted even if one sided. The backlash was also certainly a far cry from the Palestinians controlling the UN. I would also say that depending upon how you wish to define Zionism, the charge that it is racist is not necessary false.
And their descendents.
Again, where are you getting that? I don’t see that. Unless you’re referring to the dependents of refugees, in which case, I believe that is universal.
http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/whois.html
Past history of conflict does not preclude a peaceful border.
Conflict on the Lebanon-Israel border is hardly past history. It has been ongoing.
The point of the exercise (which I may not agree with BTW) is to get the Lebanese state/population to pressure Hizballah in ways that Israel cannot.
If you do not agree with it, why defend it? I realize what they wish to accomplish. I also realize the brutality, viciousness and futility of it. Attacking civilians is abhorrent. It is so when Hizbollah does such, and it is so when Israel does such.
Because there is a fundamental difference between the parties in this. Israel can get along fine with Lebanon as a state right next door, provided they don't bombard it daily with rockets. Hizballah's explicitely stated raison d'etre is to destroy Israel and kill her population. In order to maintain its network of social services (which buy it votes), it must have constant infusions of "green money" from Iran, Syria and others. If it doesn't attack Israel, that funding dries up. That is a large impetus to launch attacks, whether Israel occupies any Lebanese land or not. The "occupation" argument was always bogus in my opinion, or there would have been peace from 48-67 when Israel occupied none what is today contested and STILL was constantly attacked.
Lebanon can likewise get along fine with Israel, provided they don’t bombard it daily with bombs. Don’t confuse Hizbollah with Lebanon. (I realize my statement could easily be read for doing such. I should have perhaps clarified their status would be defenders of Lebanon separate from Labanon itself.) The tolerance/acceptance for Hizbollah comes from many places, the occupation of S. Lebanon was once one of them. Currently their role as a defender of Lebanon against Israeli aggression is another. Also, Hizbollah didn’t exist prior to 1982, so they could not have had any role in the fighting between 48-67. However, as long as Hizbollah exists as they currently do, they will likely to some extent or another launch attacks on Israel.
Well, lets say your had Ehud Olmert's job. 700+ rockets with more on the way. 2 captured soldiers. The Lebanese cannot and/or will not intervene to stop Hizballah. What do you do in tangible concrete measures to address the problem?
That is still a false question. Those rockets weren’t being fired prior to Israel’s response. To ignore that part however, Israel could do what it has in the past and exchange prisoners. Not something I would do, as that really just encourages further kidnappings. I would perhaps demand their return, maybe issuing an ultimatum of some sort. Ask the international community to help pressure Hizbollah as well as the Lebanese government. If such things failed to work, then perhaps very directed attacks at Hizbollah positions in S. Lebanon. I would not however, allow attacks upon the civilian population at large nor infrastructure necessary for maintaining a respectable standard of living. In short, I would, if other routes failed, attack Hizbollah, not Lebanon.
Are you proposing that Israel just allow Hamas and Hizballah to kill Israeli citizens with impunity in the hope they will lose the next election?
Retaliating against Hamas or Hizbollah would by no means require “attacking the governments, infrastructure and people of Lebanon and what may become the Palestinian state.” In fact, with a strengthening government, such retaliation could be cooperational.
You assume that the governments either can or will provide those social services. Arab states don't have a good record of doing so unless they have massive petrodollars. Secondly, no Israeli government that allows the neighbors to kill its citizens with impunity for a long period of time will stay in office. How many bus and market bombings would you tolerate in the city you live in before responding?
Depends on the social services you’re talking about. Providing housing wouldn’t be an important social service if people’s housing was demolished. The same for schools, electricity etc. That’s one reason it would be important for Israel to lay off. If they don’t bulldoze or blow up a person’s house, there is no reason for the government or Hamas to provide housing. It’s a vicious cycle, one which the Lebanese and Palestinian governments have no power to step out of, and which Hamas and Hizbollah have no desire to step out of. The question then falls to Israel; does it want to step out of the cycle?
I realize politics make it difficult. As long as there is a politician that values getting elected before having peace, it’s not likely anyone pursuing my strategy would stay in office unless they seriously got the international community involved in working with Lebanon and the Palestinians to secure their own affairs and insuring they in fact did so. And again, it’s not about giving Hamas or Hizbollah impunity; it’s about giving the uninvolved and innocent impunity, which to me I consider to be a given.
To me, it's clear. Israel has a right to exist WITHIN ITS ORIGINAL BOUNDARIES. Sure, it was originally a land grab, but I think that the Jews have a right to their homeland anyway after the centuries of persecution and genocide they have suffered.
And I believe that the Arab world has to police Hezbollah and other thug organizations who are frightening everyone and causing Israel to go on a rampage. They have to see that it is in their interest to get these people under control. Otherwise, there will never be peace in the Middle East.
What Israel has no right to do, as I see it, is to kill poor people who can't get out of the way of its missiles. Those horrible pictures show a great wrong being done.
Israel has a right to exist WITHIN ITS ORIGINAL BOUNDARIES.
The cease-fire agreement that ended Israel's 1948 war of independence was careful to specify that the cease-fire lines were not to be construed as permanent boundaries. Since the Palestinians did not place themselves under any obligation to respect those boundaries, I don't see why Israel is under any obligation to respect them from the other side.
(I suspect that any permanent resolution to the conflict will involve Israel having permanent borders close to the 1948-67 boundaries, simply because Israel cannot morally and practically rule over large Arab populations in the WB and Gaza, but the details need to be worked out.)
The Jewish Virtual Library has lots of stuff about the Israeli-Arab conflict from a pro-Israel perspective.
Re the argument "lots of civilians are suffering from how Israel is attacking Lebanon, and therefore Israel is responding inappropriately": my short response is to quote article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." My long response is here.
"As with most elections, people vote the options they have, not necessarily the options they want. And not finding a particular message totally repugnant is quite different than agreeing or supported said particular message."
While that may be true, once a political party is in office, it tends to convince itself that everyone voted for it not as a protest vote, but because they buy the party program (Hamas in this case). And with the levers of power in hand, it is far easier to be be re-elected.
"If you pay for the travel expenses. I’d suggest waiting for a while though; it doesn’t seem like the safest time to make a trip to Gaza."
Even if you went there, you still couldn't find them. I challenge you or anyone else to provide evidence that there was a Jewish population base (or even one living Jew for that matter) in the West Bank, Gaza or E. Jerusalem from 48-67. That is the basic difference between the parties. For all the blather about "racism", the Palestinian track record is to kill or ethnically cleanse every Jewish population that falls under their rule. You must understand that context when Palestinians talk about "one state of all its citizens". There won't be any living Jews among said citizens, just as there are no living Jews in Gaza now who aren't in the IDF.
" The latter can to an extent be said to have already occurred with the formation of Israel. If a Palestinian state were to be set up beside the Israeli state with definite borders and true autonomy, then you could criticize those still wishing to return to the Israeli state."
But that is exactly what the doctrine of Palestinian nationalism (supported by the overwhelming majority if not all Palestinians) calls for. Whether there is a full state of Palestine or not, these folks want to immigrate to Tel Aviv. The functional equivalent would be a full state of Palestine being forced to accept 4,000,000 Jewish immigrants, despite Israel being next door. No sane Palestinian would agree to that. I don't see why Israel should either.
"My understanding is that for many Palestinians, the real question is not the existence/legitimacy of Israel, but rather the existence/legitimacy of their own state."
Then explain to me who from 1948-67, when Israel occupied not one inch of the west bank or Gaza, and those areas had not one living Jew you provide evidence of, there was still no peace?
"No, because Palestinian Jews are not Jews in Palestine, but Palestinians who are Jewish."
I can only think of one such person (and he is an anomaly), and this is very much my Cause and focus of study. D, this Jewish population existing under Palestinian rule simply doesn't and didn't exist.
"Yes, but again, they are Palestinians; refugees living next to their Palestinian Arab neighbors. Perhaps we can visit some of them too."
Exactly. Those "refugees" were born in Gaza. They are not going to immigrate to Israel, no more than a Jew born in and expelled recently from Gaza is going to ever live in Gaza again. But the Palestinians are still going to call and mistreat these guys as refugees even after there is a full state of Palestine on the map. This has nothing to do with a state of Palestine and everything to do with destroying Israel, regardless of its borders.
"Regarding the UN, yes there was a backlash, primarily initiated by Arab nations. That is not to say much of the condemnation wasn’t warranted even if one sided."
A backlash? A UN that ignores literal genocides in progress where 6 digit figures of people die, to have hundreds of resolutions condemning one side only in what is in perspective a minor ethnic conflict in a world awash with them?
"The backlash was also certainly a far cry from the Palestinians controlling the UN."
I imagine conservatives don't really control the US supreme court either? 
I would suggest that if you can manage to get the UN to give your people, and your people alone, a unique refugee status, and have your issue be voted favorably on over a 40-50 year period at the top of the agenda, that is control.
" I would also say that depending upon how you wish to define Zionism, the charge that it is racist is not necessary false."
Zionism is nothing more than the idea that Jewish people have a claim to a particular chunk of land as the legitimate homeland for them to live on. It is no different that the Irish Republican cause, Kurdistan, Tibet, Palestinian nationalism, or the idea that Japan is the homeland of the Japanese. Yet the UN (which supposedly isn't under Palestinian control) votes to damn one national identity (and one only) out of every other one on earth. And you don't see a problem with this?!
"Unless you’re referring to the dependents of refugees, in which case, I believe that is universal."
This is from the UNRWA site also:
"UNRWA is unique in terms of its long-standing commitment to one group of refugees and its contributions to the welfare and human development of four generations of Palestine refugees. Originally envisaged as a temporary organization, the Agency has gradually adjusted its programmes to meet the changing needs of the refugees. Today, UNRWA is the main provider of basic services - education, health, relief and social services - to over 4.3 million registered Palestine refugees in the Middle East."
Note the part about 4 generations of refugees. The vast majority of them have been born outside historic Palestine and yet UNRWA still legally defines them as refugees. Every other refugee on earth falls under the UNHCR, and their kids born outside the original land, are NOT refugees. The whole thing suggests that Palestinian nationalism isn't as bereft of resources as it would have you believe.
"If you do not agree with it, why defend it? I realize what they wish to accomplish. I also realize the brutality, viciousness and futility of it. Attacking civilians is abhorrent. It is so when Hizbollah does such, and it is so when Israel does such."
Why defend it? I am not at this point defending or opposing the manner of the campaign. I need to know if other means of pressuring Hizballah have been tried and failed. I don't have access to the resources to make than kind of judgement.
I would also point out to you that attacking civilians (both Jews and Palestinians who say or do the wrong thing) has been a core part of Palestinian nationalism, and it doesn't seem to have any shortage of friends, despite a rather odious campaign of bus bombings with brainwashed child soldiers.
My preference would be get Hizballah to stop the attacks by other means. I have the sense (maybe wrong) that those means have been tried and failed.
" However, as long as Hizbollah exists as they currently do, they will likely to some extent or another launch attacks on Israel."
That is a given, but there is big difference between minor things and a rocket campaign of over 700 (from a group that reportedly has 12000 rockets) that is shutting down normal life for months in Israel.
"That is still a false question. Those rockets weren’t being fired prior to Israel’s response."
Again, I am not talking about snipers taking pot shots at each other. Hizballah was the party to open a major sustained campaign that was shutting down the north.
"To ignore that part however, Israel could do what it has in the past and exchange prisoners. Not something I would do, as that really just encourages further kidnappings."
Depends which prisoners. Some brainwashed Hizballah child soldier, no. Capture the Hizballah intelligence chief and watch how fast the exchange happens.
" I would perhaps demand their return, maybe issuing an ultimatum of some sort. Ask the international community to help pressure Hizbollah as well as the Lebanese government."
The international community is the same folks who vote against Israel every week at the UN. You may as well ask Planned Parenthood to get a "fair hearing" from Judge Alito.
"If such things failed to work, then perhaps very directed attacks at Hizbollah positions in S. Lebanon. I would not however, allow attacks upon the civilian population at large nor infrastructure necessary for maintaining a respectable standard of living. In short, I would, if other routes failed, attack Hizbollah, not Lebanon."
I may be wrong here, but I was under the impression that approach was tried and failed.
"Retaliating against Hamas or Hizbollah would by no means require “attacking the governments, infrastructure and people of Lebanon and what may become the Palestinian state.” In fact, with a strengthening government, such retaliation could be cooperational."
I don't see a either Lebanese or Palestinian government cracking down on either of their Islamist movements in any real way, even with Israel doing nothing. Hell, the Lebanese state let Hizballah have the south absent any Israeli pressure.
"Depends on the social services you’re talking about. Providing housing wouldn’t be an important social service if people’s housing was demolished. The same for schools, electricity etc. That’s one reason it would be important for Israel to lay off. If they don’t bulldoze or blow up a person’s house, there is no reason for the government or Hamas to provide housing."
The families of Palestinian suicide bombers get a massive cash payment and a pension from Palestinian state coffers. There isn't such a divide between the poisoned chalice of Islamist provided schools (with a curriculum that would curdle the hair of any western leftist), housing, food and medicine and actions tolerated or supported by the Palestinian government. I don't know enough about the Lebanese state to say, but I can say that from 2000-now they didn't do anything to curb Hizballah (either social services or guns), even without a real Israeli pressure.
"It’s
Part 2 and end.
"It’s a vicious cycle, one which the Lebanese and Palestinian governments have no power to step out of, and which Hamas and Hizbollah have no desire to step out of. The question then falls to Israel; does it want to step out of the cycle?"
It can and has stepped out of the cycle. It ended the occupation of Gaza. The Palestinians there could run their own affairs. Not one living Jew remained there. Gaza was entirely under Palestinian rule. Then Hamas started to use Katyushas.
"I realize politics make it difficult. As long as there is a politician that values getting elected before having peace,..."
Any politician who ignores their constituents deserves to lose office. That is what democracy is all about. Secondly, I am not so sure that the route you propose would lead to peace. The repeated pattern in both Israel and Gaza is Israel ending the occupution in those places and DESPITE that, here come the rockets. That is why there is such a rare Israeli consensus for this thing.
"...it’s not likely anyone pursuing my strategy would stay in office unless they seriously got the international community involved in working with Lebanon and the Palestinians to secure their own affairs and insuring they in fact did so."
In the Palestinian case, Hamas IS the Palestinian government and state. In Lebanon, you even admitted a view that the Lebanese state was incabable (whether it wanted to or not) of taking on Hizballah.
D. and Dr. B,
You may find this of interest,
http://www.arabtimesonline.com/a....asp?
msgID=1242
"The families of Palestinian suicide bombers get a massive cash payment and a pension from Palestinian state coffers.".
A similar assertion was made about Saddam payments to suiciders and offered as a reason to invade Iraq.
Payment of death benefits to fighters' families is a commonplace and has been the historic practice of armies since the emergence of standing armed formations. U.S. armed forces pay a "bonus" for members killed on active duty. Their survivors are eligible to receive annuity payments.
Payments to families of Palestinian fighters are not really unique or diabolical. Whether they're massive is hard to know but it seems unlikely.
Nice Smashing Pumpkins refrence. Great blog.
Hi Bitch Ph.D
Thank you for your statement. I do agree with your point of view.
Just want to share this blog from Beirut:
KERBLOG
Seth: That is not carte blanche to attack civilian targets, simply an allowance for collateral damage. There are numerous other articles which Israel is violating. If Israel was limiting its attacks to sites of Hizbollah activity, there would be much less criticism.
Jaron: If you don’t want to believe there are Palestinians in Gaza/WB that are Jewish, I have no way to convince you. In the end though, it is immaterial. Yes, the Palestinians in the past and many still to this day would not desire to have Jews living amongst them. This entire argument however, remains a red herring.
You originally argued that it was “The Palestinian view” that all Jews should be eradicated. This is blatantly false. The distractions you have offered do not change that. Now you claim the vast majority of Palestinians support Palestinian Nationalism as support for your charge. However, you misrepresent what Palestinian Nationalism is. Like Zionism it has different forms. One of its current popular forms is two non-overlapping states, in which Israel and Palestine would be completely separate. Many Palestinians would even not include a return of people not currently living in Gaza/WB. This is not “The Palestinian view” however, as there is no such thing. Those such as Hamas may be the most vocal and aggressive with their views, but that does not make their views or actions representative of the majority. Conflating them so to condemn Palestinians at large is dishonest at best.
(As a quick aside, Jews have happily live with a majority Palestinian population, even with their own population centers; one just has to look at history prior to the rise of Zionism. Of course, the view of Palestinians 100 years ago has even less relevance to their current view than their view 50 years ago.)
Today, UNRWA is the main provider of basic services - education, health, relief and social services - to over 4.3 million registered Palestine refugees in the Middle East.
So a Palestinian born in Michigan in 2000 can claim to be a "refugee".
That would specifically seem not to be the case then. And do you really consider it power to be helpless to the extent they’d need this level of support? I would also echo Dr. B in saying that their plight is rather unique, perhaps only being mirrored by the Jewish refugees of WWII.
A backlash? A UN that ignores literal genocides in progress where 6 digit figures of people die, to have hundreds of resolutions condemning one side only in what is in perspective a minor ethnic conflict in a world awash with them?
I hope you’re not referring to the Holocaust with that 6 digit figures, because that occurred prior to the UN being formed. If you’re referring to Israeli conflicts, such a number seems to be a bit exaggerated, not to mention the vast bulk of lives lost were not Israeli. It is also a mischaracterization to say they only were against Israel. A great many of the resolutions called equally upon all involved in the conflicts. I also will say, just because there is imbalance doesn’t mean the resolutions counter to Israel’s interests were not justified. The resolutions can be found here, for anyone actually interested.
Zionism is nothing more than the idea that Jewish people have a claim to a particular chunk of land as the legitimate homeland for them to live on. It is no different that the Irish Republican cause, Kurdistan, Tibet, Palestinian nationalism, or the idea that Japan is the homeland of the Japanese.
It is different in that in some of its forms it denies others already present the land for not being the right race. That is a form of racism, de facto if not overt. With the exception of some forms of Palestinian nationalism, none of the others you list involve taking a dispersed group and placing them where someone else already is present.
Yet the UN (which supposedly isn't under Palestinian control) votes to damn one national identity (and one only) out of every other one on earth. And you don't see a problem with this?!
The resolutions were against Israel’s actions, not its existence. So no, I do not see a problem intrinsic with that. (I believe there were some proposed resolutions against Israel’s existence, but none passed, which would not be the case if the UN were under Palestinian control.)
That is a given, but there is big difference between minor things and a rocket campaign of over 700 (from a group that reportedly has 12000 rockets) that is shutting down normal life for months in Israel.
Again, I am not talking about snipers taking pot shots at each other. Hizballah was the party to open a major sustained campaign that was shutting down the north.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/
5179434.stm
Where are you getting your timeline? The attacks in the morning concurrent with their raid were in no way “a rocket campaign of over 700 (from a group that reportedly has 12000 rockets) that is shutting down normal life for months in Israel.”
Critisism of the path to peace I advocated.
Israel “pressure” does not only come in the form of occupation. And again, the governments cracking down would necessitate their ability to do so. Neither currently has that level of authority or force and as I indicated, would likely require the assistance and supervision of international powers. The Hamas government has yet to even be given a chance to demonstrate what they would do in government, of which they are a plurality btw, not majority. I also think anyone who thinks any level of true peace can be reached in a matter of months or a couple of years is naïve.
D wrote: "It [Zionism] is different in that in some of its forms it denies others already present the land for not being the right race."
By definition, racism is that belief that people who belong to a race different from one's own are genetically, intellectually, and physically inferior. FYI, Jews are not a race - Judaism is a religion, and Jews constitute a nation (I am not referring to a nation in the political sense, e.g., a nation-state, but as a people) as well as a distinct culture, complete with its own language, etc.
One does not need to belong to any particular race or nationality to be a Jew; there are African Jews, Asian Jews, Latin American Jews, Arab Jews, etc. the world over. Judaism is matrilineal - if your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish, and it doesn't matter what race she belongs to or where she is from.
Zionism has absolutely nothing to do with race, or racism. There is plenty of discrimination and bigotry against Palestinians in Israel (and elsewhere), but the terms discrimination and bigotry are not interchangeable with the term racism. If you believe they are indeed interchangeable, the onus is on you to explain why.
D wrote: "With the exception of some forms of Palestinian nationalism, none of the others you list involve taking a dispersed group and placing them where someone else already is present."
By definition, nationalism, as it is practiced, *always* comes at the expense of other people. To the best of my knowledge, the birth of all currently existing nation states resulted in some form of displacement, dispossession, and/or ethnic cleansing, and so on. Whether the new nation state consists primarily of people who were previously dispersed is irrelevant. There are no "good" forms of nationalism versus "bad" forms of nationalism. The creation of a nation state is a more or less violent affair. Nationalism, at its core and in all of its incarnations, is an "us" versus "you/them" proposition.
Alison, in as much as any group of people can be called a race; the label can be applied to the Judaic people, regardless of others amongst them who are adopted. I believe Hebrew is in fact the correct racial label. Regardless, a group of self-identified people (Palestinians/Arabs) would being harmed for the benefit of a group of another self-identified people (Jews). If you don't want to label their identifications as racial then you are free to do so. But there is an element of discrimination that is at the very least, de facto. And again, this would only be certain types of Zionism.
As for the nationalism, you seemed to have missed the context. It is not the oppression of part of a poplation by a larger part of the population, but the displacement of a standing population by a dispersed population. The closest you could come would be a sort of expansion by invasion I think, but that still misses the mark. It would be like the Roma all converging to a single location in Europe, kicking everyone else out.
"I hope you’re not referring to the Holocaust with that 6 digit figures, because that occurred prior to the UN being formed"
Not at all. That is ancient history as far as I am concerned. My concern is the 5,000,000 or so Jew living in Israel and seeing they remain alive. If they ever fall under a supposedly non-racist Palestinian national rule I have doubts if that would be the case. I reiterate that you have provided (and I don't believe you can since the evidence just doesn't exist) no evidence of any living Jewish population under Palestinian control since 1948.
At the UN I refer to Rwanda and Darfur that were ignored in preference for the usual Israel-bashing.
I think the best example I can think of to show Palestinian strength at the UN is to look at it in the context of other currently stateless ethnic nationalisms. Kurds, Tibetans, Palestinians, Basques and many others can claim to be a nation today with claim to a particular patch of land, but no state. Of those, Palestinian nationalism alone gets vast amounts of UN resources (i.e. its own unique inherited refugee status, a standing UN committee on Palestinian rights) and its rival nationalism bashed on a regular basis by that body. Can you name me even one other currently stateless ethnic nationalism that gets this focus?
My timeline for Lebanon was off. My bad. Here is the corrected:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/exeres/
...RMODE=Published
Hizballah started the major barrage this month.
"One of its current popular forms is two non-overlapping states, in which Israel and Palestine would be completely separate. Many Palestinians would even not include a return of people not currently living in Gaza/WB. This is not “The Palestinian view” however, as there is no such thing."
You miss one catch of those 2 states next to each other. Those same Palestinians who support what on the surface appears to be the 2 state solution I support, also believe that those UNRWA refugees (4,000,000+ anti-Zionist at best and anti-Jewish at worst souls) should be able to immigrate NOT to Palestine, but to Israel. If you are so convinced that there is a stream of Palestinian nationalism with any real support that would limit Palestinian immigration only to the state of Palestine, I would like you to provide some evidence of it. I doubt if you can. Sari Nusseibeh proposed that and almost got lynched for doing so.
"I would also echo Dr. B in saying that their plight is rather unique, perhaps only being mirrored by the Jewish refugees of WWII."
Their plight is such because they are kept in bad conditions for use as a tool against Israel by the UN and the Arabs. Otherwise the UN and Arab states would just grant citizenship to Palestinian born in their states. That would at least deal with the human misery you are so concerned about.
"It is different in that in some of its forms it denies others already present the land for not being the right race."
As my wonderful goddess and spouse (Dr. Alison) has pointed out, with far more eloquence that I can, Jews aren't a race. The best definition I can come up with is we are a body of folks with a common religious/ethnic/cultural/historical heritage. But anyone can be (either from birth or conversion) Jewish of any race.
"That is a form of racism, de facto if not overt. With the exception of some forms of Palestinian nationalism, none of the others you list involve taking a dispersed group and placing them where someone else already is present."
By your definition (i.e. "taking a dispersed group and placing them where someone else already is present"), Palestinian nationalism would be racist if those Palestinians born abroad from Palestine move to Israel and displace Jews born there.
I disagree with your definition. Kurdish nationalism isn't racist if a Kurd born in Turkey reclaims his/her ancestral home in Kirkuk.
There is no excuse of your continued dishonesty Jaron. Your defenses are nothing more than red herrings and loaded questions. You’ve also made egregiously false claims which you can not support (Genocide of 6 digit figures, Hizbollah’s shutting down of N. Israel with a rocket campaign prior to the current conflict). You’ve spent your credibility as far as I’m concerned in regards to “the Palestinian view”. The changes of thought on Palestinian statehood/nationalism are fairly well documented. A quick google search is all it takes to find out the different views and history. Even Wikipidia has an entry on the changes. You yourself even offer Dr. Nusseibeh for one extreme, whose views were controversial, but not universally rejected. Your concern for Israeli Jews might be commendable, if it was not paired with contempt for Palestinians.
I’m not going to try to counter your UN conspiracy theory any more. You’re welcome to think Israel is a victim of the world. To me, it’s the same entitled resentment of a rich white man in the US claiming the government is controlled by Jews.
As my wonderful goddess and spouse (Dr. Alison) has pointed out, with far more eloquence that I can, Jews aren't a race. The best definition I can come up with is we are a body of folks with a common religious/ethnic/cultural/historical heritage. But anyone can be (either from birth or conversion) Jewish of any race.
The Jewish label is both for the religions and for the race, as you yourself point out. That there is a religious aspect, does not nullify the racial aspect. And just as there are Jews who are not ethnically Jewish, there are Jews who are not of the Jewish faith. So it’s not that Jews aren’t a race, but that they are more than just a race.
By your definition (i.e. "taking a dispersed group and placing them where someone else already is present"), Palestinian nationalism would be racist if those Palestinians born abroad from Palestine move to Israel and displace Jews born there.
Exactly. That was part of the point I was making thus “With the exception of some forms of Palestinian nationalism”, as to my knowledge the other forms of nationalism you mentioned are not based on kicking others off their land. As you say:
I disagree with your definition. Kurdish nationalism isn't racist if a Kurd born in Turkey reclaims his/her ancestral home in Kirkuk.
At face value I’d agree. But if said Kurd kicked an Arab whose family had been living there for a couple of generations off the land to reclaim it, then it would be. It’s the same nuances and details that make Zionism and Palestinian nationalism, in some of their forms, racist.
"You’ve also made egregiously false claims which you can not support (Genocide of 6 digit figures,"
I was talking about genocide in Rwanda and Darfur, which the UN hasn't seen fit to devote nearly as much time to as it does for Israel bashing. That says a lot about UN priorities.
"To me, it’s the same entitled resentment of a rich white man in the US claiming the government is controlled by Jews."
Are you so sure that I am either rich or white?
Do you consider Palestinians or Japanese to be a race?
(haven't read all the comments to this point, sorry ...)
And doesn't it stretch credulity to believe that the Roman governor of Palestine would be so concerned about the opinions of his colonial subjects? Imperial Rome was not a democracy.
Not a democracy, no, but it was an extremely pragmatic regime, and Pilate knew damn well he was sitting on a powderkeg (which blew up under the then-governor of Judea 30-35 years later, and we all know what happened then). Pilate is documented elsewhere as having been disciplined in his former posts for being too hard on the locals and stirring up rebellious sentiment. He may have decided that to be seen as coming down hard on Jesus would be risking his job. It's entirely possible and consistent with the available evidence that he put Caiaphas and Co. up to it and the whole hand-washing thing was a charade. But it's also clear that the Sanhedrim (who were ALSO exquisitely aware of the dangerous political situation, and whose holding onto what power they had depended on things remaining relatively calm) wanted Jesus dead. Most ordinary Jews, of course, did not.
For the record, in my small, embattled and shrinking corner of the liberal Christian tradition, much of the Holy Week observance is structured to place the congregation in the role of the mob howling for Jesus' blood, and I personally refuse to sing old hymns that gratuitously describe those who killed Christ as an evil "them" distinct from the singer. I change all the pronouns to first-person.
"You yourself even offer Dr. Nusseibeh for one extreme, whose views were controversial, but not universally rejected."
His views (Palestinian immigration limited only to the state of Palestine) were overwhelmingly rejected.
" Your concern for Israeli Jews might be commendable, if it was not paired with contempt for Palestinians."
I don't have contempt for anyone. I am simply asserting some uncomfortable facts you have yet to refute:
1. Any areas of Palestine falling under Arab rule from 48-today have in short order had 100% of their Jewish population ethnically cleansed. If there were Jews living there under Arab rule (1 or 2 lone Adam Shapiro types excepted) you have yet to cite them.
2. Israel has and will continue to have a large (20% or so) voting population of Arab citizens. A basic difference between how Zionism and Palestinian nationalism deal with the other.
This is NOT contempt to the Palestinians. It is simply a recognition that Palestinian nationalism is less accomodating than Zionism towards the "other".
"I’m not going to try to counter your UN conspiracy theory any more."
Because you can't. I have asked you to name me any other currently stateless ethnic nationalism on earth (and there are many) besides Palestinian nationalism that gets such vast UN support over a long time. You haven't (and can't) name even one. That isn't a conspiracy theory. It is an assertion equivalent to one a court that issues mainly or exclusively conservative rulings over a long time, is in fact a conservative court based on a documented track record.
But, maybe I am wrong. Name me one other stateless nationalism besides Palestinian that the UN supports to any real degree.
J, D, didn't say you were rich or white; he made an analogy.
Making matters worse, Olmert (Israel's Prime Minister) just declared all Jews of the world to be part of Israel's arsenal. Specifically, he said: "Their weapons, even when they hurt us, are nothing like the powerful, secret weapon we possess: The Jewish people that love the State of Israel, live here and want to protect this country. They don’t understand the special bond between the Jewish people across the world, and the special feeling of love and mutual commitment that prevails between all Jews, regardless of where they are."
It seems pretty unfair to tar all Jews worldwide with the brush of Israel's actions; in fact, it rather turns any Jews, anywhere, into potential targets in the war. And I've got to wonder why he'd want to do that.
Shunra,
It doesn't seem so bizarre to me. The Irish Republican cause draws upon americans of Irish descent (from Ted Kennedy to the the population of south Boston). During WW1 that US-Irish population protested against our alliance with the UK.
The Palestinians also reach out for help from the larger umma (world Muslim community) and others who find Palestinian nationalism to be the fashionable thing.
Hell, if I was a Saudi woman (which I am thankfully not) I would be appealing for help from western feminists.
This is a common tactic (drawing upon a diaspora abroad for help) that is hardly unique to Jews.
1. Any areas of Palestine falling under Arab rule from 48-today have in short order had 100% of their Jewish population ethnically cleansed. If there were Jews living there under Arab rule (1 or 2 lone Adam Shapiro types excepted) you have yet to cite them.
2. Israel has and will continue to have a large (20% or so) voting population of Arab citizens. A basic difference between how Zionism and Palestinian nationalism deal with the other.
Those are misleading red herrings, as I’ve said. They are irrelevant to ascertaining the view of current Palestinians toward Jews and Israel in specific. ‘48-‘67 was a time of continual conflict if not out right war. As I said, both sides were very much guilty of ethnic cleansing. Even with the 100% of Jews of the time, it is still dishonest to attribute that to 100% of the Palestinian population of the time, let alone with today.
Also, the 100% is a numbers game that can be played both ways. Demographics indicate that the areas that became under the indirect control of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, had a very small Jewish population, with the exception of Jerusalem. Even if one were to conflate all of the Jerusalem district Jewish population with those cleansed, the total number of Jews would not have exceeded 150,000. Given that the vast majority of the Jewish population in the Jerusalem district was not in what came to be the West Bank, the actual number of cleansed Jews would have been much, much smaller. But even with the vastly exaggerated 150,000 Jews cleansed, it is still a small fraction of the ~700,000 Palestinians who were cleansed. Zionism doesn’t stack up too well in that light.
After ’67, asking how Palestinians treated the Jews under their control is a non-informative question if there were no Jews under their control. Asking how Israel treated the Palestinians under its control however is informative. While today they are certainly fairing much better than during ’48-‘67, they are still somewhat marginalized, not entirely dissimilar from disadvantaged groups in other countries. Trying to compare that to Palestinian nationalism treatment of Jewish populations is purely speculative until a Palestinian nation is actually created with a Jewish population, a very unlikely scenario.
Because you can't. I have asked you to name me any other currently stateless ethnic nationalism on earth (and there are many) besides Palestinian nationalism that gets such vast UN support over a long time. You haven't (and can't) name even one. That isn't a conspiracy theory. It is an assertion equivalent to one a court that issues mainly or exclusively conservative rulings over a long time, is in fact a conservative court based on a documented track record.
But, maybe I am wrong. Name me one other stateless nationalism besides Palestinian that the UN supports to any real degree.
As conspiracy theories are based on interpretation of knowledge and speculation, they can not be proved nor disproved without the availability of new knowledge. So no, I can’t disprove your claims anymore than you can prove them. Asking to name another disadvantaged group that the UN has given special status to is another red herring. The relevance of such failings to Palestinian control of the UN assumes there is no other possible explanation for the discrepancy, which is quite false. A similar assumption has to be made to make such a connection with the discrepancies with the resolutions.
advance cash fax loan no payday advance cash fax loan no payday advance cash fax loan no payday. loan officer ohio test loan officer ohio test loan officer ohio test.
Commenting by HaloScan
