On the left, in the United States, Israel is probably the single most divisive issue we face. Most American Jews vote for Democratic candidates, and the Jewish community is a vital fundraising source not only for candidates, but many important progressive causes.
The struggle for racial equality and civil rights was galvanized by the Holocaust and African-American participation in the war. Without the active and energetic participation of Jewish organizations, it is doubtful that we would have seen the end of Jim Crow in the mid-1960’s.
The very soul of the modern Democratic Party is intricately wrapped up in millennia old principles of social justice exemplified by Jewish prophets like Amos.
And yet, the modern Democratic Party is essentially secular in nature. By secular, I do not mean that we are opposed to faith. I mean that we are reflexively resistant to basing policy on Biblical or Koranic texts or interpretations.
On most issues, this point of view is in lockstep with the majority of American Jews. After all, as Betty Rollin has pointed out:
PBS
And herein lies the source of so much cognitive dissonance. I think the tension lies within the Zionist movement itself, and bleeds over into the leftist politics of the United States.
Zionism, which arose as an essentially secular movement, still relied heavily on Biblical histories to justify a Jewish homeland in Judea and Israel. And this comes into conflict with two main facets of American leftist thought. First, we tend to oppose appeals to Biblical literalism and/or precedent. Second, we oppose any melting of the state with one particular religion.
Thus, the desire of Israel to remain a Jewish state is frequently compared to the apartheid system in South Africa. In short, many on the left consider a state that treats its citizens differently based on their religious self-identification, to be undemocratic.
Three other factors have contributed to increasing hostility from the left, towards Israel, and Israeli policies.
First, the shock of the Holocaust has begun to wear off. We no longer feel the high level of empathy for the Jewish people that we felt back in the late 1940’s, when Israel became a state. Therefore, we no longer empathsize with taking extraordinary steps to protect the Jewish people.
Second, American attitudes towards Jews, i.e. anti-Semitism, have diminished to such a degree that we no longer resist further immigration of Jews to the United States. The initial support for the creation of Israel cannot be seperated from the simultaneous desire to prevent massive Jewish immigration.
Third, our support for Israel’s policies, post-1967 war, has now become a source of great risk to our security. This is understandably resented by many Americans of all political persuasions.
I’d like to add one other point, speaking only for myself. The Israeli settlement policy only makes sense if Israel faces a real threat of being overrun and swept into the sea. In other words, the only non-Biblical justification for holding territory seized in the 1967 war is a military one. We could obviate the need to hold the Golan Heights, for example, by agreeing to come to Israel’s defense if they are ever attacked.
It is therefore, quite frustrating to see the Israelis refuse to make concessions and to continue to encourage new settlements in occupied territory.
And it is within that context that I approach the following BBC article:
The pair were caught after leaving a backpack rigged with wires, police said.
The arrests come amid heightened fears that right-wing activists will step up attempts to sabotage the withdrawal.
A Jewish group meanwhile has called for a mass rally against the pullout at a highly sensitive Jerusalem holy site.
The group, Revava, says it wants at least 10,000 Jews to ascend the hilltop known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as Haram as-Sharif on Sunday.
Fearing an eruption of violence, Israeli authorities have closed the site to non-Muslims, but Revava has vowed to defy the ban.
Heightened alert
Jerusalem police spokesman Shmuel Ben-Ruby said the men who were arrested belonged to an outlawed ultra-nationalist group, Kahane Chai.
He said the suitcases contained wiring, a note and cardboard, without elaborating on what was written on the note.
An Israeli police spokeswoman said some of those opposed to the Gaza withdrawal planned to distract the security services “so that they will not be able to carry out evacuations”.
The arrests came a day after police in Jerusalem raised the level of alert in the city, amid growing fears of sabotage attempts by extremists.
So, here we see the citizens of Jerusalem being terrorized by Jewish radicals. It’s important to realize that religious extremists from both sides are the main obstacle to finding an acceptable compromise on the Israeli/Palestinian issue.
The dispute over the Temple Mount/Haram as-Sharif is so sensitive that it has the power to catalyze a whole new round of mutual recrimination. We saw how Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount in 2000, led directly to the second intifada. Now, we face the potential for another escalation of ill-feeling and violence.
Revava leader Israel Cohen said supporters would try to enter the compound regardless of the ban.
“We reserve the right to pray at our holy site. We will arrive in masses… and we will in any case try to enter,” the Associated Press news agency quoted him as saying.
Islamic leaders in Israel have called on Muslims to amass on the site to prevent Jews from entering.
BBC
What is needed are calm heads on both sides. We should not let hot-heads drive the debate, and we need to occassionally turn the other cheek to provocations.
The current administration’s approach to the Middle East conflict is so one-sided that many on the left have drifted toward an openly hostile stance toward Israel. But one day we will be back in power, and we need to debate the issues. I think our internal divisions, as well as our strong emotions, lead us to avoid the subject entirely. That is not the correct approach for a government-in-waiting.
So, flame away.
I’m going to compliment you. You’ve stepped into a situation that makes most of us uncomfortable. How to support Israel while not wanting the Palestinians to suffer?
I think your last paragraph touches on the thing that frightens me the most right now. As most of us are aware, a 19th century new strain of Christian thought believes that only when Israel exists and other conditions happen, will the things foretold in Revelations come to pass. Many on the left find ourselves struggling with the fact that there is a contingent on the Right who support Israel not out of some love for the Jews (one of the conditions is the conversion of the Jews) but rather, to hasten the end of the earth as we know it. It’s a sick agenda. We find ourselves on the horns of a dilemma.
I don’t know what the solution to the issue is. But i do know that I DO NOT TRUST that this administration’s support of Israel is based on the interest of Israelis, but in service to a cultish devotion to hastening the end of days.
I would say that the real empowerment of the orthodox Jews came when Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by an ultra right wing nut job. (He had a nasty record, to be sure, however in the end I do think he worked sincerely for peace.) We can’t ignore the dynamics of internal Israeli politics and how they relate to how our government deals with Israel. At the moment we are certainly egging them on wholeheartedly with the help from the Christian right, however I think the government sold the idea to them – not vice versa. I agree with you that the Christian element makes the whole thing rather sinister, but the administration really supports Israel for two reasons: 1. To break into the “Israel comes first” part of the Jewish voting block and 2. to maintain a stable ally in the Middle East.
Do you ever read the editorials by Ran HaCohen on antiwar.com? If not, check it out; it’s a real good source of information on what’s happening inside Israel right now.
thank you. I will check them out post-haste.
I have friends who were at a PeaceNow rally in Israel several years ago when someone set off a bomb. One of their friends was killed. Israel is not united on these issues, as much as we are told that it is. Thanks for your clarifications.
I’m sorry about your friends – it can be a violent place. They do have a strong leftist element, as do we, it’s a matter of waiting for tempers to cool and sense to take over.
I’ll echo Lorraine: What a fine, thoughtful job of assessing the problem.
As I told you by e-mail, I watched the new Frontline the other night, all about the extremist settlers. I can read article after article, but there’s nothing quite like watching as the camera rolls, and these extremists plot and talk.
Israel has a huge problem with these people, and is terrified that they’ll blow up the mosque in Jerusalem. From what I saw on Frontline, Israel is going after them best it can but has to be careful because — as happened with one murdered settler — they can easily become martyrs, admired by Israelis who would not otherwise be with them.
Here’s the site on the new Frontline called, interestingly, “Israel’s Next War?”
P.S. I searched tv.yahoo.com and see that that Frontline will be aired twice more here. If you search TV Yahoo yourself, you can find out when it’s airing again in your area. (And, next week, Frontline’s topic is Karl Rove.)
Tomorrow, you can watch the entire Frontline. It’s a must-see.
Just a reminder that today you can watch it all at http://www.pbs.org/frontline.
And this is in the news — just the first part of the story:
Security Officials Tighten Access to Flashpoint Site, Fearing Israeli-Palestinian Clashes
By AMY TEIBEL
The Associated Press
Apr. 8, 2005 – Israeli security officials tightened access to a disputed holy site in the Old City of Jerusalem on Friday, wary of Jewish extremists trying to inflame tensions with Arabs in an effort to sabotage Israel’s planned Gaza Strip withdrawal.
Jews opposed to the withdrawal want to rally Sunday at the site sacred to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as the Haram as-Sharif. Their plans have set both Israeli police and Palestinians on edge, and Muslim prayers Friday were being watched as a potential flashpoint.
Some 40,000 Hamas supporters from the northern Gaza Strip marched after Friday prayers to protest the planned Jewish rally and warned of an immediate resumption of violence if it went ahead. Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups agreed to a temporary cease-fire during a March meeting in Cairo, Egypt, with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.
“They will not be able to storm Al Aqsa Mosque, God willing, but if they do, all that has happened during the so-called quietness will disappear in the wind,” said Nizar Rayan, a top Hamas official. “We will move with our rockets and our Mujahadeen in order to defend Al Aqsa and to protect it. Not only Hamas but all the Palestinians and Muslims.”
In the nearby Jabaliya refugee camp, some 1,200 masked and armed Islamic Jihad members marched, also threatening war if the mosque is defiled.
On Friday, only Muslim men aged 40 and older with Israeli identity cards, and Muslim women of all ages were allowed to worship at the hilltop shrine. Thousands of police were assigned to guard the site, Jerusalem police spokesman Shmuel Ben-Ruby said. …
The U.S. Department of State has issued a travel warning for Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip requesting that U.S. citizens consider delaying travel to the areas unless absolutely necessary. The warning cites “resentment against efforts to promote peace” which could lead to renewed violence.
http://www.thedivinesibyl.com/blog/archives/438-World-Snapshot-040805.html#extended
No flame, I agree with you. The most rational solution I’ve seen is to insulate Jerusalem – like Vatican City – from the surrounding country, and place it under control of a neutral government. Then again, no one can accuse the Palestinians or Israelis of being rational.
What is needed are calm heads on both sides. We should not let hot-heads drive the debate, and we need to occassionally turn the other cheek to provocations.
Same is true here.
A rational comment on a rational op-ed piece by Boo.
Jerusalem needs insulation from all the extremists on every side.
is associating crimes against humanity with Jews or Judaism.
This is the dirty underside of the popular charge of anti-Semitism any time any American dares to express even the slightest opposition to the Torture Lottery, the Policy of Starvation, or the exciting plan to build the world’s largest open-air concentration camp.
And for the most avid “supporters of Israel,” a happy ending includes hurling all Jews who don’t convert to Christianity into a lake of fire.
It cranks cognitive dissonance up to a whole new level that even Goebbels never dreamed of.
Israel has the important job of guarding America’s oil in the region and helping keep US defense and energy industries strong.
The fact that something like a quarter of Israeli children go to bed hungry every night is a small price to pay for keeping Palestinian child starvation levels on a par with sub-Saharan Africa.
Africa took decades to reach that goal, with Palestine, it has only taken 4 years.
Israel does not need any help pushing itself into the sea. Certainly not the billions it gets from its Sugar Daddy.
I’m reading a non-fiction book that’s in part about a young Jewish man in South Africa who refused to be drafted into the South African army. He felt it critical that, because of what happened to Jews during the Holocaust, that he stand up to militarism.
Now excuse me while I rant. The way Jews are presented in the US media, which of course claims to be “pro-Israel,” which of course means “pro Likud-Moledet,” you would never imagine that such a person as the South African guy in your book could possibly exist. When is the last time Fox or CNN stuck Yuri Avnery’s head in a panel box? I think I have seen him once in 4 years. Even Michael Lerner. Maybe seen him twice, and at least once he was just there to talk about theology. No, just Pinkas and Gissim and Bibi the Snugglebun. OK, I will not start. Here are some links.
Jews Against the Occupation
Not in Our Name Project
Guush-Shalom
B’Tselem
Neturei Karta
Israeli Heroes
the criticism of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians straight-forward, the rest of your post I find inpenetrable.
One aspect of debate would be how intertwined should the Iraeli lobby be with issues of US security.
AIPAC and JINSA come to mind.
http://www.jinsa.org/home/home.html
“Iraq down; Iran left to go.”
JINSA.ORG
By dougr on Thu Apr 7th, 2005 at 11:21:06 AM PST [Edit User]
(I reposted it because, for some annoying reason, the link you provided made the page go very wide. So I embedded the link. Hope that’s alright. It’s just so hard to scroll horizontally. Sorry! — it’s because HTML is still pretty primitive, so we still have to embed long links.)
gotcha…thanks.
You listed five reasons for opposing Israel. I don’t think I’ve heard anyone use any of them. They all seemed to be strawmen. The reason to oppose Israel is because of they are carrying out genocide against the Palestinians — did you forget about that? Of course I’m coming from the perspective of someone who opposes genocide. Since current US foreign policy uses genocide it should be conceeded that a lot of Americans just don’t care about it, but for those who oppose Israel I think this is pretty much the only reason I’ve heard anyone use.
BTW I thought there were stil Jim Crow laws around?
like this is be unhelpful.
I made an effort to minimize my personal feelings about Israel, and to simply frame the debate so that we could discuss it.
It’s actually quite a difficult task to try to frame a debate about Israel without getting sidetracked into the many side issues, like Jerusalem, the right of return, the nature of Arafat or Sharon, competing histories…etc.
I know some people see Israeli’s polices as a form of genocide. That is one side of a contentious debate. I didn’t take a position on it intentionally.
But one obvious problem with that point of view, and it is an entirely practical problem, is that the left would shatter into pieces if it were adopted as an official leftist position.
That in no way should be interpreted as a dismissal of the charge. It is merely a political reality…that perhaps contributes mightily to the Democratic Party’s inability or reluctance to take strong actions to change Israel policy.
To finally express my opinion on the matter: I reserve the word ‘genocide’ to policies like those of Hitler, Pol Pot, and the Rwanda conflict.
Some other word is needed for policies that cause systemic health problems or poverty, like the US sanctions on Iraq, or Israeli policies on the occupied territories. To me, there is a distinction, and blurring it is not helpful.
As for the actual killing or murder of individual Palestinians, it amounts to a serious human rights violation, but does not equal a genocidal policy, IMO.
We should not argue about words. Nor should we hurl about inflammatory rhetoric. What we need is a path toward resolution and reconciliation.
You’re being dishonest here. If you want a discussion you don’t mischaracterise one half of the debate with a series of strawmen and then demand that they should not speak.
You’re also dishonest about the use of the word genocide. You say you would use a euphemism. But you didn’t did you? In your initial piece you didn’t say anything about Israeli persecution of Palestinians. That’s a pretty incredible oversight isn’t it? Perhaps you thought any mention of the Palestinians would be too “controversial”?
Genocide is the appropriate word. Look it up in the convention text. It doesn’t matter whether you use bullet, gas or desease and starvation to do your killing and nor should it. Dead is dead.
I am disgusted that you characterise genocide going on today as a “side issue” when you went out of your way to mention a genocide of 60 years ago.
to close off debate.
I’m suggesting that yelling genocide from the starting line is a form of closing off debate.
As for your latter point, I also didn’t mention suicide bombers or any terrorism (except that contemplated by Jewish extremists).
And I would suggest that there should be too words (at least) to distinguish between an effort to subdue resistance through blockades, sanctions, or just plain oppression on the one hand, and a concerted effort to exterminate a whole race, ethnic group, or religion from the face of the planet.
If the Israelis passed a law in the Knesset that they would deport all the Arabs to Jordan, I would call that ethnic cleansing. If they began a methodical campaign to kill every Palestinian in the occupied territories, I would call that genocide.
Using those words for lesser crimes just muddies the waters. In any case, my plea, which you are free to ignore, is that we not debate the semantics of the Middle East conflict, but the potential solutions to the Middle East conflict.
I disagree. Am I allowed to disagree?
You seem to be saying I am not allowed to. The word is genocide. It is appropriate. You are wrong. That is my view. Can I express it here or not?
you can, at the same time I wish you would respond to whatever the limited merits are of the point I am attempting to make.
What is your point? Do you mean this?
It’s hard to discuss a solution to something that you deny is happening. You keep calling this semantics but it’s obviously not. You just don’t think the persecution of the Palestinians (by whatever word you use to describe it) is that big a deal. I think it is fundamental. Therefore you cannot possibly agree with me on a solution.
let me be clear then.
What is happening to the Palestinians does not depend on what you call it.
I reserve the word genocide for a government that is in the process of actively, concertedly, exterminating another people.
I don’t use that word for policies and actions which result in high levels of infant mortality, malnutrition, generally poor health, high unemployment, and frequent but sporadic direct killings.
But whatever I choose to call it, I have not said how seriously I take it, have I?
Call it genocide if you want to. And then offer your solutions.
I find this whole line of yours dishonest. I’ve made it clear that I think the Israeli government is commiting genocide even under your definition – yet still you say this is only a “semantic” difference.
The solution is for the criminal nation to leave the area of occupation, pay reparations and hand over it’s leadership to a fit court to be tried for war crimes — obviously. Is that what you wanted to hear?
If you think that Israel is intent on exterminating the Palestinians then you are in a distinct minority.
But it doesn’t matter what I want to hear.
You want a war crimes tribunal for Israeli leadership? Ok.
Palestinians are vermin to them. They don’t want to kill them. They just want them gone. It’s exactly the same attitude the Nazis had to the Jews. The Nazis didn’t start out with gas chambers. It’s just whatever is most efficient.
Are you not aware that Israel ethically cleansed the Palestinians from the land they captured in ’48? Are you not aware that israel faces a demographic time bomb? Of course they want to exterminate the Palestinians. You can get quotes of the early leaders saying as much. (In those days I guess it didn’t seem such a PR faux pas!)
So I’m in a minority but I share my belief with the Israeli leadership.
is hysterical. I might as well insist that Bill Clinton had the same attitude toward Native Americans as Grover Cleveland, because they were both POTUS’s.
I’m staying out of this conversation from here on out.
I just want people to discuss the issues.
However, you do fit into one of my 5 supposed strawman arguments. You reject any Biblical claim to Israel by Jews. Everything flows from that. To you, the establishment of Israel was the first crime, and all other actions thereafter just served to exacerbate that original sin.
That is why I framed the debate the way I did.
Personally, I agree that the original settlement was unjustified. But it doesn’t matter anymore. What we need is peace, not a constant re-airing of grievances.
We have to take into consideration that there are many elements in Isreali society, like any society. There is a strong left wing element (like Ran HaCohen – suggested reading) and of course the ultra right wing like our very own Christian right. They do support the concept of a greater Israel (Biblical Israel which includes parts of Syria etc.., for instance) and are very militant. The settlers to a great extent fit into this category. Israel, like the US(!) needs to start becoming part of the world community and adhering to certain UN regulations. If not, it does seem – and I will say this about both countries – they want to have Carte blanch to do as they please.
en.wikipedia.org :
Of course, even the application of ‘democide’ to this situation would be debatable, if less so.
I have been through a similar discussion with D.B. over on dKos, when he claimed that US operations in Fallujah were genocide.
The US is not Israel’s friend.
not religion. I think folks who try to claim that either Jews or Palestinians do not deserve or are not ready for self-determination have some really issues and prejudices to deal with.
The whole need to “take sides” in this conflict therefore escapes me. It seems so senseless.
It right to support the weak against the strong, the victim against the aggressor, the occupied against their occupiers. This is what justice means. Righting wrongs, opposing the criminals and bringing support to those who are their victims: this is what justice is all about.
It’s ok to say you don’t know what’s going on but it is not ok to claim the victim and attacker are equal.
The history of genocide committed against Jews cannot be omitted from the overall discussion of self-determination, IMO. I DO NOT AGREE with the government of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians, with the Wall, with the humiliation Palestinians experiences at the checkpoints going into and coming out of Israel, with the policy of bulldozing down houses, with the militarization of Israeli culture that has resulted as a result of the oppression of the Palestinians…
I could go on. Really. There is nothing about Israel’s actions in “pre-emptive self-defense” that I wish to justify.
That being said…I am supportive of the existance of a Jewish homeland. I am supportive of a Palestinian homeland. Neither the terrorist attacks on Israel from folks like Hammas, nor the targeted killings of Hamas leaders by the government of Israel, deters me from supporting the rights of the people living in both of these countries to have self-determination.
Country A invaded Country B, occupied it’s land killing it’s people and carried on killing for 60 years. Why is it hard to make a moral judgement between attacker and victim?
I was talking about the history of genocide and anti-Semitism against Jews, that happened in Europe especially from the middle ages forward.
This is not about “country A” and “country B”. Putting it in these black-and-white terms does an injustice to understanding the true nature of this conflict, and puts it into the context of American Western Movie Morality.
The reality in this situation – as in most of life – is it is a lot messier than that. There’s a long history of oppression of Jews that comes into play on one side. There’s also a history of the British involvement in the region and the Ottoman Empire, among other factors, on the Palestinian side.
I feel it’s important to understand the underlying roots of this conflict from both sides – including culture, religion and history – in order to see how the conflict can be successfully resolved.
Do you feel that someone’s whose great grandfather was killed has a right to murder someone else that had nothing whatsoever to do with it? If you don’t then what has all that ancient history got to do with anything?
The underlying roots are that the Israelis invaded and occupied Palestinian land. There was no prior history between these two groups (apart from a bit of terrorism by the Israeli gangs prior to the British withdrawal). Prior history with other groups is irrelevent. In fact the Israelis as a group didn’t exist prior to around 1910. They moved to Palestine from around that time.
You seem to want to “credit” to the Israelis the suffering of other individuals on the basis of religious and ethnic similarity. You then suggest that “credit” can be used to make a withdrawal of suffering on other people. That’s freakishly bizarre. It’s collective punishment on steroids.
Nations do not bleed. Ethnicities do not suffer pain. Religions are not gassed. It is individual people who suffer.
Do you feel that someone’s whose great grandfather was killed has a right to murder someone else that had nothing whatsoever to do with it? If you don’t then what has all that ancient history got to do with anything?
Wasn’t it you who just criticized Booman for using strawman arguments? Total irony, dude.
You seem to want to “credit” to the Israelis the suffering of other individuals on the basis of religious and ethnic similarity. You then suggest that “credit” can be used to make a withdrawal of suffering on other people. That’s freakishly bizarre. It’s collective punishment on steroids.
Again, for me this is all about self-determination, both of Jews and Palestinians. I find it interesting that in your post you attempt to separate Israelis from Jews. Nice rhetorical trick, however it does not address the reality of this conflict, IMHO.
Are you denying that the Israeli government is different from a Jewish individual? How is it a rhetorical trick to blame a government (or leadership) for a decision made by them? Religion is irrelevent to this whole thing. Motivation is irrelevent. A crime has been commited, you don’t have to ask why. There is no excuse for starting a war. No pretext, no context can justify it. If a criminal has had bad luck it doesn’t excuse them.
As for self-determination you can’t ask for self-determination on land you stole from someone else. Can you? Can the US occupation force in Iraq now talk about “self determination” as a means to annex the oil fields? Of course not.
If you feel what I said misrepresents what you said then please re-explain what you meant. I don’t understand how you see the ancient history of Jews in Europe as relevent to Israel’s crimes in Palestine since 1910 or so — unless you beleive something like what I suggested. Please explain.
Regarding the instance of Iraq, it wouldn’t surprise me if the Kurds now asked for self-determination.
Regarding the situation of Jews and self-determination, it would be my hope that at this point they could peacefully co-exist with the Palestinians. Painting one side as ultimately evil and the other and ultimately good does not serve to further the cause of peaceful coexistance, IMHO.
Regarding self-determination of the Jewish people in general, I do feel that one needs to look at the history of the Jewish people especially in Europe when looking at this need for self-determination. This is not used as a justification of Israel’s doctrine of “pre-emptive self defense” or other atrocities committed by the state of Israel, as I have said to you upthread. But it is relevant when looking at the need for a people defined by common culture and language to have a self-governing State.
Also…I’ve noticed a meme you’re floating in various sections of this thread equating the State of Israel to Nazi Germany. This intrigues me. Are you stating that the State of Israel…
Please let me know which of these characteristics you feel the state of Israel has in common with Nazi Germany.
You seem to want to “credit” to the Israelis the suffering of other individuals on the basis of religious and ethnic similarity.
The vast majority of those who emigrated to Israel in the years following WWII were holocaust survivors themselves. So yes it was their suffering. Additionally, there was violence against the Jews in many of their home countries after the war so they really had no place to go except the Jewish community in Palestine.
Invaded: the Jews who came to Palestine prior to ’48 purchased their land from the Palestinian Arabs. Initially, the local arabs were quite glad because of the economic development the Jews brought. Only once there was a rather substantial amount of Jews in the country did they grow hostile.
In fact the Israelis as a group didn’t exist prior to around 1910.
Actually there was a small Jewish community that continously lived in the region throughout the entire diaspora (although it was small until around 1910).
There was no prior history between these two groups (apart from a bit of terrorism by the Israeli gangs prior to the British withdrawal)
The Hebron Massacre, 1929: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/hebron29.html
I could go on but I’m fairly convinced you have now reality-based credentials so doing so would probably be in vain.
You are a liar.
I think you pretty much summed up my feeling on the state of affairs between Israel and Palestine.
Sometimes it is imperative to stand up and be counted on one side or the other of a specific state of affairs. Sometimes that can be counterproductive to achieving a set goal.
I agree. In this instance, I don’t believe this conflict is going to be resolved by taking sides.
You can’t always fix things but you can always do whats right. Doing what’s right means siding with the victim not the oppressor. You can’t unrape someone, you can’t unmurder someone and you can’t uninvade a country but that doesn’t mean you don’t take sides.
To refuse to take sides is to effectively endorse the rule of the jungle. To close your eyes to injustice is to encourage it.
You can’t unrape someone and maybe you can’t even catch the one who did it but for god’s sake don’t tell the victim they are just as bad as their rapist.
with you, but could you do me a favor and could we keep the back-and-forth to 1 part of this thread? I’d appreciate it – thanks!
Perhaps one more reason why Israel faces increased criticism is that probably since the Madrid Conference we have begun to hear the history of Palestine told not from the viewpoint of heroic Zionists fighting overwhelming swarthy hordes of Arab fanatics, but for the first time by Palestinians themselves. And of course they have the entirely different perspective of Palestinians who saw Palestine partitioned against the will of the majority of its inhabitants, and much of the population exiled, in response to long-standing European anti-semitism (culminating in the Holocaust) that the Palestinians themselves had nothing to do with.
I was brought up in a moderate pro-Zionist household, and I know that I personally found it very difficult to come to terms with the fact that there is a whole other side to Israel’s history, that looks far less noble than the myths I grew up on. When you are brought up to think of yourself as invariably the good guys, it is uncomfortable to learn that there never was “a land without a people for a people without a land”, that the Palestinians didn’t just leave voluntarily because they didn’t want to live with Jews, that Herzl envisaged forcing out the native population rather than coexisting with them, and that Ben-Gurion accepted partition but fully expected to take it all when Israel was strong enough etc, etc. That’s hard to get your head around – it’s supposed to be “them” that wants it all and rejects coexistence, not “us”. And as for any other religion having a claim on the holy sites? I’m an atheist, but I still find it very difficult to really internalize the fact that Muslims might believe different things about the holy places than my religious tradition does, but their attachment to those places is no less.
You can probably count on one hand the number of articulate, media-savvy representatives that the Palestinians have put before the U.S. audience, since the I/P diplomatic process began in Madrid. But that handful has I think done a disproportionately effective job in at least getting across to those of us brought up to see Israel through a Biblical perspective the fact that there is another side to this story, and that we don’t know it all. It’s very uncomfortable when someone else’s national mythology makes you reconsider your own, and perhaps it is that discomfort that makes those of us who have previously identified strongly with one side not want to talk honestly about the rights of the other side. If I recognize their rights, are my own threatened? Uri Avnery (here, in PDF) tried to write I/P history as the meeting of two legitimate nationalist movements whose truths do not negate the truths of the other side, but it’s very difficult to really internalize the “other”.
All of which is a long way of saying that perhaps one more reason why views of Israel are changing is not actually to do with Israel at all, but reflects the fact that perhaps for the first time we are starting to think about the Palestinians as a people in their own right, and not just as a sidenote in the history of a Jewish people with whom we identify more easily.
As you say Ben-Gurion and the other terrorist leaders took one look at the situation in Palestine and independently came to the same conclusion as the Nazis later would: “We want this land. Other people already live here. They must be eliminated.” You’d have thought the Holocaust would have taught them it was wrong, but no.
Ethnic cleansing by Israel of the Palestinians is well established and conveniently ignored. Myths were written to establish the Israelis’ right to do exactly what the Nazis did.
Myths like Israel being attacked by Arab countries – in fact Israel has been the aggressor in every single war it has participated in. Myths like poor little Israel surrounded by enemies: in fact Israel never fought a war against anyone they couldn’t easily defeat militarily.
DB, when you are around I always find myself on the other side of the argument from that I usually defend.
Ethnic cleansing, yes. But “do exactly what the Nazis did”? Like, large-scale planned extermination campaigns of shooting, internment in labor camps, and systematic gassing? News to me.
Every single war?
1948 – Israel attacked by Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, arguably following provocation.
1956 – Israel, along with France and the UK, attacks Egypt.
1967 – Border clashes with Syria: blame on both sides. Israel again attacks Egypt (contrary to myth); Israel later launches full-fledged attack on Syria and Jordan.
1973 – Israel attacked by Egypt and Syria in a joint sneak assault.
1981 – Israel invades Lebanon, but not without prior attacks from Lebanese territory.
So this is a mixed bag here. Your position is no less simplistic than that of AIPAC.
Nonsense. To take just the most obvious example, Egypt almost crushed it in 1973. In fact it’s a remarkable incident of military history that Sadat was able to snatch defeat from the jaw of victory like he did.
Indeed, today Israel ranks as the world’s #4 military power and could easily defeat all other Arab countries combined. But it wasn’t always so.
Obviously we disagree about what is the important element of what the Nazis did. You think it was how they went about removing the “vermin” from “their” newly conquered land and I think it’s that they did. I think that they committed genocide is the issue, and you think their means of doing so is the issue.
Yes. Every single war
1948 – Israel didn’t exist prior to the 1948 war. How can you invade a country that doesn’t even exist? Israel (or the leadership of the terrorist gangs that would later become Israel’s government) unlawfully declared they controlled a large section of Palestine and thus initiated the use of force by attacking Palestine – since the Palestinians disagreed with being taken over by force. You can call it an invasion or a civil war but they started it. Besides which even when the Arab nations responded to the chaos by sending troops to secure the borders (which ANY nation would do) not one army ever entered the area of Palestine that the Zionist terrorists’ unlawfully claimed as their own. They “attacked” only Palestinian areas – which did contain Israeli armies – gee I wonder why?
1967 – Israel started that one with a bombing of Egypt’s airfields but I can’t tell if you are denying that from your summary.
1973 – Egypt attacked Israeli occupation forces criminally present within Egypt’s borders. Egypt never attacked over the border into Israel. Thus Israel is the aggressor although Egypt reignited the conflict after Israel consistently refused to withdraw in line with international law.
1981 – There were no prior attacks by Lebanon. When Israel can’t control terrorists within their own borders they can hardly plausibly say failure to control terrorists is a justification for invasion. Israel was the initiator.
Israel was always military superior
1973 – Egypt didn’t even try to win that one. You have to be joking. They just wanted to force Israel to the negotiating table to hand back the Negev and the Golan Heights. They didn’t even manage that.
The closest run war by Israel was undoubtedly the 1948 war but it helped that they had a pact with the other biggest military power in the area – Jordan. At the time the Zionist leadership is reported to have said it felt confident about victory which subsequent events bore out.
OK, I won’t be able to reply until tomorrow.
Meanwhile, let me call to your attention this comment of mine regarding your claims on the genocide in Rwanda, which if possible are even more extreme than your assertions on this thread.
You owe me an apology.
I’m either “fucking extreme” or I’m worth replying to. If you reply then you owe me an apology.
I haven’t denied that you are worth replying to. I merely announced, as a courtesy, that I won’t be able to reply until tomorrow. In fact I should have been in bed already, as the time is past 2 AM over here.
If you feel like being insulted because I call your views extreme, go ahead; but I owe you nothing.
Would you consider it ok if he said ‘you’re fucking position’ is extreme and not said ‘you are fucken extreme’?
I know that’s a subtle difference but when we are all discussing issues we feel extremely passionately about it’s good to direct language at the position taken.
Under the circumstances – where the difficulty of discussing this topic has already been noted – I find it irresponsible to start swearing at someone and using ad hominem attacks. I find it irresponsible to rate a post that does so with a ‘4’. (It would probably have been best for no posts here to be rated)
I feel that an apology by him would show that he wants to have a respectful conversation.
you have hijacked this thread.
Booman’s premise for the diary seemed pretty clear.
You had other issues you wanted discussed, issues that someone above suggested that he might otherwise have agreed with (as would I, to some extent).
Why not write your own diary on the issues you want discussed – you basically killed this thread.
DB is obviously very passionate about this subject. I understand. When I’m passionate about stuff I have a tendancy to want to reply to each. individual. post.
I know that can be a little annoying at times, but DB hasn’t taken this discussion in a different direction, and has been pretty darn polite about his comments.
I think Booman wanted a civil discussion about I/P. That isn’t easy. Matter of fact, I’ve rarely seen it done successfully. This thread gives me great hope that this issue can be discussed among folks who respectfully disagree with each other.
So…don’t mind DB’s many comments herein. I think it’s helped provide a real discussion of issues so far.
Obviously passionate, which is great.
I had a quick look at this diary when it was first posted. Came back a bit later and was discouraged by the direction of the comments. I thought of posting a comment to suggest a separate diary, and regret that I did not follow that impulse.
The issues are valid, and I’d look forward to see DB post a diary presenting his understanding of them.
Moron:
’48. A UN Resolution created a two-state solution. One Palestinian, one Israeli. Ben-Gurion accepted the resolution, the Palestinians did not. In 48 Israel was not the military superior. All the Arab states that invaded were already states, you know with like standing and trained armies and such. The best the Israelis had was a very dedicated militia. The alliance with Jordan you mention, you must have pulled that one out of your ass.
’67 Nasser was massing troops and bragging that he would push Israel into the sea. It was preemtive war by the Israelis, not in the sense that Iraq was but truly a justified one. A larger opposing force was massing saying they were going to attack imminently.
This guy’s a good example of the sort of liars that Palestinians are up against.
(1) the 1948 resolution was NOT a UN SC but a non-binding General Assembly directive
(2) it was aimed at the British – as the holders of the Mandate
(3) the Britsh failed to carry out these suggestions
(4) The land seized by the Israelis did not correspond to the land “suggested” for them in the rejected “resolution”.
(5) Even Ben Gurion rejected the idea that the state of Israel had anything to do with that resolution – this lie only surfaced later as a PR exercise
(6) Israel refused to abide by the terms for the governments set out in the resolution — in particular by ethnically cleansing the Palestinians (that was abad thing occording to the UN) who would have represented the majority population within their “half” of Palestine under the UN resolution.
You obviously don’t have a clue what you are talking about.
You conceed Israel started the ’67 war. They conquered the Sinai in a few days and you pretend they were militarily inferior? I guess they just got lucky huh?
Israel was confident of victory in ’48. Look it up.
What is an appropriate response?
The other exchanges with DB are many too much for me tonight, after several Dutch lagers, but your words resonate. It wasn’t until I read articles and watched interviews with Palestinians that I even considered the fate of those who were already living in the area when Israel was created, and I was raised Catholic.
It’s a story as old as civilization: a persecuted people move on, and the people “moved on to” become the persecuted.
Hey, weren’t there folks living here before the pilgrims?
The world seems like such a huge place from an airplane, but I guess there are a finite number of good places to live. I guess. Sigh.
Anyway, thanks for jogging my thought processes. 🙂
I’d like to believe that there was a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian issue, but I am less and less able to do so. Take away the religious aspects, the Holocaust that occurred halfway across the world from there, and what do you have left? A group of people who settled into an area already occupied by other people… and didn’t settle to become part of an existing structure, and a sharing of community, but to take over and become the only structure.
Where has that worked? Without continuous oppression of the displaced population, or genocide, or continous war and upheaval and so on. It worked (sort of) in the US, because the existing population was essentially decimated, and those remaining corralled into reservations and left powerless. Same with Canada, and Australia, South America, and so on. Well, it worked for a time… all these places are having to deal with the ramifications of those actions in this day and age. As are those who were formerly occupied and are now having to deal with the fallout of decades and centuries of occupation, and try and recover, such the African countries and to a lesser extent, India and other such places.
Then there’s Chechnya, the Basques, Northern Ireland, and probably lots of areas I’ve forgotten or never heard of. But wherever they are, there is likely conflict.
Now, with the Israeli/Palestine situation, add the religious aspects, not only the Jewish and Muslim religions, but the Christian religions (some of whom are the ones that pay the freight and for the housing of the settlers in the occupied territories) and you have an even bigger, unsolvable mess. I’ve always found it odd that some (by no means all) Israelis think it a good idea to have in their coalition a group of people who think their God is going to kill 2/3rds of the Jews in the “last days”.
And then you have the attempts to conflate criticism of Israel and of Zionism (in the meaning of the word as it relates to wanting to take over the entire area) with anti-semitism and hatred of all jews. Which is inane, but effective, as even a good number of liberal Jews seem to believe it to be the case. So, it’s a walling off of criticism or of honest debate, or an attempt to do so anyway. If you can’t have honest debate, how can you have honest solutions?
A few people here are ignorant of the legal definition of genocide. Ignorance is fine of course but some of these people add arrogance to ignorance. At any rate here is (a summary of) the legal definition from the genocide convention
If you want to use a different definition of genocide than international law then you should be prepared to be told you’re wrong. At any rate you should probably quit telling people who use the correct definition that they are wrong.
Of course as Booman says nobody would seriously accuse Israel of genocide, right?
The Prime Minister of Turkey – Israel’s longstanding and sole Muslim ally – has accused the country of genocide against the Palestinians.
Many Greek Cypriots compare the Palestinian struggle with their own troubles as a small nation illegally dominated by a powerful neighbour. …the sympathy many Cypriots feel for Palestinians is real. The goodwill extends to parliament, which passed a resolution last month backing the Palestinian cause and condemning “genocide conducted by the Sharon government”.
Well you know how those Turks and Greek Cypriots are always agreeing with each other.
Cuba calls on Israel to stop genocide against Palestinians
Obviously All the Arabs nations think it is genocide too
Here’s a professor of international law suggesting that Palestine should sue Israel at the World Court for genocide. But he must be another extremist crackpot like me and the various national parliaments, right?
It’s easy to find opinions supporting this claim but the article above goes over the law in some detail. It’s a good one for certain people here to totally ignore.
you mischaracterized what I said. I said you are in a distinct minority if you think that the Israelis are intent on exterminating the Palestinians. That was based on your comment that you think Israel is committing genocide even under MY definition of the term.
Also, the above provided definition of genocide is problemmatic. It is so broad and so vague that almost anything could qualify as genocide. That is why I consider it a poor definition.
I find this formulation particularly bad: “killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.”
This means that the Israelis are guilty of genocide if they kill ONE member of the Palestinian ‘group’ or inflict mental harm on ‘ONE’ Palestinian.
If we are going to define things like this we might as well cut out our own tongues and cut off our own fingers, because words have no meaning.
A reply to Booman from somewhere upthread….
I take it from your answer that you conceed that recent Israeli governments have indeed had a policy of ethnic cleansing? You just claim the current one does not? Could you point out when you think Israel reversed their policy please? For example when did they reverse themselves and say that Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed from their homes could return home again as demanded by international law and several UN resolutions? They never did of course.
What gives you the impression that things have changed?
Most Israeli PMs have been generals with links back to or direct participation in those early terrorist days. Did Clinton cut his teeth shooting Native Americans? Your analogy is poor. You are right to point out the US has it’s own history of genocide too of course. It’s just a question of how long ago. Palestinian people still live who were thrown out of their houses.
Are you actually claiming that an opinion on a bible text constitutes legal grounds for an invasion? Even Ben Gurion admited the establishment of Israel was not according to law. What are you saying here? This sounds so crazy – are you serious? You don’t beleive any of that.
When people come to blows then yes, the person who throws the first blow is blamed for everything. The other guy (aka “victim”) is defending themselves. It’s the same with nations. You know this. So YES the first crime establishes the context for everything. In effect the war that started in 1948 has never ended.
Your position is to ignore justice then? Having abandoned justice on what basis will you debate? You can’t argue what “ought” to happen because that is a moral issue. So what did you want to discuss if morals and justice are irrelevent?
I can’t engage you in debate if you are going to deliberately miscontrue my arguments.
This is the second flagrant instance of this.
I would agree that that in both the pre and post-Resolution 181 eras, there was ethnic cleansing. I would agree that Israel took more land than Resolution 181 authorized, both before and after the 1967 war.
What I don’t agree with is that Israel intends to kill or deport all the Palestinians today. I don’t think those policies would have ever gained majority support in the entire history of Israel.
But especially not today.
As for the last two section of your response I hardly know what to say. How can you possibly advance both arguments against me simultaneously, when they are clearly mutually exclusive?
Finally, justice would be peace, not a continuation of demands that will not be met.
Please re-write that response.
Can you please tell me in what way the history of the Jews makes a difference in your view. How about this: explain to me how your thinking would be different if the Jews did NOT have that history. My thinking would be no different at all.
Now you claim that the Israelis have a right to self-determination. Do you think you can have a right to self-determination over land which is not yours? You didn’t answer that.
As has been noted elsewhere I think a lot of nations have committed genocide. Genocide and/or ethnic cleansing doesn’t make you the ultimate evil. It does however make you similar to Nazi Germany and guilty of a very serious crime.
Also can you reply to what I said in this post? It addresses why you should always “take sides” even if you can’t always “fix things”. Taking sides is not petty; it is the heart of justice and the minimum compassion we owe to the victim.
are a number of different ways to try to tackle the I/P problem.
One would be to put everything on the table and assign fault and blame, and pass a sentence, like a trial.
I’m guessing from your posts that if you were the judge, justice would demand that the state of Israel give back all its land, pay reperations, hand over many of its leaders to the Hague, and dissolve itself out of existence.
Now, naturally, an argument can made in favor of such a resolution. But it will never go beyond just that: an argument.
And arguments over the I/P issue is what perpetuates the grief.
What is needed is a resolution, a compromise that is not perfectly satisfactory to either side. Even Arafat had a more moderate position than you appear to have. He did ackowledge Israel’s right to exist, and he didn’t do it because he suddenly saw the light on Zionism.
So, my desire was to talk about resolutions, but you want to continue assigning blame. That’s your right, but we should be clear so that we don’t keep talking past each other.
You cannot frame a resolution if you refuse to make a judgement.
That is not true. I do not have to decide whether or not it would be fair for Israel to cease to exist or keep its occupied territories.
The whole argument is just causes more death and bad feeling.
My judgment is that Israel will exist, and that Israel must make concessions in order to exist in peace.
My judgment is that the Palestinians will never get all their land back, or be fully recompensed for all historical wrongs, so they must make compromises to live in peace.
That is my judgment, and it involves transcending the he said/she said arguments that propel the cycle of violence.
You cannot have a position on what ought to happen if you don’t make a moral judgement.
Tell me Booman did you refuse to make a moral judgement about Saddam Hussein? Do you refuse to make a moral judgement about Darfur? Do you claim no one could have made a moral judgement about the Rwanda massacre? How about domestic issues? Do you refuse to make a moral judgement about them too?
What possible basis do you propose to distinguish between two suggested resolutions if you have no moral compass? In fact why do you feel there needs to be a resolution at all? Why not just let things take their course. How can you claim that is less “fair” than anything else?
With a situation like Darfur you start by recognising a wrong is taking place. Maybe you conclude (as I do) that some courses of action will just make things even worse but you don’t say rape isn’t really rape and genocide isn’t really genocide and who cares anyway because argument “just causes more death and bad feeling”. Maybe you conclude you can’t do anything at all but you have to know first of all what it is you would have done if you could. Furthermore one of the easiest things you can do for any victim is simply to agree with them. You refuse to even do that.
You are not going to get your version of fairness.
My moral judgment is as follows:
If a Democrat ever becomes President he will have to decide what to do about Israel and Palestine. When he makes that decision he has to keep in mind ‘reality’.
Reality dictates a number of things. If this Democrat wants to eliminate all aid to Israel, tell them to liquidate themselves as a country, and demand that their leaders are turned over to the Hague, he/she has to be willing to accept the likely consequences of taking such a position.
First of all, it would probably be so controversial that it would prevent that President from enacting any other major initiatives.
Secondly, it would be much more likely that this President would be impeached, than that they would succeed in seeing their policy enacted.
So, the President would have to feel very strongly, not only about Israel being so evil that they cannot continue to exist, but that the issue is so important as to render all other issues subordinate.
That’s political reality for a Democratic politician.
So, even if I agreed with your overall point of view, which I don’t, I still couldn’t advise a President to adopt such policies.
The only moral thing to do is to help the two sides reach a lasting agreement. Whatever that agreement is, it will not be considered fair by either side. And it won’t be fair. We are not God, and we don’t set all things right on the scales of justice.
The insistence on such thinking is what keeps either side from making concessions.
I don’t think it is morally acceptable to brainwash teenagers into strapping explosives on themselves. And I don’t think it is moral to bulldoze peoples homes.
I am not interested in atoning for every injustice, but I am interested in stopping the violence.
“The only moral thing to do is….”
You just rejected morality. Now you have nothing. Your position is that if it is determined that a certain course of action is moral then you wouldn’t care about it anyway. So what’s the purpose of this little chat as far as you are concerned? Why do you want to go and spoil it all by saying something like, “The only moral thing to do is”? Who cares? We don’t do moral do we? Isn’t that your point?
You are self-defeating. You can’t make the claims you try to make. You can’t dismiss ethics and then pretend you have an “ought” or that anything you are doing is worth a damn.
Even if you decide that the truth is so toxic that you can’t stand it you have to start off with the truth. Even if you decide that you’re too afraid to say what’s right you need to know what’s right. You won’t stand up with the victim and say, “I am powerless too, but I know you are in the right” — even if that’s too much “action” for you — but you can’t even do that until you know who the victim is. You first have to know what you are rejecting.
It’s one thing to have a goal and know you can’t reach it. It’s another to have no goal at all.
I repeat: upon what basis do you propose to decide between any two suggested resolutions if you reject morality as a basis?
is thinking I have to decide between two suggested resolutions.
All I have to do is facilitate an agreement.
America shouldn’t decide which side gets what, we should help the two sides find the magical common ground.
Your argument reminds me of two sons. One spills milk, the other gets blamed and told to clean it up. He refuses because he is guiltless.
I get fed up trying to decide who is telling the truth, and tell them both to clean it up.
The problem is really the mess, not who caused it.
Yes rapist and rape victim are equally “guilty” to you. You have no sense of justice. Spilt milk and genocide? What’s the difference eh? Only size. True. The difference is when you act with injustice over some spilt milk then you’re bringing up your kids crap but that’s all. That one kid will remember that the parent couldn’t give a shit who was in the right. He learns a lesson. Life isn’t fair. Fuck them before they fuck you ‘cos nobody cares.
And that’s the lesson you plan to teach the Palestinians.
Guess what?
They already learned that lesson.
I repeat: how do you propose to judge between two resolutions if not on the basis of morality?
Your answer seems to be that you will never choose. That answer makes this thread even more pointless because now you are saying not only should we not bother to make a moral judgement but we shouldn’t bother to propose any resolutions either — hey it’s nothing to do with the US eh? (apart from the billions of dollars of bullets and bombs)
you simply don’t respond to what people post.
I don’t consider the I/P conflict to be a clear case of raper and rapee. Isn’t that obvious by now?
I told you we were talking past each other and tried to clear it up.
You are trying to convince us all that Israel has no right to exist and that a fair evaluation of the facts will force us to concede your point.
I am saying, “Even if you’re right, that is not how this problem is going to be solved.”
You will not convince enough people of the validity of your argument to stop the killing.
It is immoral to perpetuate killing because the only possible solutions are unfair to one party.
It is immoral to insist the Palestinians continue to ask for more than they will ever get, just because you think they deserve it.
It’s not that I am opposed to debating history, it’s that I am more interested in stopping the killing.
Again, Arafat understood this, however imperfectly.
You keep conflating the truth and the solution.
We can offer solutions that take into account the ‘right of return’, ‘reperations’, and the history of territorial disputes. But we should not dictate a solution, we should help facilitate a solution.
Both sides are going to choke on the final settlement, because both sides are always going to feel they are getting screwed. And if even if you are right that the Israelis are getting a sweet deal and the Palestinians are getting a raw deal, it is the DEAL that will ultimately improve everyone’s lives.
Glad you posted downthread. Hate it when comments get all squishy myself 🙂
1 more comment then gotta run to bed, but will check back with ya tomorrow here. Kinda tired so please excuse the cut n paste – for my reference only:
1. Can you please tell me in what way the history of the Jews makes a difference in your view. How about this: explain to me how your thinking would be different if the Jews did NOT have that history. My thinking would be no different at all.
This is just my personal belief system at work: I believe self-determination becomes critical for people when they have been singled out for violence by a society because they are a minority. Peaceful co-existance is ALWAYS the best option, even when a minority is as violently oppressed as the Jews were in Europe, the Palestinians are right now, the Armenians were by the Turks, or the Native Americans were (and still are, in many instances) in the US. I believe that specifically in the instance of genocide, where a greater society attempts to completely eradicate a minority through a process of applied eugenics, the need for self-determination becomes very urgent indeed, as this minority at that point needs the protection of an independent State that they can apply to become a citizen of. I believe that a minority that becomes the target of ethnic cleansing should be able to apply for citizenship to a State with which it shares common language and cultural heritage, so that State can protect said minority in times of crisis.
This philosophy is very much a part of the reason why I not only support an independent Palestinian State, but also why I am extremely opposed to the creation of the Wall around said Palestinian State and why I believe this State should have a coherent boundary that includes part of the city of Jerusalem.
But I digress…
2. Now you claim that the Israelis have a right to self-determination. Do you think you can have a right to self-determination over land which is not yours? You didn’t answer that.
It’s late and the Mommy is coming out in me. Please accept my comments in this light. As a Mommy it’s always been my instruction to my child to share. Again, this is my own personal philosophy coming into play, but ownership of land – especially in some areas of the “old world” – is a pretty sticky issue, as it’s changed hands a number of times throughout recorded history, as well as being “owned” by now-defunct world empires.
You’re right that I shy away from the question of land “ownership”. There’s a part of me that thinks the entire question of “ownership” of land is pretty stupid but necessary (and that includes my country too, BTW). Necessary in that a State still has to have boarders within which to exercise its laws and government, and stupid in that a State has to have boarders at all which defines a nebulous “ownership” of land by its citizenry. Probably not making sense with that one – it’s late, so I’ll leave it for now.
Maybe after a couple of cups of coffee – as opposed to a couple of wine coolers – I’ll be able to explain my thoughts on this with more lucidity.
Lemme just attempt to wrap up my ramblings by stating that as a State needs to have land, and as stateless minorities of folks who have in their history been singled out for extermination need protection of a State…I’d like to see the whole “ownership” thing – which is fluid throughout history anyway – worked out a whole lot more amicably than has happened in the past, especially here in the US and as it also pertains to the State of Israel.
Moving on…(which I’m sure you’re happy about after all that random thought)
3. As has been noted elsewhere I think a lot of nations have committed genocide. Genocide and/or ethnic cleansing doesn’t make you the ultimate evil. It does however make you similar to Nazi Germany and guilty of a very serious crime.
Ahhh…but you see I think you used the example of Nazi Germany in a very deliberate way to tweak an emotional response…something along the lines of “well, heck, those Israelis ain’t no better than those Nazis that tried to kill all them Jews which helped create the international sympathy to start the state of Israel in the first place”.
That is kind of where you’re going, no? If not, please let me know.
If yes…well, shoot. I’d think a lot closer historical example of a democratic State doing a genocidal land-grab without limiting the freedoms of large segments of its citizenry would be what us Americans did to the Native peoples here, especially in places like Wounded Knee and the Trial of Tears.
But then, that might wreck your whole “they aren’t any better than Nazi’s” analogy, wouldn’t it?
I like to think I’m pretty careful with historical analogies, especially those involving Nazi Germany as these especially conjure up such an emotional response. Therefore, I don’t like folks using broad analogies to Nazis. If you’re going to compare folks to Nazis, I’d like the comparison to be as specific as possible, preferably in proper historical context that demonstrates a similarity in systems, practices and ideology.
4. Re: your other post, reproducing entirety of your comments here:
You can’t always fix things but you can always do whats right. Doing what’s right means siding with the victim not the oppressor. You can’t unrape someone, you can’t unmurder someone and you can’t uninvade a country but that doesn’t mean you don’t take sides.
To refuse to take sides is to effectively endorse the rule of the jungle. To close your eyes to injustice is to encourage it.
You can’t unrape someone and maybe you can’t even catch the one who did it but for god’s sake don’t tell the victim they are just as bad as their rapist.
Here’s my response:
King, and Gandhi before him, both held that “an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind”. I think this is what is happening right now between Israel and Palestine. The Israelis have definitely committed atrocities against the Palestinians, but frankly the Palestinians haven’t always been the bastions of nonviolent resistence themselves. That’s OK, that’s the choice they made. However, I think the violence of the Palestinian response has increased the cycle of violences in this conflict to the point at times where it feels that it is never-ending. Inasmuch as the Israelis MUST contend with the human rights abuses they have committed against the Palestinians, the Palestinians also must contend with the fact that their choice to use violence in resisting the Israeli occupation has also played a part in this conflict.
Therefore, I don’t believe your analogy of the rapist and the raped is 100% accurate (although excellent rhetoric, I’ll give you that). This analogy conjures up the image of a helpless person who has not themselves inflicted injuries upon the rapist. I believe if you’re trying to use this analogy between Israel and Palestine at this point it more closely resembles the scene from Pulp Fiction, where the characters played by Bruce Willis and Ving Rhames are in the basement of the Confederate Antique Arms dealer’s store, and after beating each other up they’re looking at Zed – the good, old US of A – to let them know which one’s going to be taken into the other room first.
Not a perfect analogy, either…but you get my general point. If the US’s goal is ultimate hyper-power via control of the middle east, I wouldn’t be 100% trusting of us if I were Israel at this point.
So…again, I simply don’t see this conflict in the terms you are placing it in.
(1) So basically you have sympathy with the Jews because of their history and you want them to wind up with somewhere to call their own. That’s fine. Having sympathy for individuals is fine. Your proposed solution is fine too. It’s very much like the situation after WW1 when America and Britain had a lot of sympathy for the Jews and felt they should have some land for themselves. So they took away someone else’s land at gun point and gave it to them. See that’s my problem. Any country that wanted to give the Jews a homeland could have welcomed them or even gone as far as cutting off a chunk of land and giving it to them. America for example is a very large underpopulated land. You could give them Texas.
You could give them Texas and the other Southern states and everything west of the Mississippi. That would be very generous of you. Just over half the country — that’s what the “generous” Brits and Americans decided to give but they gave over half of someone else’s country.
Nothing wrong with being generous and wanting the Jews to have a homeland. But taking away someone else’s land is a crime. If America wants the Jews to have a homeland they should certainly give them part of the US. You have a lot of space. Personally I think the Jews would much prefer Texas to Palestine but begars can’t be choosers.
(2)
The US is not anyone’s mommy and you have no right to make Palestinians hand over half their country to a bunch of people who want them dead. You wouldn’t do it.
You might want to think about the question of right to self-determination on land you only control by means of a criminal occupation. take a rain check on that one and get back to me because I don’t think it’s an open and shut thing. In part it’s a difference between considering nations and individuals.
(3) If you really want to discuss the appropriateness of making an analogy to Nazi Germany start another thread. I made the analogy because it’s accurate and true. I wouldn’t make it for any other reason.
(4) This last section seems most interesting. I see Booman is having the same problem. He’s basically saying that if you can’t do what’s just then why bother to even figure out what justice would be? I can’t understand such a truly bizarre statement except to think he’s bullshiting me. I’m glad you liked it.
I find your Ghandi thing inappropriate. Ghandi didn’t suggest that crimes should go unpunished. He certainly didn’t suggest that people shouldn’t even try to figure out who was the criminal and who was the victim. What Ghandi has to say is that after you have figured out who is guilty and it’s time to pass sentence on them that you have mercy. In this case he would say that we should not commit genocide on the Israeli people (eye for an eye) – something I’ve never suggested of course. But you can’t have mercy until you have judgement. You can’t penalise someone less than they deserve until you figure out what they deserve.
So you are saying that a rape victim who scratches their attacker is not worthy of sympathy and their attacker shouldn’t count as a rapist?
Look when someone attacks you, you defend yourself. You have that right. In law what the Palestinians do is perfectly legal because it is legal to resist an occupying force. Scratching someone isn’t legal normally but it’s ok if you’re being raped at the time see? It’s self defence. It’s ridiculous to characterise what the Palestinians do as comparable to what the Israeli government does. It matters who started things. This isn’t two quarreling kids. You can’t belt them both and send them to bed. You can’t tell the rape victim they’re just as bad as the rapist for scratching their attacker.
If someone invaded the US do you not think the Americans would have the right to resist? C’mon now this is basic.
The right to self defence is proportionate and limited — as we have been discussing in that thread on the Florida gunslinger law. Palestinians couldn’t claim self-defence if what they were doing was worse than the Israelis – it isn’t. They couldn’t morally nuke all of Israel for example. They couldn’t claim self-defence if there was anything better and less violent they could do to defend themselves – there isn’t (in their reasonably held view). They tried the Ghandi thing and the Israelis just shot them.
No one but a total pacifist can criticise the suicide bomber’s behaviour consistently. No one but someone who would refuse to defend themselves if they were hit repeatedly. Ghandi could criticise them maybe – but Ghandi never demanded everyone else had to be like him.
cuz then I gotta run to an event tonite:
Okay, well first off I don’t think the state of Israel is now, currently, engaged in a criminal occupation. That’s where you and I differ.
Second, I’ve already told you it is obvious that there is a difference between nations and individuals. Your point?
4. This last section seems most interesting. I see Booman is having the same problem. He’s basically saying that if you can’t do what’s just then why bother to even figure out what justice would be? I can’t understand such a truly bizarre statement except to think he’s bullshiting me. I’m glad you liked it.
What ARE you talking about? You’ve literally lost me here.
5. Just a tiny thing…it’s “Gandhi”, not “Ghandi”. Also, the reason why anyone is a proponent of nonviolence – Gandhi included – is that the outcome of nonviolence is peaceful coexistance. It is easier to control the potential affects of nonviolent actions, and it will lead to a true peace…so the believer of nonviolence supposes.
Now, as I’ve said the Palestinians chose not to go this route. They chose to use violence. And I’ve said that’s OK as that was – and is – their choice. However, violence, even when used to fight off an attacker, has its own consequences. In using violent resistance I think the Palestinians took a gamble: if they could get the state of Israel moved using violence and intimidation, then their personal world would be a better place (and we obviously wouldn’t be having this conversation right now). But violent resistance really hasn’t worked for them…which is why we ARE having this conversation right now.
If someone rapes me I do not have the “right” to kill them. If someone breaks into my house I don’t have the “right” to kill them, either, even to protect my property. My killing people who threaten my property or security has its own set of reprecussions that must be dealt with.
This is my feeling on where the Palestinians are right now. They used violence, they killed folks back when folks killed them in an “eye for an eye” mentality, and now there are a different set of results that they have to deal with now, than if they had originally chosen nonviolent resistance.
And just so I’m not misconstrued, I’m not trying to wag my finger and them and say, “you people need your own Martin Luther King”. I’m not there, I’m not Palestinian and this is not my choice to make for them. So I’m not passing judgement on that one.
What I am saying is it takes two to tango, and the Palestinians’ hands aren’t completely blood-free in this conflict. This is something that they’ll just have to deal with.
Gotta run…will check back as soon as I can.
This is another example of why you can’t begin to discuss a “solution” without talking about the history. You seem unaware that the Palestinians already tried non-violence. No one took any notice.
Why is it so hard for you to accept that when you invade a country they have the right to shoot back? If someone was going to shoot you and your family would you protect them? Are you saying that no one has the right to defend themselves from invasion?
I have to say that you are passing judgement on the Palestinians – a terrible and false judgement.
This is like saying rape victims deserve to be raped because they “asked for it”. It does not “take two to Tango”. Does it take two to commit murder? Does it take two to commit rape? You are implying that the Palestinians caused their own occupation. You are blaming the victim. The Israelis are solely guilty for every single act that has happened as a result of their invasion. Self-defence is legal. That means the person who uses self defence is not guilty of anything. They have no blood on their hands. Not one single drop. On the contrary most people would say that defending yourself and others is a duty and shows courage – especially when so much against the odds.
How can you possibly justify such an attitude? Only if you demand that every person and every state be a total pacifist even to the extent of allowing another to kill their family without action. But even total pacifists surely can tell the difference between the initiator of violence and those who respond defencively.
Do you place this extreme burden on any other nation or individual apart from the Palestinians?
…cuz this thread is about to disappear off the front page.
Thanks for participating!
– granddaughter of Helen! 🙂
disappointment with this thread is that no one made a single comment on the possibility that we will see a catastrophe on Sunday at the Temple Mount.
That was, after all, the point of the BBC article.
Israel reported to today that Israeli security forces will be restricting access to the Temple Mount and the al-Aqsa Mosque on April 10th. In addition, significant numbers of Israel security forces will be deployed in the Old City of Jerusalem on that date. Right-wing Israeli groups are planning to carry out protests at the Temple Mount. Authorities are afraid the event, with an attendance of protestors as high as 3000, could turn violent.
http://www.thedivinesibyl.com/blog/archives/427-guid.html
(reply to I think you are hopeless by Booman)
Ok I have to say something off topic here.
You get an ‘F’ Booman
Start by taking out the big red pen and crossing out all the whiney complaints you make. I am sick of having to read them ok? Please consider your readers. I really don’t care if you feel frustrated. This is not about you. This is a big thread with lots of long posts and sometimes half of what you write is a babyish whining about what I wrote.
Cut out the insults too Booman. I just don’t care. It’s a waste of my time and others time to have to read you insulting me over and over again. You’re lucky I generally don’t retaliate or we’d never get anywhere. This topic is heated enough as it is.
Yes it is obvious. But I don’t care what your view is unless you back it up, ok? So where are you telling me WHY you don’t think the analogy is correct? Look at what grannyhelen wrote recently for example. If you sat, “I don’t think that’s true because of XXX” then I can respond you see. Here’s what she had already posted:
My reply to her is here
Here’s another tip: if you can’t resist the impulse to insult me and have a babyish whine then at least do it at the end of the post because if I have to read that much poor writing I might give up. Remember this is a big thread and I don’t have all day. Why would I want to spend a lot of time on someone insulting me?
Now the rest of what you wrote here is actually pretty well worded although it’s repeating what you said earlier (and the argument itself is weak). The thing is that you need to try and move on and make progress each time. If you feel you can’t make any progress explain why.
I have now asked you the same question three times and you won’t answer it (my perspective – obviously or I wouldnt keep asking it). If you think the question is unfair that’s a perfectly good answer too, “I think that question is unfair and here’s why”. But try your best to give an honest answer, ok? Don’t sit there and sulk.
Also another thing you did here is to start to change the subject from talking about what you call the “history” to solutions. I’ve already explained that I don’t think you can talk about solutions until after you have an understanding of what is going on so you already knew you were unlikely to get much from me on that topic. But in generally any big change of topic while ignoring what the other person said is frustrating. Especially as it gets hard to read posts up against the right hand side (yes, I know folks can change the way they view their threads but I get the impression most do not). If you feel that this other topic needs covering simply start a new ‘top’ level post.
One thing I liked is that you attempted to sumarize my position and feed it back to me. Good (and I agree with your summary). However in the past when I’ve tried to do that for you, your reaction has been to complain in a babyish tone that I am “deliberately misrepresenting” you. The appropriate response under those circumstances is something like, “That’s not what I think – I think this: here’s the difference”.
In short: pretend you were cooperating with the other guy in the conversation instead of trying to screw them over. This is not about you. You’re not fighting me.
top of thread.
However I think your behavior here is uncalled for. There has been a big influx of members and with them the fight with everyone crowd seems to have also shown up.
What is the purpose of causing so much disruption? You aren’t going to change anyone’s mind and you know it.
that was hilarious.
For some reasons, you are unwilling to accept my position at face value. You repeatedly called it ‘dishonest’ or suggested I was ‘bullshitting’ you.
That’s fine, I enjoy the conversation.
My positions, once again, is as follows:
On Sunday, there may well be a riot at the Temple Mount. If there is, the fault will lie initially with Jewish radicals that go there to stir up trouble.
However, by jumping to take the bait, Muslim radicals will be equally stupid, if not quite equally culpable. I don’t want a riot at the Temple Mount, and I want moderates on both sides to see the radicals for what they are: obstinate assholes, who won’t negotiate in good faith.
Whether or not Israel should have been created, whether or not Israel should have taken more land than was appropriated for them, whether or not a proper response is to blow yourself up…I don’t want a reescalation of the violence.
Now, that concern led me to write the story. But it is a metaphor for the large peace process.
Israel is not going away. You think they should, and you make your case for why. I am not interested in arguing with you over the merits of your case, any more than I am interested in arguing with the Gaza settlers about the merits of their case. Neither of you are going to get your way, and the longer you insist on getting your way, the more people will be killed, the longer people will suffer.
That is fairly straight forward. I hope.
I really think you should consider not posting on this topic if you cannot control yourself.
Oh no, I guess I insulted you.
Was just about to answer your comment about Arab/Israeli wars, but it’s probably better to drop it, since I might inadvertently insult you once again.
You at least know what you’re talking about. In my book that means you should show Booman a better example. Why do you use ad hominem if you have better stuff to say – stuff people might actually want to read? You could be informative but you risk being ignored. Why?
That is why I asked for an apology from you not him. Show some curtesy. Show some respect instead of acting like a kid.
Thanks for the compliment, though I strongly disagree that Booman doesn’t know what he is talking about.
You know, I haven’t used any ad hominem arguments so far. An argument ad hominem is an attack on a position based on some feature of the person who defends it. For instance, to attack someone’s stance on criminal law reform based on the fact that s/he’s an ex-convict would be ad hominem. I just noted that I tend to find your views extreme. Possibly you find mine extreme as well, which would be your privilege, and hardly a big deal.
To illustrate what a real ad hominem looks like, and I stress that this is merely by way of illustration: I understand that you have been repeatedly banned on dKos for your perceived lack of courtesy and respect. So are you really in a position to lecture others about those virtues?
That hypothetical argument might be called ad hominem.
Anyway, I am all in favor of courtesy and respect, and though I can’t see that I have wronged you, I am sorry that you’ve taken offense. If you are prepared to put that behind you, I’ll abstain from characterizing you, as opposed to your specific arguments, hereafter. If not, then so be it.
I haven’t complained about being called dishonest. I consider that a ‘real’ insult.
Your post was highly amusing, so I called it hilarious. If that’s insulting, so be it.
Learn to take as good as you give, my friend.
If you show no respect then I will not reply to you.
I’m tired of babying what I assume to be a grown man.
Ken is a mainstay on ProgressiveTalk mailing list…. I sent the list the info on Booman’s superb story, and encouraged responses. Ken hasn’t done blogs before, so he said I could post what he wrote. Here it is:
Susan, I had spotted two tv programs at the same
time on Israel. One dealt with Hollywood’s aversion to
devote attention to the Jewish situation in Germany
during the Hitler era. The other was the Frontline
program on the extremist settlers. I had a meeting
conflict that night so I had my wife tape the
Frontline program. I haven’t got to view it yet but
your email with followup completion via url spurs me
to view the Frontline program today or over the
weekend.
I have commented and length, even initiating
talking about the stranglehold that the
Issraeli/Palestinian matter has over just about every
aspect of American public life, above all
politics/government/business, and also on the
Democratic Party and all Democratic politics and
politicians with precious few exceptions. The
reactiveness of AIPAC and the American-Jewish lobby in
terms of not countenancing not only even mild
criticalness toward Israel occupational policies and
even turning on Israel supporters who fail to be
sufficiently sponsoring Israeli matters is an absolute
kiss of political or career death to any individual
audacious enough to ever so mildly speak out in the
face of the festering situation resulting from the
intransigence of Israel in realistically facing up to
the urgent steps needed for a peaceful and secure
coexistence in the MIddleEast.
The comment at the end of the ‘more’ extended
material, to wit ‘fire away’, really has meaning. I’ve
been anti-semiticed and rabidly lit into at times such
as an AFSC conference held in New Haven as much as
twelve or more years ago that dealt with the
Israeli-Palestinian matter. And I’ve observed at first
hand how cowed the Democratic Party and even the
nominally liberal wing of the Democratic Party (as
opposed to DLC conservative wing)is in dealing with
the Israeli matter totally favorable to intransigent
Israel. I also have experienced personally thru
contacts with mostly secular Jews that they come
across as every bit as critical of Israel as I am,
even more so. This doesn’t involve questioning the
right of Israel to exist. It doesn’t involve any
downgrading of the holocaust horrors whatsoever. What
is crystal clear to me at least is that it was the
European Christians who played at least a going-along
role in the unfolding holocaust policies, and NOT the
Palestinians. Yet it’s the Palestinians who are are
being treated starkly similar to the way the Jews were
treated in Europe except for the actual gas chambers
and slaughter. One would think survivors of the
holocaust now living in Israeli would be struck by the
brutality of policies and attitudes so prominent in
the way Israeli deals with innocent civilians in the
occupied territories.
I’m aware that the complexities of the matter is
more than I’m into here, but it’s been my impression
from readings, etc., that over the centuries in many
periods Jews were treated much better in Islamic
countries including the MIddle East than they were
historically in Europe.
I’m also very aware of the hypocritical and/or
fanatical posturing and influence of the
Armgeddonish/Christian Zionist crowd who are
unwaveringly supportive of Israel in order to hasten
the Second Coming by making triumphant Israel ‘blossom
like a rose’ in scriptural parlance. There’s no doubt
that many misled evangelicsl/fundamentalist Christian
followers take this aspect dead serious. It’s been my
view that the Bush crowd, including Dubya himself, are
rank hypocritical opportunists in placating their
Christian Zionist zealots. As to the Robertsons and
Falwells and Dobsons and Reeds, I really have my
doubts about their sincerity. Way back when I was in
the midst of a Pentecostal church at that time the
Second Coming and its trappings were part of the
faith, but sort of a creedal aspect that never played
directly into the political involvement as now has
become the case.
Finally, the cabal of recycled neocon fascist
thugs that the Bush regime has installed in high
positions dealing with MiddleEast and foreign policies
in general have extremely warped and imperious
ambitions that have been divulged to any who are
seekers of realpolitic realities that are extremely
dangerous to both Americans and Israelis, and both
countries, and world peace overall. Then, looking
askance at those very cowed Democrats, the complete
support of intransigent Israel by the likes of Kerry,
Clinton, Hillary, and even supposedly liberal Dean,
there is a total dirth of sensibility and sensitivity
to the dire needs of the present hour for peacemaking
in the Middle East. The U.S. can no longer let this
matter simmer. No longer can we copycat Israel in our
ruthless policies in our continuing occupation of
Iraq. We read of the establishment of military bases
in Iraq that give every indication of intended
permanence. This can only mean that Iraq is slated for
a Quizling-style government that rightwing U.S.
(including the Democratic Party hierarchy)will
manipulate and thereby sentence the world to
continuous instability and ultimate fiasco.
In terms of American foreign policy, superpower
policeman role, economic/political dominance, a potent
burgeoning movement for a drastic makeover of our
foreign policy, turning away from militarism and
warmongering and interventionism, is vitally needed.
Only thus can we achieve and maintain any semblance of
a decent way of life in terms of the fading-away
American Dream. I’ve yet to detect any real sign that
a revamping of thinking and approach to politics and
advocacies can or will emerge in the Democratic Party,
regardless of any false hopes that Dean can realign
the party. Therefore, I see no way that any thoughtful
and aware American can play along with urgings to go
inside that illusive big Dem tent and work to reform
the party. Such folks will be submerged and become no
help for needed change in national direction and even
part of the cancerous incipient fascism enshrouding
our native land (not ‘homeland’).
Perhaps the one hope may be the financial crash
resulting from the insolvency the Bush regime is
heading us inevitably toward, and this hope obviously
involves a major catastrophic mess for us all. And in
my view we’re pretty close to having our vulturous
wings clipped by debt holders such China, Japan, even
India. Not much else but gloom and doom on the
horizon, UNLESS we get radioactive, as Jim Hightower
puts it. Holding our tongues on intransigent
neofascist Israel is definitely not going to cut it.
Ken
(1) Annex all of the occupied territories into Israel proper, and give all residents of the new, larger Israel the right to vote. This will never happen, of course, because Jews insist they must always have majority control of their government.
(2) Israel withdraws behind the Green Line, the wall is built upon that line (rather than its current status, which grabs choice bits of the occupied territories for Israeli settlers), and (as in the West Wing story arc that dealt with this issue) peacekeepers go into place to provide a buffer between Israelis and Palestinians.
Alan
Maverick Leftist