Putting Cards on the Table

Bradley Burston is making a lot of sense. I particularly liked the following excerpt because it is something that has been on my wish list for a while.

What if, in an evolving Middle East, people speaking about the Israel-Palestine issue actually spoke their hearts. For example, what if high-profile voices on the right, actually, finally, came out with the unvarnished bottom line:

“I want my settlements.”

Even for some of the most erudite and intellectually credentialed of neo-cons, it comes down to this. A measure of the ferocity of the attacks against the likes of NGOs, the New Israel Fund, J Street, Peace Now, has to do with the challenges that they pose to unbridled settlement expansion and permanent occupation.

As far as I’m concerned, “I want my settlements” is as valid, and certainly as honest, an argument as anyone needs to make. At long last we can have a real discussion. I fully respect the fact that you want your settlements. I don’t. Now we’re getting somewhere.

The other argument that the government hesitates to make is that “We have to stay in East Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria because God and His Bible want us to.” I respect that as well. It’s honest. For the record, His book tells me the opposite.

Of course, whenever you are asking people on the right to make honest arguments and reveal their true motives, you’re spitting in the wind, whistling past the graveyard…pick whatever analogy you want. But it would be nice if we could place our true cards on the table and see how much support there is for our arguments without the aid of distortion and obfuscation.

Burston describes the mood in Israel as a “sabra-grade panic, a black dread.” And, without providing any supporting evidence, he asserts:

Some of the very rightists who for years have pointed to hasty, unilateral Israeli withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza as proof that no withdrawal can ever work, that pullouts lead only to war, have changed their tune overnight.

Suddenly, Burston says, Land for Peace seems like a good idea again. I’d like to believe him, but I’ve seen the exact opposite conclusion bandied about, which is that Israel now feels far too insecure to even consider making concessions, and that the peace process is as dead as a doornail. I think I would have to live in Israel and work among its people for me to have a feel for which argument is more accurate.

I do hope, at a minimum, that Israel gets rid of Netanyahu’s government and puts someone new in change. New times call for new thinking.

10 Comments

seabe on February 14, 2011 at 10:47 am

My one friend in Israel has told me that judging by the American news he hears, he feels far safer in Israel than he would in America.

Anyway, if we were all honest about arguments that would indeed be good. The right-wing Christian Zionists would come to the table with their extreme antisemitism, for one thing. That’s where AIPAC gets most of the power that it has.

This argument holds true for every political issue, however, and it takes away a big piece of political bargaining. If they argued in good faith on every issue, we’d have seen legislation far to the left of what we accomplished. Asking them to argue in good faith is an exercise in futility. It’s the same as abortion. Obama’s approach is nice, but it’s a loser’s position. He argues we need to work together to reduce the number of abortions. Everyone can get behind that, right? Wrong. They’re not arguing for that; they want to control women. So, Nancy Pelosi’s position is better:

“They are at a different philosophical place,” she said, characterizing their view as: “all engagement has to result in a child.” Pelosi noted that contraception and family planning is “not consistent with their belief that it’s all about procreation.”

It’s why there is no “common ground” to be found on this issue.

Mattes on February 14, 2011 at 1:17 pm

When have you ever seen MSNBC’s Richard Engel, or CNN’s Cooper Anderson broadcasting from the middle of a peaceful Palestinian protest? You all ready know the answer. Never.

WHY WHY….why do zionists control our media and politicians? Left and right.

BooMan on February 14, 2011 at 1:41 pm

I think you ought to tone it down with talk of Zionists “controlling our media and politicians.”

They have a lot of influence. They don’t control them.
- Mattes on February 14, 2011 at 2:06 pm
  
  And remind me of the difference?
  
  The de facto difference?
  
  On the Jewish side, they are:
  
  Hostages to Zionism
  http://mondoweiss.net/2011/02/hostages-to-zionism.html/comment-page-1#comment-279262
  
  Good quote from above article:
  
  Accepting Zionism as a workable, sustainable political program is a kind of blindness. It calls for a striking lapse in critical thinking and the jettisoning of fundamental humanistic principles, and it leads to the political dead end in which we find ourselves today.
  
  As for the crazy Zionist Christians, I usually stay out of their sites. Something to do with the bible, or some other…
  
  Note, I said Zionists, not Jews.
  
  The root of the issue is Zionism. And ideology that is fundamentally wrong if you have an ounce of compassion.
  
  And yet in Israeli papers the subject can be debated. But, here…silence.
- Mattes on February 14, 2011 at 2:20 pm
  
  SO much good stuff in this one article, I need to quote more:
  
  Born in the heady years after the establishment of the state, I grew up believing that Israel was the key to Jewish survival. But I would suggest that preserving Zionism is not the challenge facing Jews today. Rather, our task is to rescue Judaism from an ideology that has hijacked the faith, continues to fuel global conflict, and has produced one of the most systematic and longstanding violations of human rights in the world today. Despite its romantic attachment to the idea of the “new Jew” — a Jew liberated from the powerlessness and humiliation of the ghetto — in reality Zionism has served to keep Jews trapped in an isolationist, exclusivist past. We must challenge a historical narrative that has yoked us to a theology of territoriality and tribal privilege. We must acknowledge how deep is the hole we have dug for ourselves in the pursuit of our national homeland project.
  
  But it is not for the Jews alone to resolve this crisis. Rather, the grim prospect of Israel spinning rapidly into rogue state status challenges people from all faiths and nationalities to confront sectarian and particularistic strivings wherever they hold the political process hostage.
  
  Can’t agree more.
  
  “Control”, “political process hostage”, all the same to me.
  
  It’s your blog. Would you acknowledge “political process hostage”?
  
  It is all about the American people learning the truth, the true cost of Zionism.
  
  How does that happen without first acknowledging the censorship?
  - BooMan on February 14, 2011 at 2:34 pm
    
    Because obviously there is no Zionist censorship board. So don’t use unnecessarily inflammatory language to exaggerate what you mean to say.
    - Mattes on February 14, 2011 at 2:56 pm
      
      Yes, I know “control” rings their bell.
      
      Maybe that’s why I do it. A small devilish pleasure.
      
      But, I hate so being banned. I’ll try to be good.
      
      But frankly, I don’t think it matters at all what I say. The cat is now out of the bag so to speak.
      
      And I do appreciate that you deal with the issue at all.
      
      For Markos, it turned out to be just one big headache he no longer wanted to deal with.
      
      I see it as a spider’s web. Mostly invisible here in the States.
    - BooMan on February 14, 2011 at 3:19 pm
      
      Well I don’t appreciate efforts to ring jew’s bells. Not when the bell is a libel.
    - Mattes on February 14, 2011 at 5:32 pm
      
      Noted.

opit on February 14, 2011 at 4:05 pm

I was posting a number of Israel/Palestine stories just a couple of hours or so ago…and not from ‘the usual suspects’
http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.com/2011/02/14-february-sheeple-power.html

seabe on February 14, 2011 at 10:47 am

My one friend in Israel has told me that judging by the American news he hears, he feels far safer in Israel than he would in America.

Anyway, if we were all honest about arguments that would indeed be good. The right-wing Christian Zionists would come to the table with their extreme antisemitism, for one thing. That’s where AIPAC gets most of the power that it has.

This argument holds true for every political issue, however, and it takes away a big piece of political bargaining. If they argued in good faith on every issue, we’d have seen legislation far to the left of what we accomplished. Asking them to argue in good faith is an exercise in futility. It’s the same as abortion. Obama’s approach is nice, but it’s a loser’s position. He argues we need to work together to reduce the number of abortions. Everyone can get behind that, right? Wrong. They’re not arguing for that; they want to control women. So, Nancy Pelosi’s position is better:

“They are at a different philosophical place,” she said, characterizing their view as: “all engagement has to result in a child.” Pelosi noted that contraception and family planning is “not consistent with their belief that it’s all about procreation.”

It’s why there is no “common ground” to be found on this issue.
Mattes on February 14, 2011 at 1:17 pm

When have you ever seen MSNBC’s Richard Engel, or CNN’s Cooper Anderson broadcasting from the middle of a peaceful Palestinian protest? You all ready know the answer. Never.

WHY WHY….why do zionists control our media and politicians? Left and right.
- BooMan on February 14, 2011 at 1:41 pm
  
  I think you ought to tone it down with talk of Zionists “controlling our media and politicians.”
  
  They have a lot of influence. They don’t control them.
  - Mattes on February 14, 2011 at 2:06 pm
    
    And remind me of the difference?
    
    The de facto difference?
    
    On the Jewish side, they are:
    
    Hostages to Zionism
    http://mondoweiss.net/2011/02/hostages-to-zionism.html/comment-page-1#comment-279262
    
    Good quote from above article:
    
    Accepting Zionism as a workable, sustainable political program is a kind of blindness. It calls for a striking lapse in critical thinking and the jettisoning of fundamental humanistic principles, and it leads to the political dead end in which we find ourselves today.
    
    As for the crazy Zionist Christians, I usually stay out of their sites. Something to do with the bible, or some other…
    
    Note, I said Zionists, not Jews.
    
    The root of the issue is Zionism. And ideology that is fundamentally wrong if you have an ounce of compassion.
    
    And yet in Israeli papers the subject can be debated. But, here…silence.
  - Mattes on February 14, 2011 at 2:20 pm
    
    SO much good stuff in this one article, I need to quote more:
    
    Born in the heady years after the establishment of the state, I grew up believing that Israel was the key to Jewish survival. But I would suggest that preserving Zionism is not the challenge facing Jews today. Rather, our task is to rescue Judaism from an ideology that has hijacked the faith, continues to fuel global conflict, and has produced one of the most systematic and longstanding violations of human rights in the world today. Despite its romantic attachment to the idea of the “new Jew” — a Jew liberated from the powerlessness and humiliation of the ghetto — in reality Zionism has served to keep Jews trapped in an isolationist, exclusivist past. We must challenge a historical narrative that has yoked us to a theology of territoriality and tribal privilege. We must acknowledge how deep is the hole we have dug for ourselves in the pursuit of our national homeland project.
    
    But it is not for the Jews alone to resolve this crisis. Rather, the grim prospect of Israel spinning rapidly into rogue state status challenges people from all faiths and nationalities to confront sectarian and particularistic strivings wherever they hold the political process hostage.
    
    Can’t agree more.
    
    “Control”, “political process hostage”, all the same to me.
    
    It’s your blog. Would you acknowledge “political process hostage”?
    
    It is all about the American people learning the truth, the true cost of Zionism.
    
    How does that happen without first acknowledging the censorship?
    - BooMan on February 14, 2011 at 2:34 pm
      
      Because obviously there is no Zionist censorship board. So don’t use unnecessarily inflammatory language to exaggerate what you mean to say.
      - Mattes on February 14, 2011 at 2:56 pm
        
        Yes, I know “control” rings their bell.
        
        Maybe that’s why I do it. A small devilish pleasure.
        
        But, I hate so being banned. I’ll try to be good.
        
        But frankly, I don’t think it matters at all what I say. The cat is now out of the bag so to speak.
        
        And I do appreciate that you deal with the issue at all.
        
        For Markos, it turned out to be just one big headache he no longer wanted to deal with.
        
        I see it as a spider’s web. Mostly invisible here in the States.
      - BooMan on February 14, 2011 at 3:19 pm
        
        Well I don’t appreciate efforts to ring jew’s bells. Not when the bell is a libel.
      - Mattes on February 14, 2011 at 5:32 pm
        
        Noted.
opit on February 14, 2011 at 4:05 pm

I was posting a number of Israel/Palestine stories just a couple of hours or so ago…and not from ‘the usual suspects’
http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.com/2011/02/14-february-sheeple-power.html

Putting Cards on the Table

About The Author

BooMan

10 Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Comments