Comments on: Blankfort and Ross on Walzer

By: Grumpy Old Man

Grumpy Old Man — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Walzer has written some interesting academic stuff on "just war," but this piece is undistilled goofiness.

No Israeli government has lifted a finger to thwart settlements in the West Bank (Gaza was a different deal), and none will without an American gun to the head, and perhaps even with such a gun.

Meanwhile, Lieberman is the true face of contemporary Zionism. America tolerated Shamir, he of the Stern Gang. Why not a loudmouthed Moldavian bouncer?

By: syvanen

syvanen — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

But can Walzer be believed? He has continuously supported policies that have led inevitably towards expansion of the west bank settlements. He may have claimed to oppose them, but his actions said otherwize. Many people have behaved that way these last 20 years, but their actions can be understood as those of dupes. Walzer is no dupe, he is a leading intellectual and had to cognizant of what was happening. He must see that the Gaza slaughter has blown up in Israel's face and that it is time yet again to lull the world into believing in Israel's good intentions. This is a ploy. This seems to me more of a symptom that Israel has just suffered a major PR setback, and not evidence that Walzer is willing to work for a real any peacfull and just solution whereby Israel will give up control of Palestinian lands.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

The PR setback is evidence of how lost the israeli front has become. How could they act with such hubris in Gaza, and continue now in East Jerusalem to ethnically cleanse, in plain view of a disgusted world community? There must be a complete disconnect from reality, and the "center" of what the world can accept as decent behavior.. Gaza has exploded in their face, and they don't have the presence to realize it. The west bank occupation might operate as a way to disenfranchise potential voters, but that doesn't really add up if settlers are living alongside palestinian arabs. I sense that things are coming to a head..

By: Rowan Berkeley

Rowan Berkeley — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

As usual, I agree with Jeff. I would add that it only started being official US policy to push for a 'two-state solution' when it became apparent that any 'state' in the West Bank would be a 'Bantustan'. The reason I haven't made a point of this before is that recognising it leads us nowhere, except to the utopian idea of 'one state for all its inhabitants', which will require a protracted and arduous global anti-apartheid-type campaign to achieve, and which it is pointless to discuss here because the whole point of Phil's 'struggle' (like that of M J Rosenberg, Gershom Gorenberg, who still define themselves as zionists, unlike Phil himself), is to avert this 'one state for all its citizens' nightmare, which as they see it will lead to wholesale expulsion of Jews from the entire state. However, this interpretation of his 'anti-zionism' Phil will presumably dispute.

By: Chris Berel

Chris Berel — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Most intelligent people will refute any idea proposed by Rowan and martin.

By: Duscany

Duscany — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

I don't see why a single state solution will destory the Jewish state. After the recent Israeli elections the Arab political parties were not allowed to participate in the negotiations for a new government. To remain a Jewish state all Israel has to do is refuse to count Arab votes in all future elections. Whose is going to stop it? Certainly not Hillary or Obamaa. This may not work forever but Israel could hold it together for another 50 years surely.

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

I've NEVER heard of any policy that Walzer supported that encouraged the expansion of West Bank settlements. Where did you get that from?

By: Citizen

Citizen — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Didn't Israel court slap down the ban on Arab political participation? Or, no? I imagine the reason for any ban would be couched in terms of Israel's security, which is the usual dust cover. Anybody know?

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

The Arab parties were deemed eligible to participate in the elections, did receive votes, and continue to have seats in Knesset.

By: Citizen

Citizen — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

You are correct, Richard. I see the Israeli Supreme Court delivered its verdict on 1-26-09, after the assault on Gaza was pulled. I also note that the right wingers now intend on circumventing the court's ruling via
proposed new citizenship (loyalty) litmus tests. How well will that sit with ObamaCo, I wonder. ShrubCo certainly had no problem. Sometimes the rule of law actually works, in the Western sense of the term. Good for Israel on that. We need to go after the Bushies regarding how they circumvented our own Constitution right here in the USA. Glad to see some movement towards that as well. The wheels of Justice grind slowly, but they grind well. I'd say, looking at history, those wheels often skip a number of generations, but there's always hope afforded by future generations and the continued persistence of
the usual handful of dedicated humanists.