Leonard Nimoy's on record with Americans for Peace Now in support of the two-state solution. His strangely passionate-for-a-Vulcan argument contains an enormous fallacy:
You might recall the episode in the original Star Trek series called, "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield." Two men, half black, half white, are the last survivors of their peoples who have been at war with each other for thousands of years, yet the Enterprise crew could find no differences separating these two raging men.But the antagonists were keenly aware of their differences--one man was white on the right side, the other was black on the right side. And they were prepared to battle to the death to defend the memory of their people who died from the atrocities committed by the other.
The story was a myth, of course, and by invoking it I don't mean to belittle the very real issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians. What I do mean to suggest is that the time for recriminations is over. Assigning blame over all other priorities is self-defeating. Myth can be a snare. The two sides need our help to evade the snare and search for a way to compromise.
More than merely belittle, he distorts reality with this invocation.
If Spock the neutral Vulcan (as opposed to Nimoy the biased American Jew) was to visit the strange foreign planet of Israel/Palestine, what he'd observe is one people oppressing another people, not "two sides" in symmetrical "conflict." He'd be highly tempted to violate the Prime Directive and join Bil'in's villagers in a nonviolent protest.
No one spoke of "two sides" in the U.S. South during the civil rights movement, or during South African Apartheid. They were situations of oppression that needed to end.
The myth of "two sides" in a symmetrical "conflict" is perpetuated primarily by Israeli and American Jews, because if everyone's equally to blame, the inherent racism of the colonial Zionist military/political project need never be examined, and the source of the oppression need never be indicted.
And tell us how, exactly, Mr. Nimoy, we'll ever get to the two-state solution (or any solution) without BDS? If BDS was necessary to resolve South Africa, why isn't it necessary here?
Where's the dispassionate logic we love you for, Mr. Spock?
Outta this world and outta touch, Mr. Nimoy.
Surreal ignorance. Surreal choice of ‘spokesperson’. Another sign of the nervous times. From the American ‘liberal’ zionist camp, again.
Well, Nimoy did pick one of the most heavy handed and poorly executed episodes in the history of Trek to base his metaphor. If we’re going to stick with TOS, I’d say look into “A Private Little War” or “Errand of Mercy,” the former for the US’ relationship to Israel vis-a-vis the arms trade and the latter for the exploitation of a population unsuited to war by an aggressive, militant outsider.
Beyond TOS, I’ve found that the back story of DS9, with the Cardassian occupation of Bajor, is the closest metaphor for what Israel is doing to Palestine.
“Beyond TOS, I’ve found that the back story of DS9, with the Cardassian occupation of Bajor, is the closest metaphor for what Israel is doing to Palestine.”
Producer Rick Berman compared them to “The Kurds, the Palestinians, the Jews in the 1940s, the boat people from Haiti – unfortunately, the homeless and terrorism are problems [in every age].”
I used to dislike the direction Berman took Star Trek on a lot of things but I’ve learned since that he seriously had his hands tied by Paramount on a LOT of things. People complain that writing under Berman (and Braga) became repetitive and relied too heavily on tropes, but I think that’s because the studio wanted to sap as much controversy out of Star Trek as possible.
Hey Chaos, I’ve never seen those episodes, thanks for the reference. I’m a little young for TOS, I grew up with Next Gen and loved it.
I’m juuuust old enough to have known Star Trek before TNG. ;)
Getting the Jewish community in the US to start thinking about the Palestinians as a people is already a challenge. Give Spock some credit and beam me up Scottie.
I think he got it right.
Everyone is a victim.
Richard Witty said, ‘This is my latest line; everyone is a victim, no one is a perpetrator. The Israeli soldiers were forced to shoot to kill by the unarmed Palestinian demonstrators in front of them. Netanyahu has no choice either; he is forced to be intransigent by “solidarity” and “dissent.” Woe is me. I better go back to cultivating my vegetable garden.’
“Asymmetric” says that the conflict is not a conflict, that only Palestinians are victims, which I think is a ludicrous concept.
It results in the thesis that in the event resistance kills civilians, that there is no justified right nor obligation of IDF defense.
Its an ignorant thesis to my mind.
>> “Asymmetric” says that the conflict is not a conflict, that only Palestinians are victims, which I think is a ludicrous concept.
You appear not to understand asymmetry.
>> It results in the thesis that in the event resistance kills civilians, that there is no justified right nor obligation of IDF defense.
1. Resistance exists because there is an ON-GOING campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder. (This is not a minor point, by the way.)
2. The IDF does not act in a purely defensive manner. The reality – which you support – is that the IDF undertakes offensive military actions designed to generate a response, and then uses that response to undertake “belligerent reprisals”.
“It results in the thesis that in the event resistance kills civilians, that there is no justified right nor obligation of IDF defense.”
You actually believe that any army, anywhere can be “justified” or “obligated” to kill unarmed civilians?
Richard Witty said, ‘Bull Connor and other southern law enforcement officials in the early 1960s had every right to defend their region against provocative civil rights demonstrators, spurred on by “solidarity,” and “dissent,” who just wanted a vicarious “adrenaline rush.” The peaceful civil rights demonstrators who were killed actually brought about their own deaths.’
“It results in the thesis that in the event resistance kills civilians, that there is no justified right nor obligation of IDF defense.”
Whenever someone brings up Israeli violence, you jump in and say that the Palestinians kill civilians and the IDF defends them. Yet you want people to respect your views. It’s not possible.
Sometimes it’s useful for Israeli propagandists to shout “symmetry” (we’re all victims – although Nimoy couldn’t seem to recall any Palestinian victims of Israeli violence), and sometimes it’s useful to shout “asymmetry”. Whatever works, eh?
Richard – Israel/Palestine is primarily an oppression and secondarily a conflict. It was not always so; it was primarily a conflict in the 1930s and early to mid 1940s. When the Zionist conquerors gained the upper hand, and began ethnically cleansing Palestine, and then instituting a system of Apartheid laws, it became primarily an oppression. But the liberal Zionists keep speaking in terms of conflict because they don’t want the inherent racism of Zionist conquest to be challenged, racism that runs not only through the Revisionist (Jabotinsky) strain we see dominant today, but also the Laborite strain lead by Ben-Gurion who, after all, lead the efforts to ethnically cleanse Palestine in 1948.
Asymmetry implies a significant power differential that must be confronted and redressed. It doesn’t mean there aren’t Palestinian and Israeli victims.
Actually James I read that RW line as supporting the notion that raped women have it coming to them and that we should also feel sorry for their rapists who are also victims dontcha know.
Its obvious that there are elements of oppression in the relationship. But, your timing is way off on asymetry, to the extent that it remains relevant.
There is a dual reality present, that is selectively ignored by looking only at the relationship between Israel and Palestinians. That is that historically, and partially currently, there was an organized pan-Arab anti-Israel movement that was large, large enough to threaten Israel’s existence (beyond safety for civilians, a rational requirement on its own) most prominently in the 1973 war.
And, there is an organized pan-Islamic orientation that does include Hamas, Hezbollah, but most prominently more radical and violent jihadist factions. The reasoning between the Hamas view and jihadi is similar in the respect of regarding the Islamic Umma as including undifferentiated middle east, NO Jewish state, NO democratic state.
Are those concerns currently significant. Yes, and certainly also exagerated.
There is no worldview that I’ve ever encountered that does not contain racism. The Palestinian nationalist movement contains racism. The BDS advocacy movement contains racism, in the form of objection to Jews self-associating and then self-governing as Jews.
The ability to shell civilians (in three dimensions, rather than two) creates an asymmetry between Palestinian resistance movements and Israeli civilians. And, certainly, the historical ability to inflict harms in mass murder of civilians in terror, represents an asymmetry between terrorists and unarmed Israeli civilians.
I hope that you regard that asymmetry as of merit in your thinking.
“The peaceful civil rights demonstrators who were killed actually brought about their own deaths.’”
As I remember from Mr. Witty’s relation of his adventures in protest back in the day, that was pretty much the conclusion he did come to. This is a man who has heard dissenters threatening to turn over police cars!
“The BDS advocacy movement contains racism, in the form of objection to Jews self-associating and then self-governing as Jews.”
Richard Witty says, ‘It is racist to oppose ethnic cleansing and apartheid when the goal is to achieve an Aryan nation, self-governed with Aryan laws that privilege Aryans.’
To expand on his views, see: link to aryan-nations.org “Stop the hate–segregate!”
Listening to Witty describe the history of the region is about as credible as listening to Dubua explaining what happened to all those WMD.
For example, how’s this for a bald faced lie?
Witty wil never provide any evidence of this, beyond a vague assertion that decreed it somewhere, but can’t find the link.
Witty’s become a parody of himself. He’s like John Cleese pretending to be John Cleese.
You get more and more ridiculous by the post lately Witty. Lol
You know, it’s pretty bad, Witty, when you’ve managed to offend SO many people that I not only don’t get the chance to respond early, I don’t feel the need to respond much at all because other people have it covered.
Just thought I’d point that out for you.
‘ I better go back to cultivating my vegetable garden.’
Yes, he grows like an onion doesn’t he?
“I better go back to cultivating my vegetable garden”
Voltaire?
“There is a concatenation of all events in the best of possible worlds; for, in short, had you not been kicked out of a fine castle for the love of Miss Cunegund; had you not been put into the Inquisition; had you not traveled over America on foot; had you not run the Baron through the body; and had you not lost all your sheep, which you brought from the good country of El Dorado, you would not have been here to eat preserved citrons and pistachio nuts.”
“Excellently observed,” answered Candide; “but let us cultivate our garden.”
link to literature.org
Voltaire?
More like Solomon:
“Look not upon me, that I am swarthy, that the sun hath tanned me; my mother’s sons were incensed against me, they made me keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept.”
– Song of Songs 1:6
too lazy to look up the passage – but: it’s Noah who starts the vineyard business, then is found naked and drunk in his tent by his sons, right? Something like ‘first tiller of the soil, planting a vineyard’ – some say from a branch from the garden of Eden. But that’s post-lapsarian and post-diluvian stuff. Typologically, Adam is the first tiller/cultivator of the soil, of course, after he’s thrown out of the divine garden/paradise’. And what does he do? Blame the only other human available! In that case, the woman, the other. That Voltaire’s Candide didn’t do. Nor Solomon.
“Everyone is a victim.”
Yeah, that’s what they used to tell each other in the concentration camps.
Right, Dick Witty, just as the Germans were victims, getting the total blame and penalties for WW1.
“The ability to shell civilians (in three dimensions, rather than two) creates an asymmetry between Palestinian resistance movements and Israeli civilians. And, certainly, the historical ability to inflict harms in mass murder of civilians in terror, represents an asymmetry between terrorists and unarmed Israeli civilians.
“I hope that you regard that asymmetry as of merit in your thinking.”
Say wha?
Richard Witty is the random-word-generating Sarah Palin of the I/P conflict.
Pamela Olsen,
I have found that randomly inserting punctuation like semi-colons and hyphens, and replacing words with more than two syllables with something simpler can sometimes turn Witty’s gibberish into marginally coherent sentences. But some of it you just have to igore. (Can anyone actually shell civilians in two dimension? I mean, is it possible under the laws of physics?)
“Every one is a victim.”
Not these people in this great flashmob at a New Seasons grocery story in Portland, demanding a boycott of Israeli products. My guess is that some of these wonderful young people are Jewish, and have chosen not to fall victim to Zionist ideas of racial/religious superiority.
link to youtube.com
Nimoy’s message is meant to convince die-hard Israel supporters that APN is a good Zionist organisation that has absolutely nothing but Israel’s best interests at heart, and that only by supporting a negotiated (sans Hamas, of course) 2ss will they “ensure Israel’s security, prosperity and continued viability as a Jewish and democratic state” and protect Israelis against unprovoked Palestinian violence (Israel just “retaliates”, although “assigning blame … is self-defeating”). After all, even Israel’s former spooks and torturers say so!
Better APN than the Hebron Fund, I guess.
” Israel’s best interests at heart, and that only by supporting a negotiated (sans Hamas, of course) 2ss will they “ensure Israel’s security, prosperity and continued viability as a Jewish and democratic state” and protect Israelis against unprovoked Palestinian violence (Israel just “retaliates”, although “assigning blame … is self-defeating”)”
That’s pretty much the argument made by Obama, Tom Friedman, the NYT editors and most “liberal Zionists” (leaving aside honest people like Jerome Slater). And in a way the argument is almost designed to be unpersuasive. Nimoy doesn’t want to assign blame, but as you point out when he gets into the details he is clearly painting a picture where the Palestinians are the aggressors. Both sides have “interests”, but it is the Palestinians who initiate violence.
If I believed the facts were as Nimoy and the rest portray I’m not sure I wouldn’t be on Netanyahu’s side. At best it just becomes a pragmatic issue–what is the best way to keep Israeli Jews safe and preserve Israel from those violent Palestinian extremists? The rightwing Zionists could argue that they shouldn’t reward terrorism and if Palestinians can be trusted with a state then they should show they deserve it and can work together with Israel to suppress their own violent extremists. There shouldn’t be any rush and in the meantime the US should stick with Israel until such time as the Palestinians can get their act together. Given the liberal Zionist view of things (again, meaning the Obama/Friedman/Nimoy view, not Slater’s), the rightwing Zionist case is in some respects very strong. The weakness of the rightwing Zionist case from this perspective is the settlements, of course, but even here the willingness to say that Israel should be able to keep many of them again strengthens the rightwing Zionist position. Why are they supposed to be an obstacle to peace if Israel is going to get to keep many of them? Again it just makes the Palestinians seem petty and irrational.
Yeah, Donald, the Palestinians should just relax, enjoy the scenary, have a cool drink, and realize that the PTB remain, sometimes a bit under other names, France, Germany, USA, and will always have the power to enforce what they want. God forbid any Palestinians look closely at the economic state of Israel’s sequential main enablers. They just might conclude that the power days of those powers are being counted. There’s a frenzied reason why Israel has been kissing China’s butt, doing its best to court Russia again, and winking at India. No matter what you think of Western anti-semitism and Western insensitivity (Gee why didn’t they knock out all the rails to the Nazi camps and concentrate instead on German ball bearing factory rails? Why show so much preference for their own majority people, those allies?), there actually is a world history more encompassing than the history marked on the Jewish calandar. Are the goys waking up to the fact that the squeaky wheel gets the grease? Perish the thought.
Yes, I’m sure sure that’s going to work beautifully.
Israel is like the guy with the meat cleaver in his hand trying to flirt with the woman in the next house, while explaining to her that he and his ex wife (ie the US), who’s bloodied corpse lies on the ground, separated amicably.
Well, let’s cut him some slack. About Hamas, he said:
That’s definitely a step up from the “Two state solution, sure, but only without Hamas… but only with Palestinian unity…” nonsense spun by Netanyahu and his US lackeys.
And although Palestinians and their rights and interests do at best marginally figure into his line of argument, he does not take up a purely Israeli position either:
I am willing to give Nimoy the benefit of doubt and assume that he is genuinely interested in an equitable 2ss. Generally speaking, I agree with the notion that such attempts to rationalize this approach for Israeli and American audiences, ignoring the Palestinian perspective, are somewhat odious. But they may be necessary.
Well, let’s cut him some slack. About Hamas, he said: “We cannot know yet what this unification of Hamas with Fatah means and we have to wait and see what emerges.”
I was looking at this bit: These experts are not naïve. They know that even if the Palestinian pragmatists of Fatah reconcile with Hamas, there will be extremists who will try to sabotage any future peace deal. They know how to deal with violent extremists.
The rest looks like Vulcan posturing.
As for the US interests Nimoy cites, they are the very same ones that are always cited (in both countries and by both parties) to show how Israel and the US have “common interests” and “shared values”. Did Nimoy really need to justify solving the I/P conflict by saying it will make it easier to stick it to Muslims? Can he find no other US interest in a peaceful solution to the conflict?
I don’t believe for one second that Nimoy is genuinely interested in an equitable 2ss. The White House isn’t and APN isn’t, so why should he? I do believe however, that he considers himself a fair and logical man, and if he gets some Zionists to support APN, that’s a good thing.
Well, as I said, I’m willing to cut him some slack. Maybe it’s the fanboy in me speaking. To me, his appeal to American interests is fairly rational and not based on “common interests”.
Peace Now does have several positions which are morally wrong and/or completely irrational (BDS, refugees) but if they manage to convince some Jews to give up the Greater Israel expansion in favor of a 2SS based on the 1967 borders, this is a good thing.
>> I think he got it right.
>> Everyone is a victim.
Funny, I never thought you’d admit that Hamas was a victim.
(BTW, if everyone’s a victim…who or where are the criminals?)
Eljay, that super geezer Demajuk?
>> Eljay, that super geezer Dem[j]a[n]juk?
Ah, yes, “Ivan the Terrible” of Treblinka…ooops, I mean, of Sobibor. (An honest mistake, yes?)
Presiding Judge Ralph Alt said Demjanjuk was a piece of the Nazis’ “machinery of destruction.”
I guess he didn’t get RW’s message that accountability is irrelevant, that “the PRESENT is what matters” and that victims of Nazi atrocities should just “look to the future” and “make ‘better wheels’”.
Good post Matthew. I’ve been saying this four years on the blog, back when I was an undergrad and my username was LDLD.
There was a Star Trek episode about a society of privledged cloud-dwellers and downtrodden mine workers. I think that would have made a better comparison to the I/P conflict.
I’d forgotten about that one! I agree. The interesting twist of note is that the oppressed workers only got concessions from the privileged class when their leader was forced by Kirk to endure the same conditions that the mine workers suffer.
In this case, though, Israel’s defenders like to refer to antisemitism and the holocaust, which is analogous to “working in the mine”. This is actually fairly typical of right-wing movements.