-
-
- SF officials describe ‘apartheid’ label as ‘intolerance alienating the Jewish … 9
- In electric atmosphere, Medea Benjamin takes over the president’s speech 1
- Bradley Manning blows chance to have a gay wedding 0
- Weiner’s Park Ave apartment belongs to man whose ‘only agenda’ … 6
- UN and Hunter College events feature plight of Bedouin refugees, … 1
- AIPAC promotes Netanyahu on two states (and ignores the statements … 0
- Jamal al-Dura calls on Israeli government to bring him his … 5
- Kerry faults Israelis for complacency — peace isn’t ‘on the … 14
-
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 1709
- Palestinian-American Raed Zidan plants flag on top of Everest, dedicates … 1361
- Christians denounce Israel’s manhandling of worshipers at Holy Sepulcher on … 952
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 810
- In photos: Gaza marches and rallies mark 65 years of … 442
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 438
- Israeli report on al-Dura case is vengeful and ‘surreal,’ says … 401
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi … 355
-
- Kennedy’s insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite … 104
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi … 96
- Abulhawa declines to ‘balance out’ several Israelis in ‘Al Jazeera’ … 94
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 93
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 73
- Uncompromising hope inspired by Ghassan Kanafani 63
- Biden says Jewish ‘influence’ behind American cultural politics is ‘immense… … 56
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 53
-
- SF officials describe ‘apartheid’ label as ‘intolerance alienating the Jewish community’ http://t.co/gygE6OQrnP, 6 hours ago
- RT @MaxBlumenthal: Cpl Goldberg slams "veteran smear artist" https://t.co/Uc4sMIIv7E Yeah, about that... http://t.co/dTO4wxGpLF, 7 hours ago
- Voskamp on .@medeabenjamin: Obama’s chf of staff sitting behind me,seemd unfazed & wondered if he shd call off guards http://t.co/PUqQE1DDA0, 9 hours ago
- In electric atmosphere, Medea Benjamin takes over the president’s speech http://t.co/PUqQE1DDA0, 10 hours ago
- Bradley Manning blows chance to have a gay wedding http://t.co/I6Luwltzkq, 10 hours ago
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- SF officials describe ‘apartheid’ label as ‘intolerance alienating the Jewish community’ (9)
- Annie Robbins: why didn’t i think of that?
- Annie Robbins: ritzl, i’m going bonkers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =wAhB72Q0D2w
- ritzl: …they should do something about it…” Amen, yt. I think it’s coming. The light bulbs...
- Israel cracks down on American travel to West Bank by requiring tourists to obtain military permit (49)
- Sumud: All Arab countries agree to accept the Green Line as Israel’s border with Palestine. Yes I know, but that...
- Jamal al-Dura calls on Israeli government to bring him his son (5)
- ToivoS: Larry Derfner at 972mag has a good article on this Israeli al Dura report. He makes a pretty good case that...
- Weiner’s Park Ave apartment belongs to man whose ‘only agenda’ is Israel (6)
- DaBakr: Is Huma now going to be accused of being a ‘self-hating muslim’? Like Hiirsi?
- LanceThruster: Yes, nothing to see behind the curtain there.
- DICKERSON3870: RE: Rosen . . . has given approximately $50,000 each to both the RNC’s Republican National State...
- CBS stands by Bob Simon, blowing off CAMERA’s charges of anti-Semitism (12)
- eGuard: What exactly was that four-sentence reply from CBS?
- Kerry faults Israelis for complacency — peace isn’t ‘on the tip of everybody’s tongue’ (14)
- DaBakr: Kerry was hired to try and bring back the feather to place in Obama’s cap which he is too...
- SF officials describe ‘apartheid’ label as ‘intolerance alienating the Jewish community’ (9)
Our Writers
More WritersBlogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
Friedman's reference to living in caves, of course, is being misrepresented here. He used it to say we should live openly and go about our business, and not cower, in light of terrorism. That I agree with. Three dead and 171 wounded is bad, but if it were a train-wreck, or a tornado, we'd pull together for the victims, clean up ... and go about our business like nothing ever happened. That's a better response to terrorism than invading Iraq and founding the TSA, for example. [And never mind that Friedman was advocating invasion of Iraq] But that basic point is sound. And there's nothing wrong with pointing to Israelis for this; they've had more experience with the receiving end of terrorism than most.
As for saying "living in caves is for terrorists" ... I'm not following how that is supposed to be pejoritive or bad. Terrorists do live in the shadows, they have been living in caves. And if, and these are big ifs here, if you can find that cave, and if you can trace that terrorist to that cave, and if you can't get at that terrorist any other way ... Then that's the seguay to the drone discussion; but it's really a separate discussion.
It’s an unusually clear and direct interview of the basic issues. Five things struck me. 1) Barak’s vision is a permanent, and growing, Jewish state, 2) permanent military occupation of the West Bank, 3) continuation of settlement in the West Bank, 4) no sharing of Jerusalem, 5) and no plan for Gaza. There is no room for a two state solution in this vision. Barak’s reference to Jeffersonian democracy is interesting. Was he thinking of the fact that women and blacks were disenfranchised in 1780, or was it just an empty phrase?
The idea expressed by Omar Barghouti, that application for state membership puts Palestinians at a disadvantage, is curious. There is, of course, something to this. If a state is declared, all of a sudden a host of issues become unavoidable: who is the legitimate representative of this state, how does it select its leaders, who will have citizenship, what are the rights of citizens? What are the rights of Jews living in this state? Is there a right of return to this state, by whom? How do you enforce the peace in this state? What will your relationship be with your neighbors? How do you raise the funds to support it? How do you attract and develop business? Statehood, in other words, comes with responsibilities. This is true even for a UN declared “phantom state.” Surely it's easier to avoid these issues and continue to speak of universal rights, to pursue BDS from abroad, and from the safety of university environments. That way you never have to stand for election, and you never have to take responsibility. I admire Abbas, Ashrawi, Fayaad and the Palestinian Authority for attempting to shoulder some this responsibility. I wish them success.
It isn't really a "free speech" issue. Freedom of speech is an American constitutional value ("First Amendment") which says that the government may not pass laws that infringe on the freedom to speak. The First Amendment does not apply to a private museum. MOCHA is obviously free to cancel this show, if they choose to .
It also seems to me they should not cancel it. An exhibit of Palestinian children's art is of interest. It certainly has political value. I don't know how Susan Johnson curated these pieces, but regardless, the show would be interesting to see, and it certainly would foster discussion. This is a good thing. Canceling the show puts MOCHA in a bad light. For donors, or anyone else, to put the squeeze on the board about this show is regrettable and a mistake.
As for the Israeli philharmonic, it's true that BDS is a tool that can be used by anyone. So what? Pressuring MOCHA to cancel an exhibit of children's art has to be justified on its own terms. The only rationale I can see for anyone wanting to do this is the belief that the art is being ued for propaganda purposes. It's hard to judge this without knowing something about the exhibition, or how it was curated. I'm skeptical that the folks applying pressure had such knowledge. In any case, even if the show is deliberately political, I would like to see it. Is MOCHA making a mistake? They are obviously presented with a bad choice--hard to judge which decision is the lesser of two evils here. Certainly, the so called "philanthropists" who might be responsible for this are being less than honorable. Shame on them!
I'm sure that another suitable venue can be found for this show in the East Bay. The cancellation due to political pressure will add publicity interest. For this reason, it seems to me counter-productive for the Zionist camp to put pressure on MOCHA to cancel it in the first place.
In the meantime, it would be worthwhile to solicit both Susan Johnson and MOCHA to comment on this event.
I think the star is a good idea. So is the sorting/searchable database. Good work. Anyway, I'm in for a year--I assume I'll get the star. IB
Haven't been here in a while. When last I commented, one of your regulars suggested that only unemployed students living in the parent's basement really waste their time here. I don't quite have it right, but I think it was meant as a dig at a particular comment. It's B.S., of course. Nevertheless, there is a certain juvenile quality in many of the comments here. I think it's better than it was, but you do still have a strong echo chamber here, as demonstrated by your piling on Richard Witty.
Mooser: you say Witty represents nothing "but his own senility and accumulated failure." The tribute however, and I agree its luke warm and back-handed, says "[Witty] represents a large (but decreasing) portion of mostly Jewish opinion. He represents hundreds of thousands of Jews in the U.S. and elsewhere, maybe millions. When people ask us why we pay attention to Richard Witty, that's why: he is representative of a vast number of people sometimes called liberal Zionists." Well, whatever that is, it is more than "his own senility." In fact he represents a hell of a lot larger constituency than this site represents, or were you not paying attention when Netanyahu spoke to Congress. Which is to say, you are talking trash.
Don't get me wrong, I support what this site is doing, and I have supported it monetarily. In fact I am sending another donation now. But Witty is a reminder that this site does not in fact live up to its banner of "The war of ideas in the Middle East." It's an activist site. It's one sided. It's partisan, and not just on behalf of objective justice. It cannot brook the view held by "maybe millions." I think that is o.k. because the site represents a part of the story that does not get out in mainstream media. But it is one sided, and not objective, in this pursuit. It is way more on the fringe of one-sided than the hated NYT, for example. Richard Witty reminds you of that fact. He is about the only one.
You all could learn a lot about civility and tone from Richard Witty. My hat is off to him. 10,000 comments is a lot of dedication. And since most of us are in fact grown ups, this site could stand a little more balance and tolerance of the Israeli view, certainly in the comments.
Best to all.
Thank you, Sumud, for the link to the Saree Makdisi talk. It's an hour and a half well spent!
Good fun and all. But I wouldn't be so disdainful of Crittenden or Vaughn Williams. The sentiment they express is real; it doesn't go away by not talking about it. It's the sentiment that's behind the billions we spend on airport security--$40 Billion from 9/11/01 through 2009 according to Robert Poole at the Reason Foundation. How much fear does it take to motiviate us to spend 4$ billion plus annually?
Fear of the other is part of the human condition. I'm not sure that ridicule is the best way to deal with the problem.
Of course "Palestinians reject Israeli offer on Settlement Freeze" is a succinct and factually correct headline. It's true that Palestinians are lousy at framing the issue on their terms, but I'm not sure that this is a conspiracy by headline writers.
Isn't a refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state an implicit rejection of the two state solution. Similarly, a refusal to agree to a settlement freeze is an implicit rejection of a two state solution.
I'm beginning to come around on this issue. It seems like both parties are embarking on negotiations about something (two state solution) that neither wants. Not surprising they can't get to square one.
"Ayaan Hirsi Ali's war on Islam"
If Huntington's thesis that the world will continue to divide along historical civilizational lines in the coming decades (Western-Islamist-Confuscianism) is correct, then the challenge posed by Hirsi Ali needs to be reckoned with:
I think there is much evidence that the Islamic world, today, is in a religious, social, and economic crisis. The impression one has is that if Islamists come to power in Turkey, and the Islamic Brotherhood comes to power in Egypt, that would further the march of radical Islamic fundamentalism expressed through institutional terror on women, backward legal systems, and backward educational systems.
Perhaps Huntington thought there could be stable sphere's of influence. But if the Islamic sphere of influence is dangerously fundamentalist and despotic for the foreseeable future, the observations that this will affect the West within its sphere of influence, and that our civilization is not indestructible and needs to be defended, is not willfully confrontational
What does this mean for the veils in France, the minarets in Switzerland, or an Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero? I don't think Ali purports to provide an answer. It seems undeniable, however, that the fundamentalist and radical nature of Islam in its sphere of influence is posing a challenge to the West when Islam asserts itself in the West, and that examples like the veils, the minarets, and Ground Zero must be worked through--even if the conclusion is the veil must be allowed in schools, the minarets should be allowed, and a mosque near Ground Zero should be allowed.
What about Israel? Does the West's policy toward Israel depend in part on the nature of Islam in the middle East?
Avi:
You are correct about this. I would not mock suicide bombers, or their families, and I don't think their actions come from a vacum either. Had you been reading for understanding, you would have noticed that this was the point.
Avi: I for one have no problem with this articulation. However, Abe Foxman had a pretty direct experience of the Holcaust (his Polish Jewish parents farmed him out to their Catholic nanny while they were ordered to enter a ghetto--they survived the war). I would be loath to mock any such person for using the holocaust for their ideological purposes. These ideological purposes do not come from a vacum. I haven't read the Finkelstein book on the Holocaust Industry, but I'm sure mockery is not the way he approaches this subject. [I have no quarrel with the proposition that the holocaust is overused and overplayed as justification]
Mooser, I think there's the rub. The hope is that Palestinians would be able to go to Congress and make some inroads on more balanced treatment from the U.S., in part on the strength of Mondoweiss. If the comments are intelligently thought out, respectful, and substantive then this site is more likely to have an impact than if the comments are an echochamber of inflammatory rhetoric.
Some type of "cynical pretext", Avi.
As to the Museum of Tolerance, Jerusalem, I don't know the facts. I see the Weisenthal Center claims that the site donated for the Museum served as a municipal parking lot for the past 40 years. It seems political opposition has sprung up around the project because people feel it would be inappropriate to have a Jewish museum of (inter-Jewish) tolerance built on what was once an Islamic cemetery site. I take the project was tied up in litigation for a few years, and Frank Ghery, the project architect, has recently withdrawn. Without more, it strikes me that this particular tempest in a tea pot has about as much to do with the Holocaust as the proposed Mosque near the World Trade Center site, i.e. nothing.
Besides, Avi, if you believe the Museum of Tolerance built in the proposed location belittles the Holocaust, what does this have to do with eljay being dismissive and sarcastic of the idea that the Holocaust plays a large role in the psyche of Jews vis a vis Israel?
Hello Mooser:
Too much motorcycle Zen for me to follow. How would you characterize eljay's last comment? There must be a good Yiddish word for it. Middle passage? I assume you are referring to the transfer of slaves from Africa to the New World in the 17th and 18th Centuries? Who is belittling that? Are there some middle passage deniers out there? And what does it have to do with the Holocaust or the formation of Israel, or Al Jazeera for that matter?
eljay--
I don't think it's productive to belittle the Holocaust, in any argument or context. To not feel, or understand, or to deny that it was a huge force in the establishment of Israel, and remains so, is naive in the extreme. Like the Nakbah, it's a tragic historic fact that must be fully digested and overcome. How to do this is the ongoing discussion, but to belittle either event is stupid.
Stellaa, et al.
Did you listen to the piece? Al Jezeera is properly introduced as a truly independent voice with boundless influence in a region beset by economic disparity, repressive governments, religious intolerance. Gladstone mentions prominently how Al Jazeera offices have been struck by American missiles and refers to Western meddling and Western neglect. She pushes Khanfar pretty hard, but provides him fair opportunity to answer; unfortunately Khanfar comes off a bit defensive in the interview, but he needn't have.
Critical thinking starts at home. This site provides good balance for coverage you hear on outlets like NPR and NYT ... but this site, as is proper for an activist site, is hardly "balanced."
I think the Kirshner article is interesting, and the post here is very good and demonstrates nicely the value of this site: to provide context and reality from the Palestinian perspective. It significantly deepens the discussion.
The idea of refilling the Dead Sea by diverting water from the Red Sea, providing irrigation and hydroelectricity along the way is intriguing. It has the potential to benefit everybody.
Is the development taking place around Kalia another indication of how the two-state-solution is going by the wayside? If, from an activist standpoint, the focus of the fight becomes civil rights in one state, then is the rationale for BDS still the same? If it is going to be one state, then development of the whole area is important, and the goal should not be to stunt that development, but to spread the wealth to all. Does BDS play out differently, therefore, depending on the one state or two state solution?
American:
There is no debate about any parade of horribles: deliberate targeting of civilians is reprehensible, no matter who does it; exulting in your child killing anyone is reprehensible, no matter who does it; building shrines to sucide bombers and Baruch Goldstein are both counterproductive and wrong.
We are all entitled to our opinion on how the cookie crumbles on the facts.
I'm not sure who you refer to when you say "your side." If you intend me, allow me to correct you: I am neither Israeli nor zionist. I support a two state solution because I believe, based on how I see the cookie crumbling, it offers the best hope for peace in the region. As I read more, I am becoming more agnostic on whether a two state solution is in fact possible. In the meantime, I support what this site is trying to accomplish (I have supported it monetarily) . . . and I wish the comments would be more substantive and less mob like.
rmokhtar:
Questioning the moral foundation of suicide bombings is not sinister, or shameful, and it is not dehuminizing anyone. I'm sorry you find the topic uninteresting or in poor taste.
As to "justifying actions that result from that view," I don't follow you. I believe that encouraging anyone to blow themselves up in a crowded marketplace, or at a bus-stop, is morally reprehensible. I also think that such actions are counter-productive to achieving peace. However, the fact that Palestinians have supported suicide bombings does not not justify the occupation, does not justify illegal settlements, does not justify the burning of olive trees, and does not justify the harrasment of Palestinians.
Koshiro:
It's a fair question. Sue Johnson raised it squarely, I think. Is there a difference between supporting your child in the IDF, or any army for that matter, and supporting your child in a suicide bombing mission. I think there are things to legitmately discuss about that. Perhaps someone wants to follow up on Sue's comment and make a start.
One difference any such discussion will need to tackle is the fact that suicide bombings by their very nature are targeted at vulnerable civilian populations.
Echoes of the "wicked child?" Except that the "wicked child" at Seder is asking "what is this to 'you.'" The wicked child is sitting apart from the others, because it dares to question the tradition. So it must be criticised.
Here, the tradition is to say things like "what a bottomless cesspool of toxic filth", "You miserable, nasty pieces of racist wakos – you’re the ones who should be banned from going anywhere near ‘children’", " I always figured zionism was a mental disease that attracted the less evolved, more backward sorts", or "Nazi propagandists" . . . and anyone not using such language is obviously not one of "us?"
Pashkudnyak:
Yiddish insult. THE most potent and offensive insult known to man. it has so much connotation that cannot be truly defined that the closest you can come to its meaning is "horrible person". no other definition has the meaning, and there is no way to convey how powerful that word is. Use with caution.
-Urban dictionary
Good word, Pashkudnyak. Not sure about "Litvak." Lithuanian Jew?
Mooser: I mean everyone commenting on this site. By commenting, we share in the responsibility for what the site is about.
Hey guys and gals:
You are taking Phil's headline and incorrectly concluding, or asserting, that Tuchman and Klein are here saying that all Palestinians don't care about their children, which would be racist, I agree. Reading the post, however, one would have to conclude that the commentors above are either not reading very carefully, or deliberately misreading. The comments lack integrity.
First, Phil's headline is a little misleading in using the word "care." The phrase in the actual quote is "protective towards their children."
Second, the group identified as not being protective towards their children is not identified as Palestinians as a whole, but a subgroup, namely Palestinian parents of suicide bombers. The observation that parents of suicide bombers who celebrate and encourge such martyrdom, before or after the fact, are not "protective of their children" is not outrageous.
For as hard a time as we give the MSM about not properly characterizing events and what people say, it would behoove us to be a little more disciplined ourselves.
What hayate describes here is the vision of the Palestinians and I can understand why they would be interested to take that gamble. The vision of the settlers, as Uri Averney sees it [see the link to his article below] is that the one state solution eliminates the wall, enables the settlement process to proceed unimpeded, and provides opportunity to engage in whatever ethnic cleansing may be necessary to assure the continued Jewish nature of the one state in perpetuity. One coin, one state, one wager: will it come up heads or tails?
I find the Noam Sheizaf article in Ha'aretz, linked above, really eye opening. But before jumping on this settler one state bandwagon I'd like to have some sense whether the wager will come up heads, or tails.
I think the U.S. viewed Israel as a stretegic asset in the context of the Cold War with the Soviets. It seems right that Israel is a strategic liability, not an asset, in the context of the war on terror. It also seems correct that Israel is not a strategic asset with respect to oil in the region.
It is true that Israel, with all of its faults, is the closest thing to a democracy in the neighborhood. I don't think that is sufficient justification for our support. We are much too inconsistent and intellectually dishonest with that rationale.
However, that is not the end of the matter. The western world supports Israel because it does have this powerful biblical resonance, with Christians and Jews. This is not justification for the state of Israel, but I think it does explain support for it. The Holocaust and the collective guilt shared by the West for that also plays a role. There is also the fact that what Israel has created in its 62 years is very impressive. A lot of what it has built up is laudable and worth protecting.
The Nakbah is an injustice that must be redressed. The occupation is intorlerable. A way must be found for the Palestinians to be free and economically successful.
The West has an interest, and should have an interest in all these questions, completely independent of any strategic value measured in terms of oil, cold war politics, or the war on terror. Perhaps someone could takle a longer post on reasons to support Israel if we concede that it does not serve a strategic interest.
Whatever one can say about Christopher Hitchens, characterizing him as controlled by others, snapping to attention upon command, is a pretty silly image.
What's up with this "Chrissy" business? It does not appear you are intimates. And "Whorowitz"? Is it meant to be clever?
There are several You Tube clips of Hitchens and Galloway. In this debate Hitchens comes across as a competent debater and Galloway more than holds his own. It gets pretty nasty and personal on both sides. It's political entertainment, or sport; the battle of the titans as it was billed. There is not much that can be learned in all the heat.
Phil Weiss posed the question whether the threat of nuclear bombs launched by Iran would go away if the Israel/Palestine conflict were solved. That begs the question, of course, on what terms? Would ending the occupation bring about in the region? Would a binational state restore Islam to a healthy state? The situation seems more complex. The Islamic Brotherhood's struggle in Egypt and al Queda's struggle in Iraq, and across the Arabian peninsula, and Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan and Afghanistan don't seem to me to be driven by Israel.
What's the point of the long Herman and Peterson extract? They suggest that Ahmadinejad should be defended, that he is not a dictator, that he really won the election fair and square, and that leftists who lend support for the opposition "green" movement in last November's election are part of a conspiracy to unjustly overthrow the poor government of Iran. Between that view and Hitchens' view that the current Iranian government are totalitarian thugs, I think Hitchens is a lot closer to the mark.
Citizen:
I took a look at your link in “Criminal State.” It suggests that John McCain is one of 70,000 Israeli agents in D.C. and asks “what about Mossad agents (“sayenim”) in Manhatten, Miami, Beverly Hills, Atlanta, Boston, and a long list of other cities with Jewish communities.
What do I think of it? I think it's a conspiracy theory piece. Although the article takes pains to separate Jews from Israel, by painting all supporters of Israel with a broad brush as Mossad agents, or unwitting tools of Israeli machinations, the distinction pretty much drops away.
The highlight is the suggestion that Israel is, after all, behind the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center:
70,000 agents?
The article denies Israel right to exist.
You, of course, are not alone in holding the view expressed in this article, if indeed you share it. Me, I want Israel to exist, but to stop the occupation, provide fully equal rights to all Israeli citizens, and work hard to create a viable Palestinian state.
I join in the Kudo's for Phil, and the comments above.
I note this paragraph in the Tablet piece:
For better or worse, a blog is perceived as a whole, it's comments included. To call commenters on this site anti-Semitic, racist, not to mention a "cesspool" is slanderous and not very perceptive. However, there is a lack of discipline in the comments on this site, not in this thread, but generally. There is a herd mentality that bullies away dissenting views with personal attacks. The site would be stronger if commenters were more restrained in their editorial language, more tolerant of differing viewpoints, and if commenters did not feel compelled to battle every difference of opinion with personal attacks. At the risk of stepping in the pooh (not to mention sounding like a broken record), I offer Richard Witty as an example of someone's whose views are hounded on this site. Any site should tolerate, and I would say needs, the kind of dissent put up by RW.
The most frequent commenters on this site are not so many. I think they can make a difference if they choose to, and thereby make the site stronger.
Shrebrsi, and TGA and Hayate et al.
Hayate compares Israel to Nazi Germany on a daily basis. We are talking about whether Israel should have military superiority over its neighbors, but none of you are discussing this topic head on or in a serious way. Much more fun to talk trash, yes?
If your views are that Israel is Nazi Germany and we should arm its enemies so they can bomb it like we bombed Dresden, which is strongly implied by Hayate and by your general discussion, but which none of you seem ready to acknowledge . . . well, then this site is not so interesting. It's naive and stupid, or you really are the enemy of achieving justice in the area.
The comments here could be a valuable forum for people to learn, to think out loud, and to develop view. As it is, it mostly drags down this site. That's too bad.
Sin Nombre
You are confusing military agression with stabilty. The Roman Empire had military stability; it was not unagressive.
As to your statement that "accepted Israeli figures" said Israel's borders should extend to the Euphrates: I doubt you can provide authority for that; seems pretty silly.
Sherbrsi:
This Hasbara word is way overused around it here. It is thrown up, as it seems to be here, to avoid thinking. The question is a fair question in light of the post, and frankly much of what is said on this site. You can answer the question any way you like, but running away from it by calling it Hasbara is lazy and not honest.
If your answer is "yes" then that should merit some open and thoughtful discussion on this site. If the answer is "no," then it's still worth noting that some positions taken here do imply it.
Sherbrsi:
I think that's right--about military stability. Having one side stronger than the other creates stability. Not justice, but stability. The bad side of this is that it means the stronger side has less motivation to change, and it may impede change, and it may enable abuses. But fighting abuses like the occupation through political means is a whole lot better than shipping cruise missiles to Hamas.
Is it a double standard? Double standard is having a different set of principles or conduct for one over another without good reason. We've made a policy decision to support Israel in light of existential threats. There are historical reasons for the policy choice we are making. I think there is more to it than Walt and Mearshimer.
The existential question whether Israel should exist at all I think is a different question from the Walt Mearshimer argument that Israel receives much greater support in general than can be strategically justified on account of undue influence of the Israel lobby. It's different because there would nothing inconsistent with supporting Palestinians and supporting Israel's military superiority. We are not required to have a double standard in this regard, and I agree with you we should not (but I don't think it's a good idea to demonstrate even handedness by sending cruise missiles to Hamas)
A point on the Naval Vessel Transfer Act I did not make express before. It does not require the President to support Israel. We could stop. And, I believe, the Chinese, Russians, and French will happily sell arms to others in the Middle East. Should we?
You are being a bit obtuse here TGA. Are you really saying you are for the violent destruction of Israel, and that the U.S. should support that as policy? Do you think that's what Phil Weiss supports? Are you saying that we should strive for something other than that both Israelis and Palestinians should thrive? If you are not saying that, I'm afraid I'm not following you on your comment. Perhaps you can clarify?
Israel has had MFN status with the U.S. in the Middle East since '48. Should we change that now because we don't like what they are doing with the occupation? Should we, for example, sell cruise missiles F-18's and stealth bombers to Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt, stop selling arms to the Israelis and get out of the way? I suppose some here would advocate this. Not me.
22 USCS § 2776 reads in relevant part as follows:
(
. . . in other words we shouldn't sell arms to Syria, Egypt, Jordan, or Iraq if it is going to adversely affect Israel's ability to defend itself. That is different from saying that the President must sell arms to Israel to maintain Israel's superiority, which the post seems to say.
The solution is not the destruction of Israel. Destruction of Israel will not bring justice to the Palestinians, and it certainly won't bring justice to Israelis. Me . . . I want everyone in Palestine to thrive, Jews and Palestinians alike. Military instability is not the solution.
Everyone has legitimate concerns, everyone has family, everyone wants to get by. If we're not willing to grant that premise then there can be no plan, and there is nothing to talk about. We may just as well adopt a screen name like "I hate" and fulminate.
Thanks for this link. I agree, the full article is well worth reading. So is the biographical information on Avnery on his web site. What a life! What a Mensch!
Donald:
I'm saying throwing rocks is not necessarily moral. Yes, it's understandable someone wants to throw rocks, but that very same impulse is what drives people to blow themselves up in crowded markets. I'm saying nothing about the morality of Israelis.
I don't think that anyone has to "earn" the right to express an opinion on this site. If you're only going to permit Ghandi and the Berrigan Brothers to comment on the value of non-violent peaceful resistance, or on suicide bombings for that matter, then I suppose we should close down this site and nobody should say anything.
This reminds me of the line from the Tina Turner song: "What is love but a second hand emotion." We can say the same thing about the word "moral" if we can reduce it to a notion of revenge, lashing out, or an irresistible urge to strike back.
Proportionality matters. Resistance can range from passively going limp at a sit-in, to actively struggling to be removed from an area, to punching, to throwing stones, to using sticks, to using a knife, to using a gun. If we abstract from the immediate crowd control scenario we quickly get to terror: this can range from bulldozing the wall, to blowing it up with dynamite, to suicide bombings, to flying planes filled with people into tall buildings, to launching a missile with a 50 megaton nuclear warhead. There was the image of Palestinian women ululating after the assault on the World Trade Center on 9-11. I assume they considered that action moral.
The strength of non-violent resistance is that it cuts through all that and stands on solidly moral ground.
Here we have the NYT give the most prominent possible placement to a long article about how American charities are fraudulently skirting the letter and spirit of U.S. tax laws, and shedding light on "charitable" support of extremists in the occupied territories. It strikes me this should be applauded.
I note that the online piece is accompanied by a number of photographs that starkly illustrate the difference in power and affluence between the settlers and the surrounding Palestinians, it includes a picture of a settler with skull cap and submachine gun, and it discusses the settler's extra judicial use of those guns on unarmed settlers. Rather than quetching about Bonner and Hasbara (really kind of silly in context of this piece) one might more usefully contemplate how to do something about the problem described here.
Charitable tax deductions raise real issues. On the one hand we want to encourage people to be charitable. We rely on charitable giving to support many social causes here and abroad: museums, opera companies, after school counseling, etc., etc. By making contributions tax deductible we encourage people to vote with their money as to which charitable causes should be supported. [Alternatively, we could eliminate all charitable tax deductions and rely more on the government to decide which organizations are to receive funding] But the approach we have taken raises the possibility that we are indirectly supporting (through tax deductions) some causes that are socially harmful. Characters like Ha'Ivry, and the deceptive practices described in the article, do focus that issue pretty sharply.
In this case it might be more productive to write letters to the NYT, praising them on their coverage, and suggesting that all tax deductions to organizations in Israel and the West Bank be subjected to rigorous IRS audits, and demand that all such organizations should loose their tax deductible status if they are not transparent with where the money goes.
Thanks, Donald. FYI, I have no particular views on Goldstone nor on Kagen and what kind of judge she'll be. Nor, as I have noted, do I have views on Barak. What I have reacted to was comments of the "Have you stopped beating your wife variety" ("So you approve of Israeli judges who endorse torture") and a ready willingness by many to condemn without having a proper foundation to judge, and to do so in mean and viscious language (e.g. "A gestapo judge,then. No wonder zionism’s latest infiltraitor to power worships the fascistic goatsod. The question isn’t somuch as what is kagen doing being nominated to the sc, it’s how the hell did this nasty creature make it as far as she has.")
.
Meaning the Jewssansfrontiers link.
What is the connection to Kagan's statement on Barak here?
Donald and Annie:
There is, on what is presented, no dispute that Barak is a great jurist and did a tremndous amount to establish the rule of law in Israel. The rest of the Harvard student's paper, which I assume everyone here has read, discusses some others who have concluded the ISC, and Barak in particular should have done more vis a vis the occupation.
I think Annie expresses what's going on well: the criticism comes from a position of ignorance about the law, the man, and his opinions. People are willing to condemn Kagan for indicating admiration for Barak, because they are not willing to concede that there could possibly be anything worth admiring about any Israeli Supreme Court Justice.
That, I think, is the mark of True Believers: a readiness to condemn, with great hubris, people about whom you know nothing, based on things about which you also know nothing. To borrow Finkelstein's title, I think that is beyond Chutzpah! It's the internet, so have at it. But if you think it advances the cause of Palestinians, or gets people to take you seriously, or advances the cause of justice in the world.. . think again.
I don't know Aharon Barak nor have I read his judcial opinions. I am willing to assume that both Dershowitz and Kagan do have familiarity with both the man and his work on the court. I am also assuming that both Dershowitz and Kagan may have some degree of expertise with respect to the ISC.
It does not not appear that Finkestein has such expertise. It also does not appear that the Harvard law student, Niver Sultaney, has such exertise. I don't get the sense from his article that he has any in depth knowledge of ISC body of law in general of Barak's opinions, in any case he does not demonstrate it. Sultaney does grant:
The complaint lodged by both Finkelstein and Sultaney seems to be much more general: that the ISC is complicit in the occupation by having failed to put a stop to it, by having failed to put a stop to housing demolitions, by permitting the IDF to engage in some preventive detention.
The fact that the ISC has played a role in occupation is of course not surprising; nor is the fact that the ISC has not on its own brought an end to the occupation, created a two state solution, or ended the jewish nature of the state of Israel.
Regarding Phil's criticism, allegedly vial Finkelstein, that Barak "was a 'leading proponent' of guidelines allowing torture, I note that this does not seem to be supported by the Sultaney article, which notes that the torture case of 1999 was:
So, it strikes me rather that there is a sloppy gaderene rush to judgment on Barak expressed in Phil's post and the comments above. I'm sure there is a lot to be said on this topic, but noone here has demonstrated that they've earned the right to impugn Kagen or Dershowitz for expressing admiration for Barak.
I’m not sure that “dual loyalty” is the right way to frame the issue of American support for Israel, or Jewish Americans’ support for Israel. In a land of immigrants, everyone has dual loyalties. This “loyalty” business is tricky business. Take rooting for Algeria, or Ghana, over the U.S. side in the World Cup. Is that “disloyal?” Advocating for Vietnam, avoiding the draft, or being critical of U.S. Indochina policy in ca. 1970, is that “disloyal?” Should it matter whether your parents or grandparents are immigrants from Vietnam?
The body politic is always divided on issues, and citizens have all kinds of motivations why they are for or against this issue or that. I don’t think it’s a good idea to separate these motivations by how “loyal” they are. Whether we support any particular policy as a country is the result of the tug and pull of politics. We do not, and should not, ask individual citizens to recuse themselves from weighing in on any issue just because they have some uniquely personal connection too it.
Many thanks.
I agree, this is an excellent post. [It's as good as hayate's comment is bad]
Regarding Sara Roy, I was looking for her book "The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-development (1995, 2001)" There appear to be very few copies available, and the paperback version is $161.00 at Amazon. A bookstore in Beirut had a similar price. Someone should tell the publisher to get this on Kindle at a reasonable price.
So let's pretend for a minute that Terry Gross is not Jewish. Is it because she's Jewish that you think she should do more to promote the Palestinian cause?
NYT and NPR represent the established order. That's their role, to be the reasonable voice of the establishment. That doesn't make them bad. It does mean they are not revolutionary. If you are out to change the established order, which this site is about (right?), why would you think this change would come from the MSM? MSM is never going to be in the forefront of that change. Palestinians have bigger problems in this world than Terry Gross.
Are you saying that there is something wrong with Jews having a prominent role in media? Why, pray tell? There is a difference between pointing out that MSM has a pro-Israel bias, and one of the reasons may be that Jews are prominently represented in MSM, and suggesting Jews (or any other ethnic group?) should not be allowed to have prominent representation, or that there is some conspiracy to put forth "not the most qualified" because they are Jewish. You seem to be suggesting a pretty low-brow conspiracy theory targeted at an ethnic minority. You're on the wrong site for that.
We can all draw our own conclusions about Susi's report. Reflect on it, do you believe your comment adds something? If not, it's better to refrain.
So how often do you listen? A lot? in which case, what draws you back? Once, in which case try to listen more. She's good.
. . . and sorry about the omitted "r"
O.k. Thanks for the discussion, Sherbsi. I will dwell on it some more, but I'm heading out for a run. Best.
Kapok: I say this tongue in cheek, but kind of mean it: "Shut the fuck up or engage in the conversation in an intelligent way!" :)
Sherbsi:
You are certainly correct to observe that BDS is consumer driven and is not accompanied by the use of force. As such, it cannot be illegal under any law. A blockade enforced by a state's military is very different in that sense, and could run afoul of international law. You have indicated (above) that you believe all blockades are illegal under all circumstances. If by that you mean illegal under international law, I'd be surprised if that were the answer you would recive from international law scholars.
On the other hand, if you mean to say that blockades are immoral, I agree with you when it comes to non-military goods, but disagree about military supplies.
Leaving aside the military goods issue for the moment, if we are focusing on the morality of depriving a population of food and medicine, the difference between blockade and BDS becomes murkier. Take an island nation like Iceland; they depend 100% on imports for cement and much of their foodstuffs. Their primary trading partners are the U.S. and Germany. Now assume that (for some reason) consumers and businesses in Germany and the U.S. banded together to boycott Iceland, causing severe shortages in cement and foodstuffs. From a moral standpoint I'm not sure how this differs from a military blockade.
Chaos: You are not reading very carefully here.
Chaos:
Sorry, I assumed you were being rhetorical. Is there much shipping between Lebanon and Israel these days? Lebanon is a soverign country and of course they can search ships bound for Israel if they are so inclined. They can also search ships entering Lebanon. I'm not sure I'm getting the point here?
Fixed the link (I hope).
Wiki reports that suicide bombings from ‘93 to ‘08 killed 789; acording to this B’Tselem compilation IDF killed 4860 Palestinians between 2000 and 2008.
Donald: I hear you. Wiki reports that <a href=" link to en.wikipedia.org bombings" from '93 to '08 killed 789; acording to this B'Tselem compilation IDF killed 4860 Palestinians between 2000 and 2008.
Sherbsi:
You are correct about the phrasing you point to. The point about the comment as a whole is that this incident may spark a discussion on the legitimacy and use of economic sanctions in general. I am not pre-judging the answer to that question.
You say a blockade is never justified? Would you include Cuba in '62? If you are to be taken at your word, I suppose the answer is "yes;" what about just keeping out missiles, guns, and explosives, or blocking nuclear materials from Iran and N. Korea? Do you see a difference between a state imposed blockade and an effective BDS campaign. BDS campaigns are normally less effective; but are they different in kind? I'm not prejudging that one either.
On whether the 10 killed was "murder" or something else, I assume there were sufficient cameras, video phones, and people on board these ships that this should come out in the wash over the next few months. I'm not pre-judging that one either.
Colin: I believe that's right. But is it different than sanctions against Iraq, or Cuba?
O.K. , Donald: no weapons into Gaza and cut off military aid to Israel.
As to "no weapons into Gaza" how would you enforce it? Range of options seems to be 1) take them at their word "no guns on this shipment;" 2) allow the port of origin in Egypt, Turkey, or Lybia (?) to vouch for it, as Chaos suggests, or 3) check the ships in a blockade before they enter. Some combination of assurances and inspections at ports of origin might work, although it would be logistically tough and would require unlikely amounts of worldwide cooperation.
As to cutting off military aid to Israel, that would be tricky. First, Israel manufactures a good portion of its own military hardware, and second there are lots of countries willing to sell military hardware to the highest bidder. That is not cynical or dishonest, that's just fact.
Finally, if you had a magic wand to disarm both to keep arms from the Palestinians and to disarm the Israelis, I suppose you would have to wave it over Hezbollah, and Syria, and Iran, and the Saudis, and Jordan, and Egypt as well. If you find that magic wand, let me know and you'll have my vote to be emperor of the world. [Now I'm being cynical]
Donald: Fair enough, maybe one day we'll be able to do away with weapons and military everywhere. Given that this is not going to happen, let's not duck the hard question. If you had the power, would you allow missiles and guns and explosives into Gaza today?
Chaos: You are right, no weapons on this flotilla--it should be allowed in. Unless you want to permit missiles and guns and explosives, however, you would still have to search first. No? Do you agree that Israel should be able to search the ships for weapons?
Gaza.
Donald: You would let in missiles, guns, and explosives?
The Isabelle Kershner article is about as thorough as I've found around the net so far. It links the avaliable video footage, and the front page headline notes: "At least 10 are killed as Israel Halts Flotilla with Gaza Aid."
The whole thing certainly is a public relations coup for the organizers of the flotilla. So I see no reason to get heart palpitations over remarking on the obvious. Many here accurately pointed out a week ago that the flotilla presented Israel with a "no win" trick box.
So far it still seems pretty murky exactly how events developed. However, nothing on the available video is particularly shoking. Indeed, the IDF were apparently content to have this footage roll. Given the fact that Israel is enforcing the blockade, the way it was done doesn't, at this time, suggest disproportionate force.
The flottila has achieved its goal, which was not primarily to land aid in Gaza, but to focus world attention on the (lack of) justification for the blockade. Here is an Israeli Foreign Ministry legal expert giving it his best shot to offer a justification. The crux of what he puts forth is that Israel is in a state of armed conflict with Gaza, that Israel has a right to defend itself, and that a blockade and economic sanctions are internationally reconized rights of Israel to combat Hamas.
I don't know about the international law on this. However, from a UN standpoint, it does raise the question whether the blockade and economic sanctions of Gaza are different than sanctions against Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Lybia, and North Korea. . . to name just a few. There is no doubt that the Iraq sanctions, even with the oil for food program initiated in '95, caused great hardship on ordinary Iraqi citizens. Many people opposed Iraq sanctions on humanitarian grounds also. However, it is not clear that the Gaza blockade is different in kind, or more outside the bounds of international law, than other blockades.
In order to successfully rebut Israel's right to blockade Gaza, it does seem that it is not sufficient to call Israel a rogue outlaw nation: it is necesary to develop an overall approach or theory towards sanctions worldwide.
Developing a comprehensive theory of sanctions is a big topic. However, it strikes me that the degree of threat is relevant. For example, blockade of Cuba to keep out missiles in October '62 seems clearly justified. Cuban sanctions no longer seem justified today. Israel's enforcement of a blockade to keep out missiles, guns, and explosives seems justified; a blockade to keep out or restrict concrete, chocolate, dolls, or any food or medicine does not seem justified.
I hope that this event brings about a productive world dialogue on sanctions in general, and that one of the results is to partially lift the blockade of Gaza to allow unlimited passage of everything non-military in nature.
I think ROR is a very differnt issue than the current econmic status in either Gaza or West Bank. I am not for the ROR to inside '67 borders for descendents of Palestinians from pre-'48 because this is not consistent with a two state solution.
Annie:
I trust you are being ironic, yes? But why? I understand that Israel has a legitimate interest to keep rockets, and guns, and explosives out of Gaza. But I don't get how it's o.k. to keep medicines, and food from children. Doesn't that raise a moral issue? And which side of this moral issue do you want to be on?
Here is an argument by Efraim Inbar at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. He notes that Israel and the Interantional Community are blockading Gaza in order to bring Gazans to their senses to stop supporting Hamas. He raises the argument of moral hazard: Gazans have lent their support to terrible leaders and if we let up now this will only strengthen Hamas, and Gazans will get the message that they can make such poor political decisions and still the International community will bail them out. That's the gist of it, read it for yourself.
I support the flotilla because I don't believe you can morally defend denying food and medicine to children. The children of Gaza are not responsible for the political leadership there. Moreover, I support the flotilla because I don't believe allowing food, medicines, and building materials to enter Gaza will threaten Israel.
During operation cast lead there was a picture of three men in religious garb, standing on a hillside watching smoke rise in Gaza. I found it poignent because I have the impression that many of these triumphant men do not fully support the state of Israel, and the suspicion that many of them are hoping that conditions in Gaza and the West Bank can be made so miserable that Palestinians will simply leave. Looking at this photo I have the sense that these men don't care that they are denying food and medicine to children, and that they have it as their goal that those children will never have a hopeful future anywhere in Palestine. Is it so? If so, I don't believe these things are morally defensible.
Thanks, Susan. So how difficult is it for ordinary folks to travel in the West Bank and Gaza these days? Looking at the State Department Website and noting the Chomsky exclusion last week, it's all a bit mysterious.
You are right, Donald. I would have passed had I read it.
Annie:
Uncritical palestinian propaganda is not any more convincing or useful than hasbara. [Off topic diversion, above, included] Are you really suggesting that there is no teaching of fundamentalist Islam going on in Gaza?
I see you've visited Gaza, and your observation that you didn't see any bearded men, sometimes waving sticks, is good. I would be interested to hear more about what you saw and learned there. Is it your view that fundamentalist Islamism is not a problem in Gaza? There is a preception that it is, so some solid and careful and honest first hand reporting on this would be valuable.
Whether the UN camps or the Hamas camps are more "popular" and the bearded men comment seem pretty loose in the NYT reports. But isn't it true that, just as fundamentalist Yeshiva's are feeding the settler movement, fundamenatalit Madrasas are feeding extremist Islam around the world? Noone believes these folks to be liberal on womens issues.
There seems to be no reason to doubt the basic report that UN camps serve more or less 250,000 children, or that 20 gunmen did damage to this nearly completed beach camp, leaving threatening notes behind in the form of bullets in an envelope. You are not suggesting that part of the story is a "frameup" are you? If it's true, do you agree that it's a matter of concern?
This site is critical of Israel in an attempt to influence Israeli policy for the better. It is not generally focusing on the Palestinian fundamentalism and extremism that also exists. A little perspective, every once in a while, won't hurt anyone.
Chaos:
Who says anything about waiting? Waiting for what? This site is about promoting justice in greater Palestine for all. No? Noone should wait on that. All we can do here is share and discuss, as clearly and forcefully and convincigly as possible, and try to move the political discourse to productive ends. In doing that you want to be effective. No? Indisriminantly calling people "Nazis" is not effective because it's so overused it has long ago lost all force--it's just a Schimpfwort, an epiteth without content. It's much better to focus on the content.
Ofer:
Whatever you may think about Beinart's article, and his interview with Goldberg, it is honest debate. Avi's comment is a bit cryptic and your post a bit brief for honest debate; you may feel that way about my "destruction of Israel the Hamas way" comment. The point there is simply that it does not seem plausible to me that Israel will voluntarily give up a Jewish state. [Your comment suggests that's not something you are looking for]
The Beinart point, which I believe is correct, is that a Jewish state, necessarily implies some unequal rights--the right for Jews to have the state support their religion, and Muslims not, for starters. You imply Beinart is your political foe because of that. But I think you can't have it both ways; you can't have a Jewish state and equal rights for the Arab minority in the state. That's not propaganda. I think Beinert correctly suggests this is definitional.
So if you are serious about engaging in honest debate . . . give it a go. Flesh out a bit more why you think equal rights for all citizens and a Jewish state are possible, if that's what you believe.
So, Debonnaire. If you ever want the Jews and the Israelis to get over the holocaust and Jewish victimhood as a central component of their world view, and to use this as a justification for a Jewish Israel, you can help by dropping all the Nazi allusions like "good German", "Zionazi" and generally comparing Israel to Nazis. There's plenty to talk about here without using inflammatory references to other conflicts.
Wow! I think that Peter Beinart article and the conversation with Jeffrey Goldberg are both exeptional in their clarity and quality.
Philip Weiss remarked a few posts back how the Beinert article allows folks to take stock of where they stand. Those photos of Selma and the young settlers screaming at the Palestinian woman courgeously holding her ground challenges us to take that stand.
Ofer Neiman takes his stand: it is anti-Israel as Peter Beinert defines it in his interview. A one state solution, with equal rights for everyone based on the U.S. Constitutional model, which is something that Neiman seems to favor (unless I'm misreading) necessarily implies no Jewish state. If Peter Beinert is your foe based on his recognition that a Jewish state requires a lack of fully equal rights, you are looking for the destruction of Israel.
If you are out to destroy Israel as a Jewish state, practically that will only come the Hamas way. The Hamas way is not to build an equal rights utopia in the Middle East. I think that's Goldberg's point. Beinert's point is that a renewed, tolerant Zionism, respective of the interests of minorities, that works for and not against the creation of a Palestinian state is essential because the end game of the alternative is destruction of Israel the Hamas way.
You can see why Margolin might back down. Having Wiesel as a character would seem to generate interest in the play. You can also see why Wiesel might be concerned. One doesn't really want to be reminded too publicly about what a gullible and irresponsible investor you've been . . . with other people's money. It's interesting to contemplate who the victims were of Wiesel's negligent (?) investment decision to put all his eggs in the Madoff basket. Might someone be interested to sue Wiesel's fund for mismanegement of funds? The publicity associated with the play might be a bit scary as well as embarrassing for Wiesel.
I'm not sure what this means, but I think it misreads Amery. The point is that the individual acts that made up the holocaust had no moral context for the perpetrators . . . and that society cannot provide this context, even after the fact. Becausee it is the victims who are the keepers of the moral truth, and it is they who have the right to judge, society is not only less suited, but also less "entitled" to judge. This does not strike me as a call for war-crimes trials; it seems understanding of the necessity of societhy to "move on."
Seham's imagined rhetorical question to Atwood, and a couple of comments refer to Chomsky being kept "out of the country." He was kept out of the country, of course, only if you accept the West Bank as being part of Israel. Given the significance of this issue, one should be more careful and clear in how one uses these terms.
Thanks Dickerson, these are interesting articles. The one about settlers illustrates the kind of thing that must be fought--by, e.g. closing settlements where settlers repeatedly engage in abuse. Is this an easy goal? No, but a lot easier than getting to a one state solution or full fledged two state solution.
As to the train and road construction, I think that is consistent with promoting economic development in the West Bank, and should not be discouraged. What should be fought for is to make sure that these roads and trains are constructed so as to serve all of the West Bank, for the benefits of settlers and Palestinians. There should be no apartheid in the occupied territories. Again, this is not an easy goal to achieve (modest as it is), but a lot more achievable than a one state solution or full two state solution.
This is not to say one doesn't continue to fight for one state or two state solution . . . but if economic development and gradual betterment of econmic conditions is possible, and progress can be made against settler abuses, I would not be too quick to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
There is a middle ground between Frum's continuation of the status quo for the indefinite future, and Phil's "struggle against apartheid" on the other. [Separation of church and state, one-man-one-vote, and equal rights?]
Frum's observation that conflicts can and typically do peter out rather than get resolved through battle or grand treaty seems relevant. I'm currently reading Lords of the Land: The War over Israel's Settlements in the Occupied Territories by Zertal and Eldar; they suggest that in the wake of the Goldstein massacre in Hebron in '94 Rabin considered clearing out the Yeshiva in Hebron and to clamp down on the settlements, vascillated, and ultimately did not do it because he was afraid it might lead to a wide spread settler revolt. Israeli pulic opinion vascillates on the settlements, but today, it appears that approximately 60% of the general public support dismantling most of the settlements in support of a two state solution, with ~33% opposed.
There is obviously a big question whether any Israeli government can unilaterally dismantle settlements and survive politically; is there also a question whether they can do it without sparking civil war?
With much pressure from the U.S., the international community, and the majority of Israelis the middle ground may include no new settlements, begin dismanteling of some settlements, provide large amounts of economic aid for the development of the West Bank, clamp down on settler militias and vigilantes, and provide better redress for Palestinian grievances in the courts. Making progress along these lines for the next 20-30 years, without significant backsliding, would be an accomplishment. It may also be achievable.
Agreed. It's a column filling opinion piece, not to be taken too seriously.
Phil:
I think you've got way to thin a skin on this one. Isn't the point of the Brooks article that culture will assert itself inspite of policy, that the first rule of policy should be to do not harm, and that any policy that breaks up social bonds is a policy that does harm. For that purpose his example serves well enough. Neither the article nor the example is about the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Of course, if you wan to view the example as referring to the Nakbah, the right of return (which would surely negatively affect social bonds in Israel?), the Babylonian Exile, American Indians (as eee would have it), the Chinese Cultural Revolution, or etc. , etc. . . . that all works. So what's wrong with it? The very ambiguity is what serves the point.
Wonkish (from Urban Dictionary): "the design of policy solutions that are too complex and subtle for the victims -- er, I mean the public, to understand. "
Straussian: I see Leo Strauss is another Jewish refugee who settled at the Chicago school and is known for his argument that the works of ancient philosophers contain deliberately concealed esoteric meanings whose truths can be comprehended only by a very few, and would be misunderstood by the masses ('hidden meaning' thesis).
You accuse Brooks of being Wonkish and Straussian. I don't see it; not in accordance with the above definitions. There is no hidden meaning to worry about in the example Brooks uses here because the referent doesn't matter, it's not the point. This site nothwithstanding . . . the world, in fact, doesn't revolve around the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Avi: I have great respect for Barghouti, and I am assuming that what he says is correct. However, Israel/Palestinian politics are heated, as you know, and there will adherents to both camps as well as neutrals. Activism of the sort represented by this site is hard work. The task here is to chase down and refute false information, to illuminate, and to answer questions raised--whether you think they are raised in good faith or bad. Simply insulting people doesn't do the heavy lifitng that is required. It is lazy and unproductive.
Citizen: I get that asking questions in order to create doubt can be distracting, and annoying (and maybe illegitimate) if the question is raised disingenusously. However, in general it's very hard to judge when someone has an honest question vs. a tactical question. To knee jerk start insulting everyone who raises a question beause you suspect the motive might not be pure is not the correct response, I think.
Potsherd:
The Bargouti quote does not cite sources. It's o.k. to question whether it is correct. Raising the question is not "Hasbara." A meaningful way to advance the discussion would be to look for factual support (statute, regulation, news articles, etc.). That would be a service to the site. Throwing around personal insults is not debate and does a disservice.
Agreed. A two state solution requires full sovereignty over land, air, and water in the ground for a Palestinian state, and all those settlers subject to Palestinian jurisdiction and laws. First step is economic viability.
That would be "Are you willing to accept a civil war to sort out the one state solution."
Shingo:
You mention the ending of racial segragation in the U.S. That occurred more or less in 1965 with passage of the Civil Rights laws, which was 110 years after we fought a civil war over the issue with more than 600,000 dead (on a population of ~31 million at the time that was about 2 percent of the population).
The Mearshimer scenario for a one state solution appears to contemplate that kind of time frame. You shrug at 50 years; North of 49, above, suggests 2210 as a time frame. Are you willing to accept a civil war to sort out the two state solution. How many dead? Two percent of the population (equivalent to U.S. Civil War) would represent more than 200,000. Would that be o.k.? What about a million?
Your conception that "The public evolves, becomes less ignroant, less racist and better informed" . . . and everyone lives happily ever after is fine, but appears to betray youthful exuberance.
If you take the Mearshimer/north of 49 scenario seriously, and you believe that it's going to take more than non-binding Berkeley student BDS votes to bring about a one state solution, something more like 150 years and a civil war to bring about a true one state solution, then one is naturally less sanguine about cheering for the one state solution and less more open minded to pursing a two state solution.
I think that Cohen and Mitchell and Obama remain focused on the two state solution because they perceive it as the only realistic solution that doesn't essentially lock the Palestininans in the status quo for the next century.
Citizen:
This is a public forum with nearly 30,000 individual page views per month. It's billed as a forum of ideas. You seem to have some itch regarding Richard Witty that you feel compelled to constantly scratch. However, your endless attacks on RW are disrespectful, they lack intelligent discourse, which you have otherwise shown you are capable of, they are a distraction, and they waste everyone's time. Please cut it out.
Tree:
Thanks for the book list. I'll take a look.
Thanks for the report Phil. Boondoggles are o.k. to enjoy once in while, as long as one doesn't make a habit of it. :)
I think your unease about being elite is misplaced. You conclude:
By "others" do you mean less liberal, less cosmopolitan, less successful? If so, they do, and that would be Hamas, no?
You indicate Cohen's observation of economic progress and reduction in checkpoints in the West Bank. You disount it as a "hot lunch." Do you agree with the assessment of economic progress in the West Bank? If so, that sounds like good news not to be dismissive of. It strikes me that economic progress is the key. Only with economic progress can a Palestinian state become viable. Only through economic progress can conditions emerge where the wall can ultimately be taken down and the two communities can live in peace?
I don't know if this thought is valid, but here it is: If the Palestinians went about building their own state in the West Bank and Gaza with the same energy and inventiveness that the Jews went about forging their state, might they not be successful? Does looking for a solution in "just treatment" assume an ongoing dependent relationship to Israel. The concept of a two party solution suggests that the fight must be about making Palestine a self-sufficient and vibrant state, and worrying less about the injusticies wrought by Israel. Palestinians should focus on this. Israel should do more to enable this. The Arab states and the world community should do more to enable this. As I understand it, however, this is not what Hamas is about.
A sense of victimhood with the settlers is misplaced and is not a helpful narrative. Is it possible that the narrative of victimhood by, and on behalf of, Palestinians is also not helpful because it distracts from the true job at hand.
Thanks, Mooser. You are most kind, but incorrect about he universality of this tag. I find the tag instruction here less than self-explanatory and a bit cumbersome. It also does not help to not have a pre-view function here. Cheers.
So let me give it a go by linking the sport boycott link.
. . . and how does one create a link on this site?? [Sorry for the blown link above]
How about a "Sport boycott instead":link to books.google.com
Good speech. On the other hand, I don't think the arguments raised support this particular divestment vote as a particularly rational thing to do.
1. I assume this student senate vote is not binding on UC and will have no effect on actual investment decisions? So we're talking theater here?
2. I assume that if UC sold its GE and UT shares this would have no effect on the share price of these companies. What percentage of these companies does UC presently own?
3. These are U.S. companies. The pain, if any, that would flow from such a strategy if it were effective would be felt by U.S. workers, not by Israelis.
4. Manufacturing military helicopter and aircraft engines are not war crimes. Come on people, get a grip!
eee: I think the answer to your question "Why pick on Israel" is that this is the topic of this site. There are many injustices in the world that merit a special blog site for discussion. If you want to start one, let us know, and some of us may become involved.
As to the right of return, I haven't seen specific discussion of that here, but my understanding that any two state solution means monetary compensation and no right of return, as you suggest.
UNIX:
Sorry to hit a nerve with reference to "original sin." How do you think about the fact that there are approximatly 7 million Palestininan refugees displaced by Israel's establishment through force, and Israel's occupation of the West Bank and blockade of Gaza?
The figures above are pasted from Palestine Media Center. Perhaps you have some different figures. But surely you acknowledge the issue, no?
As to your sensitivity about Christianity, it's not my religion and not my theory. It's called "metaphor." However, I find your sensitivity misplaced insofar as Islam, Judaism and Christianity all have roots and connections to Palestine.
All the best.
I agree with this. It strikes me this is the problem that comes (unavaoidably) from Israel's conception in original sin, to borrow a Christian concept. I will read more about that. Which leads to a suggestion for the site. It would be nice to have a reference section on this website listing solid and well written books on the Israel/Palestinian issue. To accept and recognize that Israel was born in sin . . . and to accept and recognize Israel's right to exist at the same time is what makes the problem so thorny.
I'm not sure this is correct. If we accept the right of the State of Israel to exist (which I do), then I suppose this question of mutual respect goes back to the Balfour declaration, the British Mandate, the declaration of Israel as a state. If the Palestinians had accepted this state and gone about the business of building their own state, as porposed by the U.N., and if Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq had supported the Palestinians in this effort instead of repeatedly attempting to wipe Israel off the map, that would have formed the basis for mutual respect. However, this did not happen. From afar, and yes, through a MSM filter, it does appear that this lack of respect thing has been two way street. It does no good to pretent otherwise.
Building mutual respect at this time would appear to demand a lot of work by both sides at this juncture.
Thankgodimatheist:
I love this screen name. Brilliantly ambiguous.
As to eee's accusation regarding the post above, based on the following I think she is correct about this particular piece of incoherent rambling:
There is no need to stand up for Javs' comment above.
Well, Chaos? A simple explanation of how you think it works would be in order.
I'm cool with criticism of Friedman. It should be done on a case by case basis, not on principle (or in a knee jerk manner) because someone generally doesn't like what he's written over the past 30 years.
Tone is always a matter of choice. . . and tone matters. Different sites have different tones in the comments, and each one of us can help to moderate the tone of the comments and elevate the discussion.
Cliff:
I'm no expert on the Palestinian economy or any other aspect of life in Israel, the West Bank, or Gaza. I've never been there. However, like everyone else reading this site, and I've only recently discovered it, I have a longstanding interest in folllowing the issues in the Middle East. I care about the people there and hope they can make progress towards a peaceful and mutually beneficial co-existence.
According to Compete.com, Mondoweiss has 20,000 to 30,000 individual visitors/month. That's pretty successful and well deserved. But I've noted there is a large discrepency between the quality of the posts and the quality of the comments.
The comments seems to be dominated by a lot name calling. It's like people are fighting a metaphorical intifada, throwing rocks at MSM and each other. It's not so much of a war of ideas in the comments here as it is a bunch of rock-throwing.
I'm going to arbitrarily pick on your comments under the current post, not to pick on you, but to illustrate the point. I've deleted the targets of these comments:
You've said:
The Middle East is a contentious place. People have strong emotions. A war of ideas does not need gracenotes like those above. The goal in discussion should be to get out the ideas clearly stated, no matter how much you disagree. It's a given people are going to disagree strongly here. But calling each other names, worrying about people's etnic affiliations, religious affiliations, political affiliations, is all beside the point. It should be about what you believe, stated as clearly as possible, with the best reasons we can articulate, and without invective [even, or especially, when we think invective might be deserved. How can we expect settlers, the Israeli peace movement, soldiers, and Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to peacefully settle their differences if we can't have civil discussions about ideas on the internet?
In order for this site to challenge the page views that Bronner enjoys it must have credibilty. The comments can help to provide that credibility; and they can also drag it down.
Cliff:
I agree with you that the settlement policy in the West Bank is about trying to expand the borders. I also think you are correct that settlements are provocative and foment anger, which leads to violence.
What about the observation that Palestinians should go about the business of building a state and working towards peace, or that people like Barghouti should be supported and encouraged? I take it you disagree. Why?
Sherbrsi:
To the extent you are right, that is the correct approach and Hamas should keep it up.
eee:
I've tried to follow your links to support the allegation of "racist and liar" and have not seen it. We get it that you and Chaos don't like each other, but can we cut out the name calling, please.
Chaos:
You are certainly correct in the sense that the Palestinian conflict with Israel would not exist if Zionists had not come there and carved out a state for themselves. I think you are also correct that militant settlers who believe that Jews have a a God given right to all of Palestine excacerbate the problem and are a danger to Isreal in the long term. However, if you grant Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, which even Hamas is grudgingly acknowledges as an established fact, where does Hamas go from there? They can continue to hope that demographics will win out in the long term, and bide their time to turn the tables on Israel; another option is to start working for peace, stabilty, and a working state of their own. It seems Palestinians have quality champions for the latter approach in persons like Mustafa Barghouti, and I wish them success.
It seems to me that this founding premise of Zionism is undeniably true for much of European history. The premise also seems not true for secular 21st century democracies, of which the U.S. remains the paragon. It seems true for jews in Palestine, however. If the shoe were suddenly on the other foot, if Hamas were achieve its aims, it would be undesireable and dangerous for Jews to live under the sovereignty of Hamas. Isn't that one reality that makes the 2 state solution the only game in town? It's also what makes the quest for peace in Palestine so tough. As long as the implications of taking down the fence and easing up on the occupation, and reintegrating the West Bank, Isreal and Gaza societies is bombs in cafes, marketplaces, and bus-stops, it's not going to happen. On the other hand, continued deprivation, injustice, hardship and ill will that is caused by the fence and the occupation makes it more likley that this kind of violence will continue to happen.
Chaos, this site has an important cause. It deserves everyone's best work. I think you can do better.
"Bronner’s racist caricature of Palestinians as violent savages ."
Chaos: I'm sure you've read more Bronner than I have. However, I'm skeptical you can provide a link that would back up your characterization above. [I'm happy to look at any link you provide an reconsider if it seems justified] However, in general, this site and the movement to find justice for Palestinians are not served by talking trash.
It strikes me that if the realists have Obama's ear that's a good thing. We should encourage it. It also strikes me that Bronner writing an article about a developing Palestinian non-violent movement is a good thing. I think that a Palestinian non-violent movement is a good thing because it makes progress more possible than ongoing violence. We should encourge non-violence and appalud, not critize MSM coverage of it. [Wishing a war crimes trial on Bronner's son is counterproductive and propagates ill will and hatred; we should not do it]
Koch is not suggesting that Obama is Gestapo like by making Nethanyau eat with the family in the kitchen, so to speak. I think Koch is invoking the holocaust to underscore his belief that Jews must speak up in the face of any and all criticism of Israel. As is his wont, he's more colorful in what he says, but not different than Alan Dershowitz who criticized the representative from J-Street at the AIPAC convention. Jews should show a unified front towards the world.
Of course, remaining silent in the face of the Nazi regime's turning against the Jews in the 1930's is one thing; remaining silent in the face of, or participating in criticism of Israel's treatment of its Arab citizens, and treatment of Palestinians in occupied territory is another thing altogether. The irony of the role reversal seems lost on Koch.
Underlying the Dershowitz sentiment that dirty linen should not be washed in public and the Koch position that no criticism of Israel must be allowed to stand (Jews must speak up just as they should have in Nazi Germany) betrays unease about Israel's position. After all, if Israel's position is strong and right it can withstand criticism; if it’s position is not right, there is a duty to speak up and make it right.
The purpose of BDS is to apply pressure to modify behaviour, which raises the question of how behaviour can be modified. BDS is a sound strategy assuming Israel is not doing what it can to bring about either a workable Palestinian state or some type of binational state as Judt suggests. I have the snese, but don't know, that Israel is not doing what it could to achieve one of these essential goals.
I thnk it's less about settlements in the West Bank or East Jerusalem than it is about the economic and political viability of a Palestinian state. If a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza is economically and politically viable I don't see why it would not be able to incorporate the established settlements--tax them and make them subject to Palestinian law. However, it seems to me there is reason to doubt that the palestinians who are violently divided, have huge unemployment, no airport, no sea-port, inadequate water and natural resources, and inadequate access to capital, can pull themseelves up by their bootstraps to be a politically and economically viable state. At least not anytime soon. If the palestinians can't do it on their own, then it may also be that Israel cannot bring it about. A successful BDS campaign could apply pressure on Israel to do something, but what? And how?
Perhaps the palestinians could do it with a few tens of billions in aid from Arab states? From Europe and the U.S? from Israel? If significant investment in infrastructure, education, and loans for businesses in the West Bank and Gaza would do the trick, how does one bring that about? How would you implement it in the current climate? A BDS campaign may not be the right tool for that job.
O.k. Thank you for the welcome.
Taxi: My conception of group think is not about feeling you have to agree with the group despite yourself, I think it’s agreeing with the group without independent thought, because you feel part of the group.
Donald: My observation was that Alex in his post failed to address Friedman’s point (due to the fence and economic success Israel feels less pressure to solve the Palestinian issue; due to greater involvement in the region the U.S. feels more pressure) I think that point is correct and uncontroversial, and I presume Alex does too because he does not take issue with it. Note, this is different than the uncontroversial point you took away, that some in Washington feel there is a conflict of interest between U.S. foreign policy goals and the Israeli right.
The second observation I had was that the main criticisms Alex raises in his post i) that Friedman implies Palestinians solely caused the collapse of Oslo peace process, ii) that Israels unilaterally pulled out of Gaza to make peace, iii) that the wall is built innocently (on the pre-’67 borers?) are straw men because I don’t believe that Friedman believes these things. He’s not an idiot. Moreover, noone who pays any attention to even the MSM about events over there would have any illusions about this or be apt to misunderstand that such a meaning was implied.
A lot of commenters here seems to take it on faith that Friedman is an apologist and propagandist for Israeli government positions (because they know Friedman). I’m no expert on Friedman. I find him sometimes pompous and rather self-important at times. I also find he often has interesting things to say. Take a look at the column he did recently about how Israel can’t have i) a Jewish state, ii) a democracy, and iii) possession of all of Palestine. In other words, if there is a desire to have all of Palestine (as there is among many) the choice is between an apartheid non-democratic state, and the one state state solution. That doesn’t sound like standard Israeli government propaganda to me.
I discovered this site recently and find it valuable. Thank you.
A couple of observations. Your comments section seems very homogeneous, which can result in a loss of discipline and rigor. I don't know why your comments appear to be so predominanty supportive--it's certainly not due to lack of controversial topics.
This post may be an example. There is a lot of ad hominem in it: "different planet," "on the planet of reality", "most brazen", "Friedman repeats (hasbara talking points)", "I wonder if Friedman has ever been to . . . ." The comments jump on the bandwagon: he's either "lying" or "grossly careless," "he's an incompetent and a liar", "propagandist", "the most obnixious dispenser of hasbara", "no pretense of objectivty", "utter nonsense if not a deliberate lie", "can't even make up new lies."
This kind of piling on and group-think is not productive. The post and comments also read way more into the Friedman opinion piece than is there. He makes a simple observation that developments over the past two decades, including the fence and Israel's economic success, have made finding a solution with the Palestinians less urgent, and the U.S.'s greater involvment in the area has made it more urgent for the U.S. That seems like a correct and interesting observation to me.
The strength of this site is to shed light on the Palestinian experience. This cause is not furhered by needlessly setting up straw men and engaging in personal attacks.