Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 107 (since 2010-01-14 21:48:59)

jnslater

Showing comments 107 - 101
Page:

  • Ron Paul and the left
    • jnslater December 29, 2011 at 8:14 pm

      Samel: I'm not going to get into your myriad errors and hysterical exaggerations here--Obama as an exuberant mass murderer, for example--but I will mention one thing. Suppose Paul got elected president and said that as soon as he could convince Congress to do so (almost surely never) he would end all aid to Israel, but repeated that he "would allow Israel to take immediate action to defend herself without having to get our approval. Israel should be free to take whatever steps she deems necessary to protect her national security and sovereignty."

      What do you think Israel would do next?

    • jnslater December 29, 2011 at 7:55 pm

      Now, does anyone else here think that this incoherent Blankfort rant might be legitimately labeled as "anti-Semitic?" Just a little? Or is it just my paranoia, my well-known tendency to label any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic?

      You know, as in my long journal article (Security Studies, January-March 2009) evaluating the Israel lobby argument, in which I made a number of criticisms of the argument but said "the charge (direct or slightly disguised) that John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are anti-Semites is outrageous."

    • jnslater December 29, 2011 at 7:41 pm

      So, Blankfort, it's just little old me, disguised as merely an elderly retired prof at a little-known university, working from Buffalo, the very epicenter of global Zionist power (we chose this place precisely because we knew that no one would suspect that this is the real Center of Zionism) that has the real power (not the Israel lobby, meaning "AIPAC, the AJC, ADL, or the JCRC’s") to "put up the roadblocks to doing something about Israel." Who knew?

      And what powers of perception you have! How many others--well, plenty here on Mondoweiss, actually--have understood that embedded in my forty years of severe criticism of Israel was code for my marching orders to those front groups under my control, which was this: man the roadblocks and get "ready to sacricice [sic] the Palestinians, the Lebanese, and what little is left of our democracy, on the altar of Jewish sensibilities."

    • jnslater December 29, 2011 at 5:26 pm

      Woody:

      Well put, and I agree that the greatest single challenge to liberal Zionism is to reconcile the justice of the establishment of Israel with the injustice to the Palestinians. I have tried to do that in a long post that appeared here, and in even longer form, a year or ago or so.

      There are two possible lines of argument for liberal Zionists:
      One is to say that no reconciliation is possible, but that the Nakba can't be undone nor millions of Palestinians returned to Israel. Therefore, liberal Zionism demands that Israel not only acknowledge and apologize for the Nakba, but take a great number of steps to make up for it--beginning but not ending with an end to the occupation and the acceptance of a two-state settlement.

      The second line of argument--and actually the two can be melded--is to say that some injustice was inevitable for Israel to be established in part of Palestine, but it would have been feasible to stop a long way short of the expulsion and killing of the Palestinians that occurred in 1947-48. Had that not been done, in my view justice for the Jews (the imperative need for of a Jewish state, which in practice could only be created in part of Palestine) would have outweighed the admitted injustice to the Palestinians--especially if it had been followed by serious compensatory actions for the Palestinians.

      As I said, there's a lot more that needs to be said about this morally ambiguous or complex issue, so this is my best stab at the short version.

    • jnslater December 29, 2011 at 5:05 pm with 19 replies

      As Henry Norr and I have just pointed out, Paul's latest amazing twists and turns have left--or should have left--his apologists high and dry. The basic line here (with variations on the theme) has been: Sure, his domestic policies and his racism are bad, but on balance he's good because he is anti-war and no backer of Israel.

      So what's left of the argument now: he's antiwar (who isn't?) but it's ok by him if Israel starts a war with Iran. In fact, anything is ok by him if Israel says it is necessary: "Israel should be free to take whatever steps she deems necessary to protect her national security and sovereignty." Like, for example, if Israel says its national security and sovereignty requires it to invade Gaza again, or even carry out another massive expulsion of the Palestinians?"

      Unlike some others, I do think this discussion has been instructive, even though no one thinks Paul is going very far. It's been instructive, because it should reveal the perils of unsophisticated monomania: antiZionism trumps every other consideration, value, or crazy view. Especially when the leading antiZionist suddenly pulls the rug out, either (a)defecting or (b) goes whoring after the votes of the lunatic fringe.

    • jnslater December 29, 2011 at 4:48 pm

      Phil:

      I agree with you about Peace Now, where I was on the local board of Americans for Peace Now, and resigned years ago, explaining my reasons in terms similar to yours. In those days I would not have characterized its position as liberal Zionist, or at best on the very right edge. It does seem that it is becoming somewhat more critical--braver?--recently, perhaps because nearly everyone other than the rightwing (here and in Israel) is thoroughly fed up with Israel, and perhaps because, for that reason, APN now dares to move to the left.

    • jnslater December 29, 2011 at 4:25 pm with 12 replies

      Donald:

      No need to defend yourself at all, as I certainly did not have you in mind when I referred to the Mondoweissers who hate liberal Zionists. Yes, we have some disagreements, but I always find your comments to be cogent and reasonable, whether or not I agree with them--and, in fact, I mostly do.

      Perhaps one of the problems here is simply a definitional one. You justly criticize those you characterize as liberal Zionists who can't bring themselves to criticize Israeli policies, even criminal ones. But even if such people define themselves as liberal, they are no such thing in my view, and in my understanding of what liberal Zionism entails. If we want an understanding of what a true liberal Zionist stands for, we need look no further (as Scott has pointed out) than Uri Avnery, who has heroically opposed Israeli policies in the most unsparing and direct terms for over sixty years. Yet, he is certainly a Zionist, identifies himself as such, opposes binationalism as unworkable and undesirable, and wishes to live in a Jewish state.

    • Page: 1
    • jnslater December 29, 2011 at 2:45 pm with 2 replies

      Scott:

      I disagree with your explanation of what mainly accounts for the "contempt for liberal Zionism," at least on this site. Liberal Zionists (that would be me), practically by definition are just as opposed to Israeli expansionism, the treatment of the Palestinians, the ignoring of peace initiatives, etc. as you are; however, it is not the liberal Zionists who have failed to "reasonably accommodate Palestinian national aspirations" etc, but mainstream and rightwing Zionists, who have dominated Israel from the outset.

      Nor do I know what you mean when you say that liberal Zionists have failed in their efforts and haven't even seriously tried. Yes, we've failed--what else would you have them (us) do? You cite Uri Avnery as an exception--but he has also failed, as I believe he would be the first to admit. You contrast Avnery with the Labor Party, which you evidently believe is a liberal Zionist party--but I doubt there are many liberal Zionists--least of all Uri Avnery--who would agree that that the Labor Party (Ben-Gurion, Peres, Barak?) represents liberal Zionism. And I am complete agreement with you about the hasbara function that the Labor party today plays for American audiences.

      The main reason that many anti-Zionists, on this site and elsewhere, fairly drip contempt for liberal Zionism is that they think there is an inherent contradiction between "liberal" and "Zionist," believe that there was never any justification for Zionism, and essentially deny any legitimacy for the establishment of a Jewish state. In other words, not like you (if I read you rightly), who would be willing to come to grips with '48 had it not been for almost everything that has happened since.

    • jnslater December 29, 2011 at 2:34 pm with 64 replies

      Scott:

      I disagree with your explanation of what mainly accounts for the "contempt for liberal Zionism," at least on this site. Liberal Zionists (that would be me), practically by definition are just as opposed as you are to Israeli expansionism, the treatment of the Palestinians, the ignoring of peace initiatives, etc; however, it is not the liberal Zionists who have failed to "reasonably accommodate Palestinian national aspirations" etc, but mainstream and rightwing Zionists, who have dominated Israel from the outset.

      Nor do I know what you mean when you say that liberal Zionists have failed in their efforts and haven't even seriously tried. Yes, we've failed--what else would you have them (us) do? You cite Uri Avnery as an exception--but he has also failed. You contrast Avnery with the Labor Party, which you evidently believe to be a liberal Zionist party, but I doubt there are many liberal Zionists--least of all Uri Avnery--who would agree that that the Labor Party (Ben-Gurion, Peres, Barak?) represents liberal Zionism. And I am complete agreement with you about the hasbara role that the Labor Party and its cohorts--especially the dreadful Barak and Peres-- has played for American audiences. If they are liberal Zionists, then I am the Queen of Sheba.

      The main reason that many anti-Zionists, on this site and elsewhere, fairly drip contempt for liberal Zionism is not so much your explanation as that they think there is an inherent contradiction between "liberal" and "Zionist," and unlike you (if I understand your position correctly), believe that there was never any justification for Zionism, and essentially deny any legitimacy for the establishment of a Jewish state, even in 1948, and not merely because of most of what has happened, and what Israel has become, since then.

    • jnslater December 29, 2011 at 1:33 pm with 10 replies

      Flash: This just in. Bad news for Phil and others who would Deal with the Devil, especially because of Paul's correct antiwar views, and in particular because of his opposition to an Israeli or US attack on Iran. Not to mention because Paul is supposedly supports ending the Israeli occupation and withdrawing the settlers.

      Dear me. Ron Paul has just given an interview with Haaretz, in which he says:

      "I am the one candidate who would respect Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate to her about how she should deal with her neighbors. I supported Israel’s right to attack the Iraqi nuclear reactor in the 1980s, and I opposed President Obama’s attempt to dictate Israel’s borders this year."

      Q. In the Fox News presidential debate you expressed understanding and even sympathy for the Iran having nuclear weapons. But Israelis view an Iranian nuclear capability as an existential threat to their country. Do you disagree?

      A. Paul: "...there’s a key fact that it seems is being overlooked when my positions are discussed. I believe I’m the only candidate who would allow Israel to take immediate action to defend herself without having to get our approval. Israel should be free to take whatever steps she deems necessary to protect her national security and sovereignty."

      Well, this may be a setback, but of course these startling positions can be explained: it's not just that he is a mere politician after all, expediently changing his views so he can get the Republican nomination. Rather, he has grown over time, he is moving in the right direction, and it is only his current views that should be considered.

    • jnslater December 29, 2011 at 12:50 pm with 9 replies

      Scott and Danaa:

      Alright, I can't prove that Ron Paul is anti-Semitic, so I'll partly back away from that charge. However, enough of his anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist statements are so strong that there is reason to suspect that they come perilously close to anti-Semitism (just like so many similar statements from Mondoweissers --for example, how about Paul's suggestion that the Mossad may have been behind 9/11?

      And as you well know, Scott, the fact that anti-Semites sometimes have a Jewish friend or two, let alone that they favor a Jewish economist, does not demonstrate that they are not anti-Semites.

      But never mind, I understand that the burden of proof is on me to demonstrate Paul is anti-Semitic, not on Paul to prove that he isn't. I can't meet that burden, so I withdraw the charge-- though my suspicions remain. What is left, then, of the charge that Ron Paul, despite his sometimes (hardly always) correct views on foreign policies, is no man to admire or to have power over public policies: merely that he is a demonstrable--and I do mean demonstrable--racist and crackpot on most domestic issues of the highest significance. Won't that suffice?

    • jnslater December 29, 2011 at 12:04 pm

      Scott:

      Two comments. You ask why we don't apply the same standards of judgment to Paul's supposed changes as we do to Hitchens. The answer is that we have no reason to doubt that Hitchen's changes in position--even if unwise--are genuine: he wasn't running for office. On the other hand, since Paul is running for office, we have every reason in the world to suspect that his changes of position are phony, and that his real views are those he repeatedly expressed when he wasn't running.

      Secondly, it is not only Paul's racism that is deplorable, it's his positions on so many other issues as well, as brought out in Lizzy's assessment.

      Finally, though this wasn't what you said, a number of his defenders here have praised Paul for his position on civil liberties, but forget about his position on civil rights--he opposed the civil rights law of 1964, which prohibited racial segregation and discrimination in all public places, and says he would continue to do so today. So much for his "changed" views.

      But he's in favor of civil liberties. So people have the right to say anything they want, but African Americans have no right to oppose voter registration laws that are aimed at reducing the black vote, and no right to end racial segregation in schools, workplaces, and public facilities of all kinds. Of course, they can SAY anything about these practices as they want--it's a free country--they just can't DO anything about them.

    • jnslater December 29, 2011 at 9:37 am with 22 replies

      Donald and Scott:

      No need for an investigation: Yes, it was me. I would not say "sarcastic," though. By pointing out the reductio ad absurdem of Shingo, I was trying to highlight the utter inability of he and his like-minded Shingoists on Mondoweiss to comprehend plain English, to make elementary distinctions, and to be capable of even rudimentary balance.

      The fundamental premise of so many people on this site is that everything about Israel, without exception, is utterly hateful, perhaps the most hateful thing in the world, and there is no such thing as anti-Semitism, only anti-Zionism, which by definition is an unmitigated good. Even "liberal Zionists" ("Zios"), maybe ESPECIALLY liberal Zionists, are to be scorned and derided.

      Therefore, the touchstone of all assessments of politicians, writers, newspapers, etc. is whether they also hate every single thing about Israel, no matter what else they also hate. Although it is a trivial matter, of course, that explains why I am regarded on this site (but nowhere else) as uncritically "pro-Israel," no matter how strongly critical I have been about Israel for some forty years, and no matter how self-evidently preposterous that charge is. Even more absurdly, even Normal Finkelstein (!!) has recently come under a similar attack here.

      But the really non-trivial matter, is the defense of Ron Paul here. Even before we have learned about his life-long anti-Semitism, racism, and various crackpot views, it was known he was ranked the single most right-wing Congressmen in the last 25 years! Can you imagine the implications of that fact? No matter, he's against aid to Israel, so that trumps everything.

    • jnslater December 28, 2011 at 8:09 pm with 3 replies

      Shingo:

      Well yes, I do unreservedly support Israel, for as I have consistently argued for about forty years, it is an absolutely wonderful place, a model democracy in all respects, a living example of enlightened Jewish and Western values, completely beyond any reasonable criticism.

      You have misunderstood me in only respect: contrary to your statement that I have criticized the occupation, so maybe (by my logic, you imply) the occupation is good, I have never done so, precisely because the occupation IS good. In fact, the Palestinians have never had it so good.

    • jnslater December 28, 2011 at 5:16 pm with 8 replies

      Ron Paul is so Godawful, on so many issues, for so long (including now), that his anti-war position makes me wonder if I've been wrong on this issue. If Paul is against war, maybe wars are actually good.

  • For the holidays, we give commenter Mooser the third degree about his religious identity
  • One day in the State of the Jewish People, a 'light unto the Nations'
    • jnslater December 13, 2011 at 5:46 pm with 1 replies

      "Mooser"--What an appropriate pseudonym for such a buffoon! Or, how about "Mooseshit?" Still better, "Mouser"--as in squeak, squeak, little Mouser. Better scurry back into your hole.

      What I don't get is why this site puts up with his pollution of civilized discourse. What can Phil Weiss possibly have in mind? How can he not realize the damage this sort of stuff does to reputation and credibility of Mondoweiss?

  • Goldstone needs a reality check
    • jnslater November 4, 2011 at 12:10 pm with 1 replies

      Oh, boy (oy), am I embarrassed. In listing Israel's immediate neighbors, I forgot to mention Syria! I'd like to think of it as an occupational hazard of trying to rapidly respond to breaking events, like the Goldstone oped.

      Anyway, it was not because mentioning Syria would have undercut my point that its neighbors not only recognize Israel's "existence," but want peace with it. On the contrary: regardless of the Asad family's domestic repression, both father and son have long sought a settlement with Israel, including full normalization of relations with it. It is Israel that has repeatedly rejected such a settlement, even though its own military leaders, including plenty of hardliners, have repeatedly said that the settlement that would be acceptable to Syria was also in Israel's national interest.

  • Dying of schmaltz
    • jnslater October 23, 2011 at 9:11 am with 16 replies

      I think I'll put my two cents into this Witty debate. Witty is indeed harmless--who could possibly be influenced by his incoherent ramblings?--but he certainly is irritating. But that doesn't mean that the rest of you must compulsively enter into exchanges with him, or gleefully compete with each other in pointless insults of him.

      I admit to a self-interest in this matter. As you know, I've been publishing--either directly, or crosslisted from elsewhere--on Mondoweiss for a number of years. I always hope that what I write will lead to serious responses, but what invariably happens is that there are initially a few responses directed at what I've written--favorable or unfavorable--and then Witty comes in, and that's the end of that.

    • jnslater October 21, 2011 at 3:30 pm with 6 replies

      Donald:

      You are exactly right, in every respect. Still, my own view is that killing civilians in an unjust cause is even worse than killing civilians in a just cause. In fact, I would contend, most of us do make this distinction in our own minds, although we are unwilling to make it explicit--perhaps for good reasons.

  • Obama's impossible dilemma--and ours
    • jnslater September 26, 2011 at 7:48 pm with 12 replies

      Irish Moses, and others:

      The problem with the Eisenhower analogy is that he was in a far stronger position, both politically and in terms of how he was viewed as a leader, than Obama. Eisenhower could afford to take that position, because there was no chance it would endanger his reelection, and in any case if it had, the alternative would have been Adlai Stevenson, not whoever will end up being the Republican nominee.

      That said, I agree with Irish Moses that Obama has been gutless, or merely immensely foolish, in not taking on the Republicans on all the domestic issues---in those cases, unlike the Israeli issue, he had everything to gain. Maybe he's now beginning to do so--but he simply can't afford to take on Israel and its supporters.

      That is, now. After the elections, different story.

      A second difference is that the Israel lobby was much less powerful in 1956. Indeed, it wouldn't--I should say, didn't--dare to take on Eisenhower on his issue.

    • jnslater September 26, 2011 at 5:41 pm with 1 replies

      Annie, presumably quoting Slater: "nothing at all can be done...thank goodness there are people around who don’t share your view."

      Slater: "Despite my own bleak analysis, I find it unbearable to conclude that nothing at all can be done. Over the longer run, it is possible that an international BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) might succeed. As I have argued, it also might backfire, but that is just a risk that morally must be run..."

    • jnslater September 26, 2011 at 5:32 pm with 2 replies

      Shmuel: I fear that, such is the state of American politics today, that even these mild measures that you suggest would lead to many Jews, the Israeli lobby, and the Republican right to scream that Obama is selling out Israel. In fact, they already do, despite the fact that Obama has caved on every relevant issue.

    • jnslater September 26, 2011 at 5:27 pm with 1 replies

      SinNombre:
      "Slater’s argument that gee, even if we *did* pull our support for Israel it would … just make Israel more insane.... precisely where Slater’s argument just loses it totally. It is after all an argument that we remain complicit with almost whatever Israel ever does because … Israel could always go crazier and worse."

      What I wrote: "What, then, to do? Despite my own bleak analysis, I find it unbearable to conclude that nothing at all can be done. Over the longer run, it is possible that an international BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) might succeed. As I have argued, it also might backfire, but that is just a risk that morally must be run"

  • Palmer report's absurd contention that Israel is not punishing Gaza's civilian population renders it useless
  • NYT's Keller implies Iraq War aimed to save Israel from a 'holocaust'
    • jnslater September 7, 2011 at 12:32 am with 7 replies

      A general response:

      1. It is an established fact, not an opinion, that Saddam Hussein had an active wmd program, including nuclear weapons, before the 1991 Gulf War. The international inspection system that was established in the aftermath of the war found that Iraq was far closer to going nuclear than had previously been suspected.
      2. It is a further fact, not an opinion, that throughout the 1990s Saddam did everything he could to interfere with, deceive, and harass the UN inspectors, who were seeking to destroy all the wmds, but especially nuclear weapons. At the end of 1998, because of Saddam's behavior, the last UN inspectors withdrew from Iraq.
      3. Because of this history, the inference drawn by most serious observers, intelligence agencies, etc. was that Saddam had essentially forced an end to the inspection system because he wanted to be free to continue the wmd program. What other inference could reasonably have been drawn? It turns out that Saddam was even more irrational than was realized at the time, which is saying a lot. He knew he faced another possible major war, he had to know that he couldn't win it, he surely must have considered that this time the war would not end until he was driven from power. Since he had decided to end the wmd program IN ANY CASE, why on earth didn't he COOPERATE with the inspectors, thereby proving to them and the rest of the world that he had ended the wmds?
      No one knows the answer to this question with certainty--there are a variety of theories, but in the last analysis his behavior was completely irrational.
      The question of whether there were excellent reasons at the time to believe that after 1998 Saddam had escalated rather than ended the wmd program is a different question of whether, even if that had been true, a preventive war was justified or wise. The most widely accepted alternative to war in March 2003 was for a much-strengthened UN inspection system to be forced on Iraq--they would go in under the protection of Western military forces, no longer dependent on Saddam's cooperation, find and destroy the wmd weapons, and report at the end of six months whether they had succeeded in doing so.

      As a matter of fact, that was what I favored at the time, not a war, so unlike Keller and many others, I don't have to "apologize" for my position. The point of my comment was that it was not unreasonable for intelligent and moral people to feel that the case for war was not absurd--regardless of how it has turned out.

      As for those of you who claim you just knew back then that it was all a hoax, or a figment of the Bush administration's fevered imagination, or nothing but a pack of lies, that there never was a serious threat from Saddam, etc etc. cannot be taken seriously, because none of you could possibly have "known" any such thing.

      Once again, for emphasis: to have taken the threat seriously is not the same as saying it was so serious that war was justified in March 2003, and certainly not until, at the very least, all other serious efforts had been made to disarm the presumed Iraqi wmd threat.

    • jnslater September 6, 2011 at 5:28 pm with 13 replies

      I have been, and remain, highly critical of how the NYT treats the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially during Keller's tenure. But this long piece by Keller is excellent and painstakingly honest, and should not be treated with sarcasm.

      I shared Keller's ambivalence about the Iraq war at the time, primarily because it seemed "obvious" at the time--for a number of reasons--that Saddam was continuing to pursue nuclear weapons, as he had demonstrably been doing earlier. Like Keller, it seemed like a really bad idea to do nothing, (or nothing that was likely to succeed), in order to prevent a proven psychopath from getting nuclear weapons. And Keller is also right that most of the specialists in this area, including most Western intelligence agencies, considered it as obvious that Saddam was still actively seeking nuclear weapons and would soon get them, if not stopped.

      There was also a strong moral case, again as Keller argues, for intervention, but in my view, and clearly in his, the decisive factor was the nuclear, or more broadly, the wmd issue.

      Whether or not these factors--or, as in the wmd case, apparent factors--were sufficient to warrant a preventive war at the time is another matter. My own view in March 2003 was exactly the same as Keller's: more time should have been given for the inspections to continue. But the implication of that position is that if the inspectors did not conclude that there was no wmd threat, war might be justifiable.

      There are two great ironies in this situation. The first is that it was the Bush administration, more than almost anyone else, that knew of the evidence that cast doubt that Saddam was continuing the nuclear program--but it lied about or concealed this evidence from the rest of the world. It is obvious why it lied--it wanted a war, wmd or not--but it was not obvious to most informed people at the time.

      The second irony is that if the seemingly best alternative at the time had been pursued--a strengthened inspection regime for six months, in lieu of an immediate attack-- of course it would have found no nuclear weapons, as there were none to be found. But what would it have concluded: that there were no such weapons, or that Saddam had successfully hidden them? It almost surely would not have said that the absence of weapons was definitive proof that they didn't exist, and then we would have been back in the same problem as existed in March 2003.

      What then? For many nonrightwingers, ambivalence.

      Well, this is a long-winded way of saying that Taylor's dismissive rhetoric about the Keller piece is unwarranted. Keller's full piece should be read, along with his link to Kanan Makiya's own "tortured mea culpa." Makiya, for those who don't remember him, was an exile from Iraq, a true moral hero whose writings on Saddam influenced not only Bush but all those who cared about human rights in general and the nightmare of the Saddam Hussein era in Iraq, in particular.

  • The nightmare of the Jewish soul
    • jnslater August 7, 2011 at 5:18 pm with 22 replies

      Tal identifies himself as an Israeli who strongly opposes his government's policies, and instead of being welcomed by those who share those views, he gets piled on by the usual wolfpack, with their predictable sophomoric vitriol and hatred.

      Keep up the good fight, Tal, and ignore these buffoons. Meanwhile, let me suggest that those of us who are regular readers of Mondoweiss but have more nuanced opinions than the crackpots--for example, that Zionism, whatever its faults, however much it has gone wrong, is not necessarily identical to fascism, and may even contain defensible arguments and viewpoints--should also speak up on this site, rather than driving away rational critics of Israel, whether in this country or Israel itself.

      Speak up!

  • 'NYT' 'analysis' buries connection between protests and settlement project
    • jnslater August 6, 2011 at 6:13 pm with 2 replies

      Good point, James. There has been a considerable of amount of celebrating on the routine left in Israel on how the Israelis are finally waking up, they're coming together at last, the youth are leading the way, etc. But what are they coming together over: the demand for cheaper housing and other such matters FOR THEMSELVES. I have no reason to doubt that they have a good case, but you hardly get much moral credit for finally becoming politically and socially active on behalf of your own economic self-interest.

      Contrast this mass protest--if that's what it is--with the protest movement and the birth of the Peace Now movement over Israel's complicity in the Sabra and Shatilla massacres twenty years ago.

      Maybe this is unfair--some admirable Israelis have said that this should be regarded as a prelude to a model for, at long last, a mass protest movement on behalf of justice to the Palestinians. Maybe--but I'm skeptical.

  • Slater: Hamas is pragmatic
    • jnslater May 4, 2011 at 11:58 am

      Woody Tanaka:

      I was aware of this argument, but if that is Hamas's logic, it is a very bad mistake. First, even in terms of Hamas's internal constituency most Palestinians are not extremist, so an extremist position alienates more Palestinians than it attracts--look at recent Palestinian public opinion polls.

      More importantly, the only chance--thin though it is--for the Palestinians to get their own state is through some combination of changes in Israeli attitudes and outside pressures on Israel. For Hamas to continue with--or reassert--extremist positions reduces the possibility of either changes in Israeli attitudes or serious external pressures from thin to zero.

      The practical consequences aside, the moderate Palestinian position is morally compelling, whereas the extremist position is morally unacceptable.

    • jnslater May 3, 2011 at 7:44 pm

      Robert Werdine:

      There are persuasive answers to these rhetorical questions, but far too long to go into here. Still, two short comments: what Barak offered to Arafat in 2000 is far from clear--he refused to put anything in writing-- but what is absolutely clear is that he refused to budge on Jerusalem, which was the deal breaker.

      Certainly Olmert went considerably further--including on Jerusalem--and you can make a strong case that one part of his divided self genuinely wanted an agreement, while the other part launched Cast Lead, which--along with the impending election of Netanyahu--killed any chances of a settlement.

      In any case, I was referring to Netanyahu--about whom there is simply no serious doubt that he wants to perpetuate and extend the operation, not end it.

      As for your final three questions, the answers are (1)Yes, probably or at least quite possibly; (2)a great deal, and (3) a complete red herring: ending the occupation and allowing the creation of a limited, largely demilitarized Palestinian state has nothing to do with whether Israel "may please exist." On the contrary, the only true threat to Israel's "existence" arises from the possible consequences of its impenetrably stupid and morally disgusting policies towards the Palestinians.

    • jnslater May 3, 2011 at 6:05 pm with 6 replies

      Agreed, the real problem is that Israel does not want a two-state settlement--or else it would have offered one to Abbas--and Hamas extremism is the pretext, not the reason. That said, I fail to see that there is any "upside" whatever in extremist Hamas statements or positions--either on the merits of the extremism or on its consequences.

    • jnslater May 3, 2011 at 4:34 pm with 1 replies

      Re Keith: This is what is known, in social science circles, as the failure to provide "a null hypothesis." If the U.S. attacks Muslims, that proves it hates all Muslims and/or is an imperialist power. On the other hand, if the US attacks the people who are killing Muslim innocent civilians--like in Libya today, Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s--that also actually PROVES it wants to kill Muslims per se or that its only motivation is imperialism: it gains "pro-Muslim street cred," you see, presumably so that it can resume killing Muslims again as soon as possible.

      Lord, these imperialists are fiendishly clever--but not so clever that Keith and others like him can't see right through them.

    • jnslater May 3, 2011 at 4:18 pm with 8 replies

      If eee's quote from Haniyeh is correct, I wouldn't deny it is quite depressing. Nonetheless, it does not follow that Israel and the U.S. should not offer to meet with Hamas--or with a joint Fatah/Hamas government--and place a legitimate two-state offer on the table. Then--and only then--we can see what would happen, whether it is the pragmatic or the extremist side of Hamas that would prevail, once put to the test.

      During the Cuban missile crisis, Nikita Khruschev sent two personal messages to Kennedy, separated by only a few hours: one was intransigent, the other was clearly seeking a way out of the crisis. Rather than try to figure out which one was "the real Khruschev," Bobby Kennedy suggested what he called "the Trollope ploy," (evidently from a Trollope novel not known to me)--ignore the rejection and respond only to the inviting one.

      It worked--both sides then made reciprocal concessions (although Kennedy refused to publicly admit his). Thank the Lord for Bobby Kennedy--if his suggestion hadn't prevailed, there might be no Mondoweiss today.

  • Goldstone op-ed praises Israeli investigation of Gaza war crimes, but UN committee paints a different picture
  • More on the debate over Zionism and the Jewish state
    • jnslater April 3, 2011 at 11:56 am

      Shmuel:

      Nicely and pleasantly put. We are not all that far apart, and I'm sure you will agree that we've taken this discussion as far as it should go.

    • jnslater April 3, 2011 at 10:21 am

      It is depressing that even the most serious critics of my argument seem unable to keep in mind what I wrote. Now Shmuel explains to me that Israel's behavior makes it unlikely that they would agree to a fair two-state settlement. Here's what I wrote:

      "Revisiting the Two-State Settlement"

      "There can be no doubt that the prospects for a two-state settlement are increasingly dim, as Israeli attitudes become increasingly rigid, the settlements in the West Bank and the Jewish "neighborhoods" in East Jerusalem continue to expand, and the Obama administration abandons any effort to pressure Israel into policy changes."

      "Nonetheless, since the one-state solution--binationalism--is all but inconceivable, a two-state settlement is the only game in town."

      And this: "None of this is to deny the possibility--however slim--that over time Israeli attitudes might change, but any such change would result in Israeli acceptance of a two-state solution long before its acceptance of a binational state."

      And this: "In the last few years, however, as a result of Israeli blindness, rigidity, and the continuing expansion of Jewish "settlements," urban areas, and neighborhoods in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, it has become common to say that the two-state settlement is now dead."

      I provided a long list of what a fair two-state settlement must include: it is perfectly reasonable to add to that list that the Palestinians have the right to insist on a referendum among their people--however they define their people--on the ROR and, for that matter, all other components of an agreement.

      Is it unlikely that--as things stand now--that the Israelis would agree to this? Of course--my argument was that there was no alternative to keeping the two-state possibility alive, since there was a far, far less possibility of a one-state agreement.

      Shmuel and others don't actually challenge this assessment--rather, they say that neither a 1ss or a 2ss are possible, so the focus should be on the rights of the Palestinian people. As I've said repeatedly--with no response--just what does that mean? If neither a 2ss nor a 1ss solution are possible, then by default what is left is the status quo. Those who argue along these lines need to explain why this doesn't amount to, in effect, as a kinder and gentler occupation.

    • jnslater April 2, 2011 at 9:39 am

      Shmuel:

      I saw this charge of my demagoguery after I replied to your argument, and it is beneath you. You may disagree with my analogy, and you have a case.

      But do not charge me with demogoguery. I was making a good-faith effort to continue a serious dialogue, and I can see that the analogy may not work. Demagoguery consists of making arguments you know to be untrue, but to an audience that may fall for them. If I had been writing for, say, Commentary, I can see how I might be suspected of demagoging. But to the Mondoweiss audience?

      The difference is that Samel systematically distorted or ignored my argument, but to an audience he surely must have known would just love it, and would not be inclined to actually read what I wrote and compare it to how Samel characterized it. So you are defending him. I take it then that, assuming you read what I wrote, that you agree that my idea of an acceptable two-state settlement amounted to treating the Israeli Palestinians as "second class citizens?" Or that my idea of how true ethnic cleansing might have been averted amounts to no more than "a kinder and gentler Nakba?"

      I'll close my responses to you with this: The consequences of the kind of maximalism that your position represents is to make any kind of agreement impossible, meaning the continuation of the Israeli occupation--or worse. We both deplore this--the difference is that I'm trying to think of ways the Palestinians can get the best possible (POSSIBLE, I said) deal, whereas you aren't.

    • jnslater April 2, 2011 at 9:09 am with 11 replies

      "Since Israelis are unlikely to accept the rights of the refugees to return or even to have a say in the matter, the choice that Palestinians will be offered will be of the take it or leave it “most generous offer” variety."

      I'm not sure we are talking about quite the same thing. We have already agreed that the Israelis won't accept ROR, what I am referring to is whether the Palestinian people as a whole would accept an otherwise best case scenario two-state settlement that did not include ROR.

      Suppose Israeli and Palestinian negotiators agree on such a settlement, and the Palestinians decided to put it to a referendum? Most of the refugees, I think (I don't know the numbers) are already in the West Bank or Gaza, so of course they would vote. The Palestinian leadership would then have to decide whether the refugees elsewhere would also get to vote, and who was considered to be a refugee (grandchildren of 1948 refugees, now living in the US or Europe?), and the like.)

      Are you arguing that the Israelis would veto even such a process? That seems improbable to me. It is more likely that if a referendum didn't pass they would simply shrug their shoulders and say, in effect, you got our best offer, you turned it down, come back to us when you're ready to try again.

    • jnslater April 1, 2011 at 6:44 pm with 17 replies

      Shmuel (and Tree)

      Well, you'll be relieved to know that it will be the Palestinians, not me, that will be making the choices.

    • jnslater April 1, 2011 at 1:10 pm

      Shmuel: I don't know the answers to these questions, but I don't think my argument requires that I do. When and if a two-state agreement is reached, then of course these questions will need to be addressed.

      That said, I think the first set of questions are not difficult ones: those who would get to vote would very likely be only the citizens or the residents within the borders of the new state. Refugees outside of that area, the larger Palestinian diaspora, and Palestinian citizens of Israel, I presume, would not get the vote.

      And why should they? Does the Jewish diaspora, or the Jewish citizens of the U.S. get to vote on Israeli issues? I'm not even aware of anyone who advocates it. As for the Palestinian citizens of Israel, they would presumably get to vote if they decided to move to Palestine and become citizens there, and presumably not if they decided to remain citizens of Israel. Which is how it should be.

      The second question, by contrast, is a very serious and relevant one. Like I said, I don't know the answer.

      My underlying point is that those who claim that the Palestinians will "never" accept the loss of ROR have even less hard evidence than I do for believing that, under the proper circumstances and with intelligent leadership, they would.

    • jnslater April 1, 2011 at 11:03 am

      Oh Frankie P, Frankie P
      I enjoyed your little poem to me.
      So how can I resist, dear Frankie P?

    • jnslater April 1, 2011 at 10:58 am with 9 replies

      Shmuel:
      Agreed. I guess the underlying assumption of my argument, vis-a-vis what the Palestinian people will accept, is that if an agreement was reached that not only provided for a Palestinian state, but had the promise of improving Palestinian life in all kinds of ways, but which did not contain ROR, good Palestinian leadership could say something like this to the Palestinian people: "We are at a turn in the road: we were able to get this, this, this, this, and this, but we couldn't get the ROR. The Israelis won't budge on that. Therefore we must choose between on the one hand, a continuation of the occupation, the repression, the violence, and an ever expanding Israeli takeover of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and on the other independence, freedom, the end of Israeli attacks and sieges, and the real prospect of rapid economic growth, aided by billions of dollars in economic assistance from our friends and the international community."
      We will vote on which road we will now go down."

      What's your guess as to how such a vote would turn out?

    • jnslater April 1, 2011 at 9:48 am with 11 replies

      Well, I've done a scientific count of the comments on whether I should drop out of Mondoweiss. I classified them into two groups: "Good riddance to bad garbage," and "stick around."

      "Stick around" won by a 52-48% margin, not exactly a rousing vote of confidence. And it came out that way only because I gave one point to the hit-the-roaders, and 2 points to stick around. So what's a little creative math in a just cause?

      (Mooser: I'm baiting you, so don't disappoint me: you have 20 seconds after this comment appears to respond that my alternate history-that-might-have-been is also based on creative math.)

      In the course of this commentary, I have received a lot of wise advice--really--on how to react or better yet, not react to comments I don't like. And I will try real hard to do that. Still, Slater being what he is, I am bound to fall off the wagon sometimes.

      Actually, beginning now, for I would like make two serious comments.
      First, was my response to Samel churlish, and does his gracious response and continuing compliments make me look childishly vindictive? Yes, I'm afraid it does. You'll forgive me--or not--for wondering, just a bit, if Samel's sweet reasonableness isn't something of a manipulation, designed to create exactly hat impression.desuspecting that his sweet reasonableness is a bit of a manipulation.

      Probably not. Even so, it is hardly sufficient. I put a great deal of time, effort, research, and thought into what I write. It therefore is very hard to take when the response is incomprehension, misinterpretation, and distortion. Arguments with which one disagrees must be stated fairly, and then rebutted. This is the essence of serious discourse.

      That's not what Samel did, and since he knows better, he wrote a hatchet job, and by God he stands by it to the last word ("I do not believe that any of my representations of his positions are even slightly misleading, much less dishonest.") Never mind that he ignores twelve specific instances of his departures from honest discourse--and those were only the most obvious.

      That's not the way serious intellectual discourse and debate are to be carried out--and, yes, it does affect my feelings of friendship when people who know better fail to live up to rightful rules of the game.

      A final comment: Well, Mondoweissers, what do you want to make of "American?" Forget about his lunatic vitriol against me, do you think we might just characterize this as classic anti-Semitism? Yes, I know that serious criticism of Israel is often so characterized, and I have vigorously argued against that nasty ploy, in print, and often, for example in defending Mearsheimer and Walt against that charge, even though I have substantial disagreements with them.

      Now, I will personally punch in the nose (verbally, of course; after all I am Jewish) anyone who reads this and says, Slater you fool, don't you know that critics of Israel or Zionism are often smeared as being anti-Semitic? You stand warned.

      If this dreck isn't anti-Semitic, then what is? And, since comments are supposedly moderated here, why has it passed the moderation process? If this passes, then what doesn't?

    • jnslater March 31, 2011 at 11:11 pm with 3 replies

      Hi, Shmuel:

      I entirely agree that we would greatly benefit if some Palestinians contributed to the debate; I wish I knew how they might be encouraged to do so. Maybe that's a job for Phil and Adam.

      And all of your questions are excellent. I do think we have a pretty good idea of what the true bottom line is, not for all Palestinians, but at least for the major leaders of the Palestinian Authority--and we had a pretty good idea even before the Palestinian Papers nailed it down.

      Their key demand is not ROR, and I don't think it would be a deal-breaker. Assuming all the other issues fell into place (borders, water, levels of permitted armaments, international peacekeeping forces, and so on), the real deal-breaker would be Jerusalem: the Palestinians are not going to allow Israeli sovereignty over the Haram, nor over the remaining Arab areas of East Jerusalem--and they are entirely right in that position.

      My reading of the history of the negotiations, especially the Geneva Accord, is that if there ever is to be a two-state solution, it will be based on a central compromise: the Palestinians give up ROR (except for some symbolic Israeli concessions that would not change the demographic balance within Israel), and the Israelis agree to the Clinton parameters: what is Arab is Arab, what is Jewish is Jewish, and the Temple Mount/Haram come under some kind of international or binational sovereignty.

      Note that I am not saying that this is my personal view of what should happen--though in fact, it is--I'm saying that there is a great deal of evidence that this is what reasonable Israelis and reasonable Palestinians have already, in effect, agreed to.

      One more point: there can be no doubt that if the Israelis keep expanding into East Jerusalem, it will even further kill the chances for a two-state settlement. Nonetheless, we have to act as though it isn't dead, because all the other alternatives are worse: a continuation and probable expansion of the Israeli occupation, or the one-state fantasy.

      I have to admit that I have to really struggle not to give up, and to somehow hold in mind two conflicting thoughts: on the one hand, I think that the situation is hopeless, because the Israelis are hopeless; on the other hand, I can't bear the implications of that belief.

  • More on Jerome Slater's piece seeking to reconcile Zionism and justice
    • jnslater March 29, 2011 at 11:27 pm

      Well done, Mooser, once more! Mooser is a clearly a man who sees through all my obfuscating rhetoric, and penetrates right to the heart of the matter. And this time, it can't have been easy for him to figure out that when I talk about Israeli criminality and stupidity, that what I'm really yearning for is "the complete erasure of the Palestinians and an outright Israeli takeover of their land."

    • jnslater March 29, 2011 at 11:21 pm

      You're always cracking up, aren't you Annie? I wouldn't say that Olmert's apparent position, as revealed in the Palestine Papers was light-years more accommodating to Palestinian needs than Oslo, but I do say that he had moved significantly closer to the international consensus two-state settlement than any other previous Israeli leader. To you, however, even that Israeli movement was utterly without significance, no different than death by drowning compared to death by fire.

      No distinctions need knock on your door.

    • jnslater March 28, 2011 at 7:38 pm with 12 replies

      Shmuel: One other point. If I read the Palestine Papers correctly, Abbas and his team were prepared to accept some minor refugee return, I believe on the order of 10,000. I may be wrong, but I don't think they were insisting--as in nonnegotiable--that Israel must also acknowledge a moral and legal ROR. If I'm right, I think they were wise.

      I hasten to add I'm not questioning whether the Palestinians really do have a moral and legal right, just whether a quixotic insistence on it makes any sense. In this context, frankly--and here I am not addressing Shmuel--I find it appalling that many here, from the comfort of their own homes in the US or Europe, want to insist that the Palestinians just must maintain their maximal current demands, even if the practical consequence of doing so is to ensure a continuation of the occupation.

      Fortunately, it appears, the moderate Palestinian leadership is not about to fall into that trap, thus showing far greater wisdom than their critics.

    • jnslater March 28, 2011 at 7:04 pm with 15 replies

      Gil: "Is Zionism compatible with justice for the Palestinians? Give me a break. If 44 years of post-1967 Zionist policies can’t convince you of Zionist intent to create a Greater Israel at the expense of the Palestinians nothing can."

      Oh, really? So you think that all Zionists in Israel today intend to create a Greater Israel at the expense of the Palestinians? You mean people like Zeev Sternhell, Yossi Beilin, David Grossman, Amos Oz, and hundreds of thousands of other Israelis who identify themselves as Zionists--but liberal Zionists, who are no less sick of the occupation and repression as are you.

      How about me, for that matter? I suppose I still qualify as something of a Zionist, or at least not yet ready to become a post-Zionist. You surely know that I am no fan of Greater Israel and apartheid. To use your language: give me a break. Get rid of this black/white mode and make important distinctions.

      "The only question in my mind is what steps can the international community take to reduce the apartheid-like conditions the Palestinians live under so that they can have some basic civil rights and liberties within the single state of Greater Israel."

      So you're back to one state. How to you propose to bring it about? Just what can the international community do to ensure the Pals have basic rights within this "Greater Israel?"

      It is a grave error to give up on the two-state solution, as nothing else has any chance of coming into existence. But I repeat myself.

    • jnslater March 28, 2011 at 6:47 pm with 12 replies

      Shmuel: "What all refugees – and most Palestinians – seem to demand however, is the recognition of their moral and legal right to return to the areas from which they were driven. The modalities of absorption of eventual returnees are eminently negotiable and feasible, as suggested by Palestinian scholars, intellectuals and activists."

      Yes, there have been all sorts of indications that an eventual compromise on ROR--if it ever comes-- will involve some kind of Israeli acknowledgement of partial responsibility for the refugee flight (or expulsion), together with some agreement that will sharply limit the numbers of refugees that Israel will actually agree to admit.

      However, I fear that to insist that Israel recognize a "moral and legal right of return"--no matter how limited in practice--is a deal breaker: I can't see the Israelis ever agreeing to it.

      To which Potsherd (and others) will once again ask: why do I always emphasize what Israel will allow? What an odd question. You would think the answer would be self-evident: because no one has the power to force Israel to accept anything it refuses to accept. What do you propose as the alternative: an international invasion of Israel?

  • This website is 5 years old
    • jnslater March 28, 2011 at 11:33 am

      It has been said, rightly I believe, that Mearsheimer and Walt's Israel Lobby changed the discourse about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in this country, but I think Mondoweiss has done so equally if not more so. Not only have Phil and Adam provided an irreplaceable educational service to the interested reading public, but Mondoweiss has also become an indispensable resource to those of us who write professionally on the issue.

      There is still a long way to go in the quest for understanding, reason and justice in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but we wouldn't have gotten this far without the remarkable hard work, powerful writing, and moral voice of Phil and Adam.

      L'chaim!

  • Slater seeks to reconcile Zionism with justice for Palestinians
    • jnslater March 27, 2011 at 8:51 am

      Danaa,
      This a terrific statement, wise and eloquent and almost entirely persuasive. I share your pessimism, your characterization of Israel today, and the unlikelihood of any fair settlement, one state or two.

      So why continue knocking my head against these impenetrable walls? An excellent question--I ask it of myself nearly every day.
      This is the best that I can up with:
      1. I can't remain silent when these bastards make a mockery of every good reason to have ever been Jewish, by which I mean the commitment to the best values of Western--or maybe I should say, universal civilization. Dylan Thomas said it best: Do not go gentle into that good night, rage, rage, against the dying of the light.
      2. Pessimistic as we both are, we must also recognize that sometimes things do change (see: Middle East today), and opportunities that previously seemed closed suddenly open up. As I have argued, it is a lot easier to imagine how changes could suddenly make the two-state settlement a viable one, rather than the truly utopian one-state solution.
      In light of that possibility, dim as it is, we must keep the candle burning against the dark. Which in my case, doing my thing, writing, thinking, arguing, and with an occasional smite of mine enemies, admittedly a small pleasure in itself.
      3. Finally, though I share your gloom about the prospects, what are we to do: resign from the Jewish race and tend to my own knitting? Not that I haven't toyed with that idea.

    • jnslater March 27, 2011 at 1:25 am with 5 replies

      Thanks for the support, eee. However, the problem is that most of the kind of criticism we both deplore is coming, I think, from Jews. So, yes, my view of the necessity of a Jewish state has been strengthened, but only so long as I get to pick the Jews. (A few Righteous Gentiles may also apply)

    • jnslater March 27, 2011 at 1:02 am

      Annie. Well, perhaps I overreacted a bit. Nonetheless, in that comment and in many others, you misrepresent or fail to understand a complex argument and reduce it to a caricature, so that you can then sarcastically dismiss it. Sarcasm implies a greater wisdom than its target; you'll forgive me--or maybe you won't--for saying that you haven't earned the right to be sarcastic, at any rate not at my expense.

    • jnslater March 27, 2011 at 12:42 am

      Potsherd: Good Lord Above. I didn't "propose" an unequal state dominated by the Jews, I PREDICTED that it would be the consequence of binationalism. Scientists predict that if things continue on the present path there will be an environmental disaster; do you suppose that means they favor it?

    • jnslater March 27, 2011 at 12:28 am

      Donald:

      Thank you for this courteous and cogent reply, and argument. The problem is not that I have not taken seriously the criticisms of my argument--well, at least those "criticisms" that deserve to be taken seriously, such as yours--but rather that I have not been convinced by them; I've explained why a number of times.

      The Judah Magnes/Martin Buber dream of a binational state was certainly an attractive one, but it also might have been utopian and unworkable, acceptable to neither side. I admit that I agree with David Ben-Gurion and Ilan Pappe--coming, of course, from opposite directions--that a stable Jewish state could not have been created in a state in which the Jews had only a small majority. This doesn't concern those who think that there was no reason to create a Jewish state in the first place, but as you know that is not my position.

      Admittedly, the most vulnerable part of my argument concerns my claim that with some imagination decent Zionists might have come up with ways to increase the Jewish majority without resorting to mass murder and ethnic cleansing. I tried to make an honest argument, admitting that in the end, no matter what the financial incentives, some degree of compulsion might have been necessary. But the methods of compulsion, the numbers involved, the willingness to compensate, and so on matter a great deal. I stand by my central argument: if Israel had been founded with an appreciation of its consequences for the Palestinians, and if from 1948 onward its policy was that it would do everything it could to make up for the injustice--short of abandoning a Jewish state--the conflict would have been resolved long ago.

      In that sense, the weakest part of your argument is your joining with so many others in an apparent unwillingness to make distinctions. The essence of the Zionist-Palestinian conflict is tragedy and dilemma: each side had good arguments (though, as I said, the Zionists also had bad arguments) for their positions, creating a moral dilemma which admitted of no clean solution, only actions that mitigated them dilemma. That the Zionists had no interest in mitigation or in recognizing the justice of the Palestinian position is obvious; indeed I have been writing about it for years.

      So, we simply disagree about whether there were alternatives, to be sure alternatives that privileged Jewish rights over Palestinian rights, but orders of magnitude short of what the Zionists actually did.

    • jnslater March 26, 2011 at 11:53 pm with 2 replies

      Well put, MRW! You're right, I don't like it that I'm getting older, and still less that my time is running out. Actually, I was misinformed, because it hadn't occurred to me that my efforts to read, write and think in my lonely office in wintry Buffalo was diddling with people's lives. Could you be more specific on how much time I do have left, because if it isn't much then perhaps I should abandon my computer and get down to some serious diddling.

    • jnslater March 26, 2011 at 11:40 pm with 6 replies

      Danaa:

      My argument is not an exercise in abstract logic: if not A, then not B or maybe C, etc. Rather it is a specific argument based on my reading of the facts. If you disagree with my contention that the Israelis will never agree to an unlimited right of return, and therefore an insistence on it will make a two-state settlement impossible, you have to deal with specifics of the argument and show why I am wrong, as opposed to being "illogical," whatever that means in this context.

    • jnslater March 26, 2011 at 10:02 pm with 5 replies

      MHughes. You have several problems in this argument. First, as implied by CK's comment, it will come as news to every political philosopher in the history of mankind that "the whole rule of law" and "the fundamental basis of moral life" are based on "permanent residence"--even supposing you could define "permanent residence."

      Suppose, for example, that you should discover that your home is on land that once belonged to native Americans, who were driven off it a couple of hundred years ago. Would you consider it a legitimate demand that you "return" the land to him/her? And what are chances that you would actually do so, even if your ideology of the fundamental basis of moral life required you to do so?

      And here's yet another problem. How would you know whether the Native American who your ancestors dispossessed had himself dispossessed someone before him? And so on, ad infinitum. These are rather serious problems for moral philosophies based on "permanent"--but past--residence. That's why in my essay I suggest that there has to be a time limit for such "rights."

      And that's precisely why the Zionist argument that previous residence gave them permanent rights to Palestine is so absurd. To be sure, the Palestinian claim, since it is only 60 years rather than 2000 years old, has much more validity. The problem, though, is that it is unrealizable in practice, and that in any case, if it were implemented the outcome would not be an unmixed moral good.

    • jnslater March 26, 2011 at 8:42 pm with 13 replies

      How dare I? The consequences of your kind of moral absolutism are almost always disastrous for the causes you claim to support. According to UN figures, there are currently five million Palestinian refugees, and less than six million Jews in Israel. There is zero, zero, zero chance that the Israelis would allow them to return, so the consequence of insisting that they do is to absolutely ensure that there will be neither a binational nor a two-state settlement.

      Moreover, it would hardly be a perfectly just solution if, somehow, the refugees were allowed to return to their "houses, farms, towns, villages." Even leaving aside the fact that most of them no longer exist--yes, yes, I know why--there could be no such return without dispossessing large numbers of Israelis who bear no responsibility for the actions of the early Zionists. That is why I wrote that "there is no perfectly just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, even in principle, let alone in practice."

      Fortunately, the moderate and sensible Palestinian leadership, including Yasir Arafat, understand these facts of life and have made it plain that they will drop the idea of a large scale Palestinian "return" in the context of a two-state settlement that meets their minimal and legitimate demands for a viable state. When and if that happens, will you and other moral naifs bitterly condemn them? Or don't you care about consequences--after all, it is they, not you, that are suffering from the absence of any solution, however theoretically imperfect.

      A final word, I realize that in my responses I am increasingly going beyond my usual "calm, bland academic rigamarole"--though my preferred description is "reasoned analysis." I'm only human, you know--read the barrage of insults that accompany some of the responses here. Some of you have chastised me, saying that I'm much too sensitive to "criticism." Maybe so, but then you can't object when my rhetoric becomes a little less calm, bland, and academic.

    • jnslater March 26, 2011 at 6:55 pm

      Shmuel:; I entirely agree, but why must we choose between these two courses? In what way are they in conflict with each other? We should work toward all the things you advocate--and much more--while at same time refusing to give up on the better solution: for the Palestinians to have full political and human rights in their own state, rather than having to depend on Israeli good will--presently and into the foreseeable future in very short supply--within the state they control.

    • jnslater March 26, 2011 at 6:08 pm

      Good work, Mooser! You've penetrated all my obscure prose and smoked me out, revealing my true views that I've tried to conceal. Let the Israelis "exterminate the Palestinians, since they don't matter much." That's EXACTLY what I really believe.

      But don't let my praise go to your head--a lot of others here have also penetrated to the heart of my argument, whatever my pathetic, illogical, and repulsive efforts to conceal it.

    • jnslater March 26, 2011 at 5:41 pm

      CK: I stand corrected, "effectively irrefutable" is better.

    • jnslater March 26, 2011 at 4:01 pm with 17 replies

      "Demanding equality, freedom and security for all residents is not something that can be easily opposed. To which solution would such demands lead?"

      That's supposed to be a rhetorical question, but hardly. Demanding equality etc for the Israelis and the Palestinians in their own state has a far greater chance of being realized than in one state. Demand it in the context of one-state, which soon would have a Palestinian majority, and it's real easy to answer your question about which solution that would lead to: To a conflict-ridden state dominated by the Jews, in which the Palestinians would be unequal, unfree, and unsecure.

      At the risk of repeating myself, unless you can address that argument, on just how the obvious obstacles and likely outcomes--as pointed out not by rightwingers, but by Avnery, Karmi, and countless others--you're just spinning your wheels. Do you have a strategy, or just a "demand?" If so, tell us about it. Otherwise, you are merely saying "I prefer [demand] a binational state in which everyone is equal, free, and secure."

      Ok, I've got it: "Poof, here is a binational state, everyone is equal, free and secure." While you're at it, couldn't we also have world peace?

    • jnslater March 26, 2011 at 1:47 pm with 1 replies

      Phil; As far as I'm concerned, absolutely!

    • jnslater March 26, 2011 at 8:52 am with 12 replies

      Rather than respond individually to various criticisms, I will wait until all the comments are in and then post a general "Response to the Critics," which I will post on my blog and perhaps, Phil willing, on Mondoweiss.

      For the moment, I notice that with but one or two exceptions, so far all the comments have focused on the historical background sections, but hardly any on the second half, which essentially is: where do we go from here?" Where are the defenders of the one-state solution, and how do you meet the arguments that Avnery, Karmi, and I have made about its unreality and probable undesirability?

    • jnslater March 26, 2011 at 8:30 am with 4 replies

      Donald:

      The concept of a "moral bargaining chip" is very interesting, but I'm afraid that from the point of view of the Israelis it is worth very little. Indeed, the whole history of Israeli dispossession, occupation, and repression of the Palestinians already should have given them a "moral bargaining chip" of much greater weight--except that the moral blindness of the Israelis prevent them from seeing it that way.

    • jnslater March 25, 2011 at 10:55 pm with 8 replies

      Several comments have read the last sentence of my first paragraph as meaning that I am accusing gentiles who believe that Zionism was never justified as being antisemitic. I can see how that sentence can be read in that manner but that was not my intention, and indeed comes close to reversing the point I was trying to make.

      Anyway, on my own blog I have rewritten the first paragraph, which now reads:

      "A small but growing number of Israeli and American Jewish critics of Israel have concluded that the root cause of Israel's continuing oppression of the Palestinians is Zionism, which at its core is the belief that the Jewish people have both the right and the need of a state of their own. Some of them even argue that because of the inherent conflict between Zionism and the rights of the Palestinian people, the creation of a Jewish state in part of Palestine was never justified. Tellingly, though, almost all who so argue are Jewish, for few Western gentiles of good will--by whom I mean those who are not merely non-antisemitic but who deplore and deeply feel that Christianity bears a heavy responsibility for historic antisemitism--are prepared to go that far, whatever their criticisms of Israel today.

      Most contemporary Jewish critics of Zionism hold to a more moderate view, that of "post-Zionism"....

    • jnslater March 25, 2011 at 4:46 pm with 13 replies

      Annie:

      I gather you disagree with my argument. Your first two comments, though based on a careless reading of my argument, were at least within the realm of serious discourse--that's why I answered them. But I'm sure as hell not going to waste my time on juvenile sarcasm based on an inability to comprehend a complex argument. So from now on you will know why I don't answer you.

      Go ahead, sputter away.

    • jnslater March 25, 2011 at 4:26 pm with 1 replies

      Donald:
      "Western gentiles–These are motivated by anti-semitism." I'm not sure where this comes from--in no sense do I believe or say that all Western gentiles who oppose Zionism are anti-Semitic. If anything, I say the opposite: see my response to Annie's first comment.

      Noticing the fact that there were Palestinians already in Palestine obviously doesn't make you evil, because I've also "noticed" this for about sixty years or so, so that would also make me evil. Again, read the whole post,in which I try to come to grips with how to reconcile Zionism with Justice to the Palestinians.

    • jnslater March 25, 2011 at 4:21 pm with 6 replies

      Hi, Annie:

      The "few if any Gentiles" comment was a little cryptic. What I meant to say that almost all of the arguments I've read by those who said that the creation of Israel was never justified have come from Jews, because almost all Gentiles of good will (by which I mean are not merely non-anti-Semitic but those who deplore and deeply feel that Christianity bears a heavy responsibility for historic anti-Semitism) have been very reluctant to criticize Israel, until recently, and none that I know of make the more extreme argument about Zionism.

      In fact, I certainly don't classify you as a Gentile of non-goodwill, because of your argument that you would have accepted the original creation of Israel if it could have been done without harming the Palestinians. Of course, this is a very serious issue, and I have addressed it in the full essay---one of the purposes of which was to address serious argument that differ from my own, and to develop my position at some length.

      Also, if you read the entire essay, you will see that in no sense do I even rationalize--let alone justify--the Nakba. On the contrary, I say that there were alternatives that the Zionists didn't try, and that if I thought that the Nakba was the only way Israel could have been established as a Jewish state, I would argue it shouldn't have been created.

  • There is no practical solution, and that is why I talk about rights
    • jnslater March 9, 2011 at 10:08 am

      Re CKM's great commentary on what else was going on in 1948, demonstrating that "the devilish Israelis may not be the worst devils available." No, of course not. However, for us Jewish "liberal Zionists," they are the most salient ones, because they are OUR devils. You may not fully realize the extent to which we Jews, at least of my generation (I'm 76), imbibed with our mother's milk that the Jewish people, as a whole, were both smarter and more moral than the goyim, as a whole. Not only that, you could make the case that we weren't ENTIRELY foolish, as lots of the gentile elites expected more from us, which was a great compliment. So Israel comes not merely as a rude awakening, but an absolute betrayal of what, for we secular Jews, was the main point of being Jewish.

    • jnslater March 7, 2011 at 2:24 pm

      CK writes: "The notion seems to be that the state of Israel is being brought before a tribunal for murder of Palestinians, and everyone thinks that a merely negligent homicide mitigated by self-defense would be sufficient for acquittal."

      Actually, that wouldn't be my argument. If I thought that the murder and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians had been a "necessary" and unavoidable consequence of the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, then I would agree that the Jewish state should not have been established there. So my argument is that there were a number of alternatives to the Nakba, none of which the Israelis even contemplated, let alone tried. To be developed...

      By the way, as you can guess, I am in entire agreement with your criticism of SSG, that it is hard to see how Palestinian rights can be realized in the absence of their own state.

    • jnslater March 7, 2011 at 2:15 pm

      "So I ask you this: if the purpose of the Jewish state is to eliminate antisemitism, and the actual existence of a Jewish state has only exacerbated the problem of antisemitism, does it not defeat its purpose? And if it defeats its purpose, why should it exist?"

      First, at the risk of repeating myself, the purpose of the Jewish state is not to eliminate antisemitism; on the contrary, it assumes its continued existence. Therefore its purpose is provide a refuge against particularly severe outbreaks.

      Second, there is no evidence that the existence of the Jewish state has exacerbated the problem of antisemitism--certainly not in the west, and plausibly not even in the Middle East. The fact that the decline of anti-Semitism coincides with the existence of a Jewish state makes it pretty hard to make the case that the Jewish state has led to an increase in anti-Semitism.

      Third, what do you mean, "why should it exist?" I hope by that you don't mean that Israel should literally cease to exist, but it doesn't help establish your credibility if you don't make that explicit.

      Let's assume that what you mean is that Israel as a formally-recognized Jewish state should "cease to exist." As I've argued, such a case can be made, but so can a case for its continued existence. What it comes down to is this: if Israel insists that recognition of its continued existence as a Jewish state is a necessary part of any overall two-state settlement with the Palestinians, then that is not an unreasonable demand and the Palestinians should accept it.

      Of course, what I mean by an "overall two state settlement" is a fair settlement that embodies the best ideas of various two-state proposals. If Israel accepted all those proposals, but continued to insist on the Jewish state idea, would it be wise for the world or the Palestinians to refuse it?

      And if the Palestinians accepted the Israeli insistence--and there are already signs that many of its leaders would, in the context of an overall settlement--would you and other anti-Zionists accuse them of selling out?

    • jnslater March 7, 2011 at 8:18 am

      Potsherd2:

      "There is the missing link in your logic, jnslater. It begs the very question that the Holocaust justified the creation of the Jewish state. This is the precise link that many of us explicitly deny."

      Yes, you're right: deny that link and there is no place to go in this discussion. I don't "beg the question," rather I have repeatedly argued that not just the Holocaust but 2000 years of often-murderous anti-Semitism made the case for a Jewish state a prima facie one. True, it did not establish the case for the location of that state in Palestine, a much more complicated issue that can't be addressed here, but which I shortly will.

      To be sure, "prima facie" cases can be refuted, but that requires an extended argument, not just mere assertions, like "we deny it." Whether or not Israel should continue to define itself as a Jewish state, privileging Jews over nonJews, is a serious question, with substantial arguments on both sides. However, whether or not the creation of a Jewish state was justified when it was created by the UN in 1947 was a much less serious question, at least in the minds of historically-knowledgable and well-intentioned people and governments throughout the West.

      And again, it is possible that they--we--may be wrong, but the burden of proof is the other way around: you have to make a strong and convincing argument, not merely assert, that the history of anti-Semitism is irrelevant. If you fail to do that, it is your argument that is irrelevant.

      Potsherd2: "if the continued existence of a Jewish state proves to be the cause of increased antisemitism, it only argues that the state should be eliminated for the sake of reducing the possibility of antisemitism."

      Talk about begging the question. There is no evidence that the existence of a Jewish state has increased antisemitism; I won't repeat the argument that I made earlier, addressing this question. And even if it did, it hardly follows that the Jewish state should be "eliminated," whatever that's supposed to mean.

    • jnslater March 6, 2011 at 9:49 pm with 21 replies

      There is no question, as David Samel and others have pointed out, that Israel cries "anti-Semitism" when it doesn't exist, that it has encouraged Jews to flee some countries when it was not necessary or justified, that it shamelessly exploits the Holocaust to rebut all criticisms, and that if there were little or no anti-Semitism, the major justification for Zionism and Jewish state argument would be insupportable, or nearly so.

      It's the next steps in this chain of logic, however, that are fallacious: just because Israel exploits the Holocaust doesn't mean that there wasn't one and that it clinched the argument for a Jewish state, and just because Israel cries anti-Semitism when it isn't justified, it doesn't necessarily follow that anti-Semitism cannot revive once again--just as it has dozens of times in the past--justifying the continued need, in extremis, for a Jewish state.

      I do think I should add that I owe Keith an apology. He is justifiedly losing patience with those who continue to think that the purpose of Zionism was to rescue Jews from death, rather than from assimilation. The Russian pogromists wanted nothing more than to convince the Jews to assimilate, and of course that was also Hitler's goal.

      Keith has explained this to us repeatedly, and yet I just can't seem to remember.

    • jnslater March 6, 2011 at 6:27 pm with 7 replies

      Potsherd2
      1. Agreed, as I carelessly stated it, my comment was post-hoc, ergo propter hoc. I should have said that Samel has no basis to assert that Zionism has not resulted in a lessening of anti-Semitism, since it is an observable fact that it the lessening of anti-Semitism and the victory of Zionism in Israel have coincided. Granted, that doesn't prove a causal relationship between the two, but it does shift the burden of evidential proof to Samel's argument, not mine.

      2. You say "There is no logical means by which the creation of Israel could be seen to cause the diminution of antisemitism;" rather it was a reaction to the Holocaust. But I didn't say it was the creation of Israel, per se, that led to diminished antisemitism, I said it was "it is perfectly plausible that admiration of the Jewish state--whether or not it was deserved" had that effect. During the cold war, Americans fell in love with Israel's brand of tough anticommunism and its military prowess, and for a long time after the cold war--maybe still today--Americans admired Israel for its alleged toughness on terrorism. And that translated into reduced anti-Semitism.

      Of course, the Holocaust had the same effect. Thus, the explanation for the decline of anti-Semitism is multicausal, but what doesn't stand up is the proposition that since the creation of Israel anti-Semitism has increased--at least at the global level, and at least, not yet.

    • jnslater March 6, 2011 at 4:35 pm with 33 replies

      Shmuel:
      You ask whether "an unequal partition (the only remotely “imaginable” kind), with continued Israeli control over Palestinian life, resources (primarily land and water), freedom of movement, etc. really have any less chance, “in principle”, than a single state with equal rights for all?"

      The standard two-state solution, embodied in every serious proposal-- including the Clinton proposals, the Beilin-Abu Mazen plan, the Geneva Initiative, the Arab League proposal.and the abortive Olmert-Abbas negotiations-- is NOT based on continued Israeli control over Palestinian life, land, water, freedom of movement, etc. If it did, it would not be a two-state "solution" but a slightly modified continuation of the status quo, and no one who refuses to give up on the creation of a genuinely viable and free Palestinian state would approve of such a non-solution.

    • jnslater March 6, 2011 at 4:13 pm with 12 replies

      David Samel writes: "Even accepting Jerry Slater’s concern about a potential resurgence of anti-Semitism, the Jewish State is not the answer. I would add that not only has Zionism not reduced anti-Semitism, that is as much by design as by accident, because there is a perverse symbiotic relationship between Zionism and world-wide anti-Semitism. Zionism depends on the latter, or at least the appearance of it, to justify the necessity for a Jewish State."

      First, do you really want to defend the argument that Zionism "by design" creates anti-Semitism, so as to justify its existence?

      Second, how do you know that Zionism has not reduced anti-Semitism, since it is an observable fact that anti-Semitism as a global phenomena has declined since the creation of Israel? To begin, you are lumping Zionism together with the behavior of Israel to the Palestinians, which was not an inevitable outcome of Zionism--although I know that some will contend that it was. Of course, those who so contend will have to explain "liberal Zionism," which holds to the desirability or need for a Jewish state, even as it detests Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

      Beyond that it is perfectly plausible that admiration of the Jewish state--whether or not it was deserved is a different question--has led to a decrease rather than an increase in anti-Semitism. Not only perfectly plausible--but highly likely to be true in the case of the United States, and probably also Europe.

      Further, to say that Zionism "depends" on anti-Semitism, or even "the appearance" of it, seems to suggest that Zionism manufactures it, to justify its existence. That is a very odd argument. Zionism grew out of very real anti-Semitism, not the appearance of it. Nor does its justification depend on a resurgence of "worldwide viral anti-Semitism," just on the historically-justified concern that it could reappear someplace. Do you think it could be ruled out in Russia, for example? Evidently the hundreds of thousands of Jews who left Russia to go to Israel in the 1980s didn't think so.

    • jnslater March 6, 2011 at 1:55 pm with 44 replies

      In the next week or so I will be posting a long essay on my own blog (jeromeslater.com) which will address all these interrelated issues: Zionism, Post-Zionism, the Jewish state issue, the binational vs. the two-state solution. For now, just a few brief comments:

      Shmuel writes: "it may technically be possible for Israel to be a Jewish state while affording full equality to its (minority) Palestinian citizens, but as long as the parameters of the state's “Jewishness” and “democracy” remain entirely self-referential - i.e. based on and controlled by the sensibilities of the (majority) Jewish population, the balance will inevitably tip toward “Jewish” at the expense of “democratic.”

      Undoubtedly--but how would a binational state differ? In such a state the Jews would still have overwhelming political, economic, and military power. You can't solve such problems by definitional stipulations, such as saying that in a binational state everyone would be equal

      To be sure, Shmuel concedes that the practical obstacles to establishing a binational state are overwhelming, but argues that the 2-state solution is equally so. This leads him to this conclusion: "So what is the alternative? Forget about solutions and focus on Palestinian rights and their constant and flagrant violation. The one-state idea is utopian, but it represents a vision of true equality that is useful in describing and promoting Palestinian rights, even in the absence of a solution. Since talk of unrealistic solutions does come up from time to time however, I see no reason not to espouse the better vision."

      I disagree on two grounds. First, on practical grounds: if one says that the 2ss is dead, then the 1ss solution is even deader--for either to be realized would require major changes in Israeli attitudes. However, the required Israeli attitudinal changes that would make a 2ss feasible are far less than those that would make a 1ss feasible . I would put it this way: given Israeli attitudes, a 2ss solution is improbable, but not unimaginable; whereas for the Israelis to agree to a 1ss, the necessary changes are indeed unimaginable.

      Second, I disagree that a 1ss is the "better vision," even in principle. Given the disparities in power, as well as the history of conflict, a two-state solution, one that led to a genuinely viable and truly sovereign Palestinian state, would better ensure Palestinian self-determination, control over their own destiny, equality, and democracy--and it would have a far better chance of creating a lasting peace than a binational state, which today and into the foreseeable future is a recipe for instability and conflict.

      Finally, Shmuel concludes that because he doesn't believe "there is any solution at all," he supports "a rights- rather than solution-based approach." I don't know what this means. If one says that no solution will work, then you are also saying that Israel must continue to occupy and control the Palestinians. So what would a "rights-based" solution look like in that context? Does it mean that the Israelis would grant somewhat more freedom to the Palestinians, so long as they did not challenge Israeli rule? That would make it an "enlightened" colonialism, or at least somewhat more enlightened, but would not end colonialism or the occupation, just make it somewhat less oppressive. Moreover, it would be easily reversible by Israel if the Palestinian resistance became a serious threat to continued Israeli occupation and rule.

      It's been said many times, but it can't be said too often: "the enemy of the good is the perfect." To persist in an utterly quixotic venture like an imaginary perfectly just binational state is to ensure that the Palestinians will receive no justice at all.

  • But we don't live in an ideal world
    • jnslater February 17, 2011 at 8:21 am with 1 replies

      Shingo:

      Thanks for your courteous and articulate comments. Some of the issues you raise I will address in a forthcoming essay on my own blog. Others I have already addressed--you just don't agree with the answer.

      One query for you: so far as I know, the only serious alternative to Palestine as a homeland/state for the Jews was the British colony in Africa, now Uganda. But Uganda was also populated and the British had no more right to designate it as a Jewish homeland than they did in Palestine. Had it been offered to the Zionists--and had they accepted, which they wouldn't--it would have just created an Israeli-African conflict.

      Where else in the world was uninhabited, disposable, and a suitable place for a state? I have a certain perspective on these arguments, for I sometimes see it written that one of the other places "suggested" for a Jewish state was Grand Island, NY. I was especially curious about this suggestion because Grand Island is a few miles from my home--a small island in the Niagara River, just south of Niagara Falls. I don't remember the details, but it turns out that it crossed someone's mind that Grand Island might make a nice Jewish homeland. So far as I know, there was no such "offer" made to the Zionist movement, nor could there have been by anyone with the real power to dispose of Grand Island.

      There was only one place in the world that might have really been a serious alternative to Palestine: parts of Germany after WWII. An area that clearly could have supported the creation of a state, one that could have been offered to the Zionists by an authority that had both the power and moral legitimacy to do so, and one in which the fact that it already had a large indigenous population was entirely irrelevant, both in moral and power terms.

      I believe that there is some evidence that this possibility was briefly considered by the U.S., but quickly dismissed. Too bad.

      A final comment. You and many others often commend me for my "courage." It doesn't take much courage to take on the issues I write about, as there are no consequences, other than a few insults. Let's reserve the characterization of courageous for, say, truth-tellers who face jail or worse in autocratic states.

    • jnslater February 16, 2011 at 5:35 pm with 7 replies

      For thirty years I taught classes about the Arab-Israeli or Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and for over forty years I have written about it—for professional journals, for the general public, and recently in Mondoweiss and my own blog. During that time I have been a strenuous opponent of Israeli policies and behavior towards the Palestinians. Consider my concluding sentences in three of my most recent commentaries:
      1. In a March 2009 article for Tikkun, in which I argued that Israel’s 2008-09 attack on Gaza violated every single moral principle that governs warfare, I concluded: “The continuing Israeli oppression of the Palestinians is not merely immoral, it is almost unfathomably stupid.”
      2. In my chapter in the Horowitz/Ratner/Weiss book, The Goldstone Report, I argued that in some ways the Goldstone report actually let the Israelis off the hook; I concluded with these words: “The uncontestable facts leave no doubt that the Israeli attack on Gaza constituted a grave war crime. Indeed, by accepting that Israel had a case for self-defense and by failing to include a full discussion of previous Israeli attacks on Palestinian and other Arab civilians and infrastructure, the Goldstone Commission actually understated the full range and import of Israeli criminality. “
      3. And in the very column that set off a storm of insults and outrage on this site, my Feb. 7 comment on a recent article about Israel, I wrote: “How can it be that a Jewish state has become so degraded, so criminal, so hopeless?”

      One might think this record would immunize me against the charges in this blog—not, mind you, from “pro-Israeli” quarters but from people with whom I am about 90% in agreement--that my argument, among other things, was “offensive,” “appalling,” “disgusting,”and “viciously racist”; that I am “dishonest,” a teller of “tired lies,” a “lame apologist” for “Israel’s crimes and the crime of its creation”; and that I am a justifier of “mass murder and ethnic cleansing.”

      Please do not misunderstand me. I am NOT arguing that my experience and record should make me immune from substantive criticism—that would be absurd. Rather, what I am arguing is that those who make such inane charges eliminate themselves from any serious discussion.

      To elaborate: if you want to be taken seriously in debates or discourse over serious and often complex issues—like whether Israel should be considered a Jewish state—you must meet certain intellectual requirements. These are not my requirements, they are those that have long been recognized as necessary prerequisites or components for serious discourse.

      First, you must argue with at least minimal civility, avoiding ad hominum arguments, insults, and rants.

      Second, you must be aware of and acknowledge the relevant facts. As Daniel Moynihan famously said, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.” A number of comments here fail to meet this rather obvious criterion, for they fail to acknowledge—indeed, a few seem to be quite unaware of—the long history of global anti-Semitism, often quite murderous anti-Semitism.

      It is a demonstrable fact that such murderous anti-Semitism has repeatedly broken out around the world, even in countries in which Jews were not only long treated with tolerance but rose to positions of power and honor, sometimes for centuries. I am not here going to go into those two thousand years of history—it is sufficient to observe that it was the Russian and East European pogroms of the late 19th-early 20th century that led to the creation of the Zionist movement, and it was the Nazi Holocaust that convinced most people, around the world, that the creation of a Jewish state was a moral necessity.

      Put differently, both recent and past history led to a strong (though not unanimous) consensus that the Zionist case for the creation of a Jewish state to serve as a refuge against anti-Semitism was an exceptionally powerful one. However: the Zionist case that such a state had to be in Palestine and nowhere else, regardless of the will and the rights of the indigenous people, was not at all a powerful one. Hence the tragic dilemma: there was a prima facie case for the Jews to have a state of their own, but no place to put it without violating another people’s rights. In my short blog I suggested that there were a great many things that the Zionists and Israelis could and should have done to mitigate, to make up for, the inevitable injustice done to the Palestinians, none of which they did. To begin but hardly to end with the most blindingly obvious point, the Zionists should not have murdered and expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, regardless of their need for a Jewish state.

      I recognize the need to develop this argument, and will soon do so soon on my own blog. Moreover, I have not addressed the argument that even if a Jewish state was a necessity over half a century ago, it no longer is, allegedly because anti-Semitism has been eliminated. For now, just a brief comment. Some of my critics seem to be arguing that because anti-Semitism has essentially ended in the United States, that destroys the argument that a Jewish state is still necessary. The refutation of such an argument should be obvious: fifty years is way too soon to be so confident and, more importantly, if there should be any recurrence of murderous anti-Semitism, the U.S. is not likely to be the problem. .

      A third requirement for serious discourse is that you must have the ability to make distinctions, particularly elementary ones. I acknowledged that a Jewish state would and probably should continue to grant Jews around the world the right to emigrate to Israel, a right that it would not grant to non-Jews. I further argued that this was a relatively small departure from what must be the rights of the Israeli Arab minority to be treated with full dignity and with full human, political, economic, and social rights. Nonetheless, there was much huffing and puffing to the effect that ANY privileging of one group over another was a moral catastrophe that “conflicts in basic principle with human rights,” as one comment went.

      In the real world, there are always differences of circumstance and degree. There are not just two possible societies, one of them perfectly just and the other perfectly unjust. A refusal to recognize that reality is utopian, simplistic, and an impediment to clear thinking. In this connection, I would refer you to CK MacLeod’s Feb. 15 comment, which makes this point much better than I have.

      A final criterion for serious discourse is that you must state the argument that you wish to refute AS YOUR ADVERSARY STATES IT, avoiding strawmen and caricatures. Here are a few of the comments that fail to meet that criterion, and are therefore beneath any extended refutation:

      *The “core” of my argument was not that the “Jews are more important than other people” nor that, in a particularly loony charge, that “Jews be granted privileges denied to the rest of humanity.” The core of my argument is that the Jews have the same “privileges” as do all humanity, meaning the rights to a free, secure, and normal life-- rights that historically have been repeatedly denied to them. Nor do I need to be told that the Palestinians also have that those rights—that’s precisely what I have been teaching and writing about for the last forty years.

      *I argued that the creation of a Jewish state in 1948 was “necessary,” not the Nakba. Indeed, I know of no other “self-righteous Zio-supremacist” who argues that the Nakba was necessary. On second thought, I suppose there are some--these days Benny Morris comes uncomfortably close—but they are hardly typical of Zionists, and damned well not of me.

      *I did not argue that the Palestinians “should forget their history of mistreatment at the hands of Israeli Jews,” that “the Palestinians have to take it and lump it,” or that they should “trust” the Israelis to live up to any commitment to treat the Israeli Arabs with full equality. I argued, rather, that there was still a case for a Jewish state, and that in the context of the creation of a genuinely independent and viable Palestinian state, together with an Israeli commitment to full political, social, and economic equality for the Israeli Arabs, the Palestinians should acknowledge it. I specifically stated that there would be no guarantee with the Israelis would live up to such a commitment, but that there was no way to force them to do so and that therefore the best hope that they would do so lies in a settlement of the overall Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a settlement that would be made more likely by a Palestinian acknowledgment of Israel as a Jewish state.

      Why more likely? Because whatever the cynicism of Netanyahu, the demand for a formally-recognized Jewish state is not merely “a meaningless stunt to humiliate the Palestinians,” but reflects a genuine and deep-seated Israeli fear of the ultimate intentions of the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular. This fear may be misplaced, exaggerated, or the unavoidable consequence of the Israelis’ own occupation and repression of the Palestinians; even so, it is a reality that must be reckoned with, even if only by a symbolic Palestinian acknowledgment of a fact of life, namely that Israel has always been, precisely, a Jewish state.

      I do not mean to imply that all of the comments I received on my blog failed, in one way or another, to meet the necessary criteria for serious discussion. On the contrary, many of the critics of my argument stated their position civilly, thoughtfully, and subtly. As I have said, it is my intention to discuss those criticisms in a new and extended piece I plan to write in the near future.

  • Slater on Shulman's Israel: 'moral nihilism and sheer stupidity'
    • jnslater February 9, 2011 at 2:27 pm with 4 replies

      Tree: You haven't taken into account that I was being pushed by others to respond to their criticisms, and being told that my failure to do so proved I had no defense. Nonetheless, it was a big mistake to have tried to explain, and believe me, it will never happen again.

      That said, if similar situations arise in the future, I will count on you to explain my silence.

    • jnslater February 8, 2011 at 6:05 pm with 1 replies

      I now see that I made a mistake in how I explained why I answer some criticisms but not others. I apologize to those to whom I did not intend to offend, such as Tree. Let me try again.

      It simply isn't possible for me to respond to all comments and criticisms, certainly not in any thoughtful way, which could require hundreds if not thousands of new words. One way out of the problem would be to adopt a policy of no responses to criticisms: simply say what I have to say and let the chips fall where they may. That doesn't seem right to me. Therefore, in any future postings of mine that Phil chooses to run, I will respond to those than seem the most interesting to me while at the same time being amenable to a reasonably brief reply.

      This by no means necessarily implies disrespect to those I don't respond to, for as I have indicated that could be for a variety of reasons, not excluding a certain amount of my own laziness. That said, I won't deny that I have no interest in arguments that distort mine or are incoherently stated.

    • jnslater February 8, 2011 at 3:23 pm with 4 replies

      To all:

      "You only engage with those who treat you with kid gloves." Wearing my Jerome Slater professor (emeritus) hat, I say: I beg to differ. Wearing my Jerry Slater hat, I say: horseshit.

      It's not possible to respond to every critic, so I usually choose to respond to those who fit into one of the following categories: (a) those who understand my argument and don't impute to me ridiculous positions that I not only don't hold, but repeatedly seek to refute; (b) those who raise issues that I haven't already addressed, at least more-or-less; and ,especially, (c) those who raise the most interesting, cogently argued, and challenging questions.

    • jnslater February 8, 2011 at 2:58 pm with 2 replies

      "Wouldn’t any official state privilege bestowed upon American Christians be of particular concern to you?"

      David: Of course, but this is the heart of our disagreement. Living in America today, that would concern me. However, if I were a Palestinian living in Israel or Israeli-occupied territory today, I would leap at an offer to exchange a symbolic recognition of Israel as a Jewish state for the creation of a viable Palestinian state and a serious commitment to give equal economic, social, and political rights to Israeli Palestinians.

      This has been a useful and civilized discussion, but we've probably taken it as far as it can go. Still, I can't resist an attempt to sneak in a last word: There's a long-established wisdom that helps us think about this and many other issues: "The enemy of the good is the perfect."

    • jnslater February 8, 2011 at 12:12 pm with 7 replies

      David: No, I do not advocate that the Palestinians, or anyone elsewhere, must or should accept their status as second class citizens. You have an all-or-nothing premise: either there is no "partiality" at all, or minorities must always be "second class."

      The US population is mostly Christian. This has some consequences: for example, Christmas has a greater public emphasis than, say, Hanukkah. Does that make Jews "second class citizens?" If so, only in a purely symbolic manner of no consequence, and one that is far outweighed by the manner in which Jews are not treated as second class.

      I am suggesting that in a Jewish state it would be possible to privilege certain matters of particular concern to Jews, but yet not mean that the Arabs would be treated as second class in all other ways of far greater consequence. You appear to be simply denying such a possibility, but you have provided no analysis of why such a system is impossible.

      Similarly, Woody asks: what meaning could be attached to a "Jewish" state if everyone was in fact treated equally? A reasonable question, but one which could have an answer. As implied by my response to David, not everyone would be treated with total equality, just in most of the ways which really matter. An Israel formally acknowledged by the Palestinians to be a Jewish state--which of course it is now, whether formally acknowledged or not--would continue to be predominantly Jewish, in culture and religion, and most importantly, could continue as a potential place of refuge for Jews facing persecution.

      Try this thought experiment. Imagine Israel agrees to the creation of a Palestinian state on the terms being requested by Mahmoud Abbas et al, except that it insists on an acknowledgment that Israel is a Jewish state. Further imagine that the Jewish state of Israel commits itself to fully equal rights to the Palestinian minority that continues to prefer living in Israel--and then it lives up to that commitment. Would the Palestinians, in Israel or the Palestinian state, have been foolish to accept such an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

      Overall: I don't think my argument can be defeated by pointing out the obvious, that Israel discriminates--or worse--against the Palestinians. That assumes that change is not possible, what is must always be. There is no basis for such assumptions, either about Israel or other matters.

    • jnslater February 8, 2011 at 8:58 am with 7 replies

      David;

      But I agree with both you and Dershowitz that names matter, and that if Israel were acknowledged by one and all to be a Jewish state, that would "indicate partiality to certain segments of the population." My argument is precisely that there are good historical reasons for there to be just one Jewish state--but only so long as its non-Jewish minorities have equal rights across the board.

      Put differently, what matters is (1) the justification for partiality, and (2) the extent of the partiality.

    • jnslater February 7, 2011 at 4:01 pm with 2 replies

      Hi, Maggie (if I may):

      Your questions are excellent. Unfortunately, I can't fully respond to your first one, but in 2000 I wrote a long article for Tikkun, which covers some of the issues: It's available online at link to tikkun.org

      What I meant by saying that Palestinian dispossession was tragically inevitable is this: so long as the Zionist movement insisted on a Jewish state--which I think was justified--by 1947 there simply was no other place to have put it, other than in some part of Palestine. This tragedy, or insoluable moral dilemma could have been mitigated in many ways, however, beginning with a Jewish willingness to accept only part of Palestine, not 78%, as well as by a Zionist commitment to do everything possible to remedy the inevitable injustice to the Palestinians in every possible way, short of agreeing to disband the state and go somewhere else.

      It is not difficult to think of other ways to have mitigated the injustice: just start with most of the things Israel has actually done to the Palestinians throughout the history of the conflict, and then do the opposite.

      Ah, how can there be a Jewish state without privileging the Jews? For most of the history of Israel, the Israeli Arabs or Palestinians have comprised some 17-20% of the total Israeli population. Under those circumstances, there is no inherent conflict between full and equal rights, including political rights, for the Palestinians and those for the Jews.

      Suppose, however, the ratio of Jews-nonJews were to drastically change, I don't know, let's say 40% nonJewish or even a majority? I guess my answer is that while that would pose a perhaps irreconcilable dilemma to a Jewish-yet-democratic-state, it is almost certainly a hypothetical one--especially if a viable Palestinian state is created.

      But, suppose it actually happened, whatever the unlikelihood: what then? Certainly one possibility is that at that point there would REALLY have to be a choice: a Jewish state, or a democratic one. What would I choose? Short of draconic but unlikely circumstances, I would choose a binational and genuine democracy.

      Thanks for your challenging thoughts,

      Jerry

    • jnslater February 7, 2011 at 12:34 pm with 8 replies

      Avi: "I’m afraid that Slater’s Utopian ideal of Zionism and of Israel is once again clashing with the reality of Israel."

      Me? A Utopian idealizer of Zionism and Israel? Gosh, who knew?

      My argument has long been that (1)there was a rational historical basis for the Zionist movement, BUT (2)that it clashed with the moral and historical right of the Palestinians to Palestine, a tragedy that was probably inevitable but which the Israelis might have mitigated in many ways, none of which they did, and (3)that in any case Israel has become a betrayal of what most of the world expected from a Jewish state.

      Further, the argument that Zionism is now anachronistic, that there is no longer any need or rationale for a Jewish state, is at odds with the long history of often-murderous anti-Semitism, even in states that had a very long history of not merely tolerating but favoring its Jewish minority.

      For that reason, I would categorize the argument that there is no longer any basis for Zionism as, let us say, Premature Post-Zionism.

      My bottom line: I would have no problem with Israel continuing as a primarily Jewish state, if--but ONLY if-- (1) it supported the creation of a genuinely independent and economically viable Palestinian state (West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, no settlers, Temple Mount/Haram Al-Sharif jointly administered under international sovereignty, etc) and (2) the Israeli Arab minority in Israel was treated with full civil, societal, economic, and political rights.

      On second thought, given the state of Israel, I suppose that could be characterized as "Utopian." Perhaps, but any other "solution" would be more so, and by large orders of magnitude.

  • Once again, Dershowitz issues an ad hominem attack on Goldstone
    • jnslater January 12, 2011 at 5:20 pm

      Aside from his many other defects, Dershowitz evidently missed his first grade classes, when elementary arithmetic was taught. Although he crows with delight at the interview with the Hamas man, and seemingly accepts his figures without question, when you add them up they confirm not only the Goldstone report (and the reports of a number of other human rights organizations), they may be even more damning. Here's what Dershowitz quotes from the Hamas interview: "It is a fact that on the first day of the war Israel struck police headquarters and killed 250 members of Hamas and the various factions, in addition to the 200-300 operatives from the [Izz al-Din] al-Qassam Brigades. In addition, 150 security personnel were killed, and the rest were from people."

      So, even if you accept that the 250 policemen should be classified as "combatants"--which many experts in international law do not--the total figure of Hamas militants killed is, at most, 700. Since the commonly accepted estimate is that 1400 Palestinians were killed, that means that half or more of them were civilians. That's just what was claimed by Goldstone and most human rights groups.

  • Entry 5: Zionism's call to me-- and my answer
    • jnslater December 31, 2010 at 12:21 pm with 11 replies

      Hi, David:

      Let us continue our debate--or, better said, dialogue. I want to respond to a couple of your counterarguments--as well as those of a few other commentators-- with some counter-counterarguments.

      Anti-Semitism: I agree that most anti-Semitism today is a reaction to Israel's crimes, that a new Holocaust is highly unlikely, and that Jews are generally safe and protected--though certainly more in the West than "throughout the world," as you claim. But this ignores past history: you know as well as I do the history of virulent anti-Semitism breaking out after many years--maybe centuries--of relative Jewish acceptance, assimilation, and safety. On what basis can you assume that this will never happen again? It is this history that is the last remaining legitimate argument for Zionism, and it cannot just be dismissed out of hand.

      You also argue that there are other minorities that are more endangered than Jews; other commentators have cited discrimination or hatred of homosexuals. Agreed. But not relevant. Suppose there was a great intensification of global anti-homosexuality, including massive violence? In that case, the world's homosexuals would have an excellent claim that only with a state of their own can they be safe. Where to put it without violating the rights of other peoples would be a different matter--just as was for Zionism--but that is much too complicated for me to address here.

      Feasibility. You are "disheartened" about my pessimism, but then appear to concede it is "realistic." I'm disheartened too, but if realistic analysis leads to pessimism, should we change the analysis because it will make us feel better? And what of the consequences of unwarranted optimism when the chickens come home to roost? It happens all the time, often with disastrous consequences.

      One-state vs. Two-state. No need to convince me that the prospects are poor, and I agree with everything you say about why that is so. As for the one-state solution, you, at least inferentially, seem to agree it is unlikely, but you go on to list other events that seem unlikely (collapse of Soviet Union, etc.) but which nonetheless occurred. Of course. But how about all the events throughout history which also appeared unlikely and in fact proved to be: nuclear disarmament, universal democracy, end of war, etc?

      So both the one-state and two-state solutions are unlikely. It's just that it's easier for me to envisage circumstances which could change the prospects for the latter than for the former: for example, a general recognition among Israelis that their insane policies are making them international pariahs and undermining rather than protecting their security. Here your argument that apparently unlikely things sometimes do occur applies equally--I would say much more--to the two-state solution than for the one-state.

      Finally, embedded in my lack of support for the one-state solution is not only that I think it unlikely, but that it could make things worse, or at least no better. One-staters seem unwilling to ponder the implications of the long history of civil wars within states that contain differing ethnic groups, religions, nationalities, races, etc. To be sure, some work: the U.S., Switzerland, Canada, and others. But what about many, many others including, for example, Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, and the seemingly endless civil conflicts in Africa?

      In short, my position is that not only is an eventual two-state solution less infeasible than a one-state, but that in light of the long history of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, separating the peoples into genuinely independent and viable states has a better chance of promoting peace, democracy, and human rights for both peoples.

    • jnslater December 30, 2010 at 5:05 pm with 30 replies

      Very well done, David--as always. However, we continue to differ in two important ways. First, I can't go as far as you in your confidence that Zionism's original (and most important) component, a refuge for existing and possibly future victims of severe anti-Semitism, is no longer necessary. As you suggest, perhaps because (at least in part) it is a generational difference--your mid-fifties, my mid-seventies.

      Second, I see no realistic prospect of a one-state "solution," so whether or not it would be better than a two state settlement is moot. And while the two-state solution doesn't look much more feasible now, it is at least possible to envision circumstances in which it could become feasible, whereas I can envision no circumstances that would lead to one state.

  • Slater: What's really wrong with the Goldstone Report
    • jnslater December 15, 2010 at 9:08 am with 1 replies

      I'd like to thank Phil and many others for the kind comments. They are much appreciated. Since I spent some 40 years as a political "scientist," mostly writing academic articles for professional journals, most of which promptly dropped into a black hole, it's very nice to know that what I write now is actually read.

      As for my critics, Daniel Moynihan's famous comment couldn't be more apropos: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

    • jnslater December 14, 2010 at 12:11 pm with 1 replies

      AS Seafoid suggests, it is certainly possible that Goldstone decided not to address the issue of whether Israel had any right of self-defense, at least in part because he anticipated the firestorm of rage that would ensue even from the softer version and therefore chose not to go even further. If that's the case, his decision was understandable, and maybe even necessary--but that shouldn't prevent others from making the stronger case.

  • Why I disrupted Bibi's speech - A response to Ben Sales at New Voices
    • jnslater November 10, 2010 at 11:23 pm

      I must confess that I had my doubts about the wisdom and effectiveness of the interruptions, but Matthew's comments are so wonderfully articulate and powerfully argued that I no longer have those doubts.

  • Benny Morris, former historian
  • Slater responds to the 'Obamaphilia' charge
    • jnslater July 12, 2010 at 7:05 pm with 1 replies

      I'd like to make a last general reply to today's criticisms.

      1. Civil liberties and other non-Israeli issues. I don’t know enough about the issues to have a strong opinion on the justifiability of Obama’s continuation of some of Bush’s actions in “the war on terrorism.” That said, I would make a couple of points. First, I am not a civil liberties absolutist—I accept the possibility that when genuine national security issues are involved, it might be necessary to restrict certain civil liberties with respect to certain people or groups. Not knowing enough, I can’t say whether or not Obama’s actions fall into this category.
      Second, Bush was an obvious fool, both intellectually and morally; Obama is anything but. For that reason, I consider it at least possible that to the extent that Obama is continuing some of Bush’s policies, there might be good or at least defensible reasons to do so. Not even Bush could have been wrong about everything. Since I don’t know enough, I say there “might” be good reasons for Obama's unwillingness to end all of Bush's policies, nothing more. However, I can’t resist saying that I am not confident that some of Obama’s loudest and most unqualified critics on the left have actually examined the difficult issues and explored with an open mind the rationale for Obama’s actions.
      Finally, I would be very wary of the line of argument, common to many of the comments, that says that politicians are all the same, Obama is no different than Bush, what difference does it make whether it’s Republicans or Democrats that are in power, things can’t be any worse, and so forth. Those making this argument clearly regard themselves as having seen through all the superficialities and penetrated to the essence. But they are wrong: in this case cynicism is a form of naivite. The issues are complex, distinctions must be carefully drawn, and so.

      We’ve heard this what's-the-difference nonsense often in the past, for example in Nader’s 2000 campaign, in the absence of which we almost certainly would have had Gore rather than Bush. Or don’t you think that matters?

      2. Could Obama do more about Israel? Once again, my critics indignantly point to all kinds of things Obama could say or do to pressure Israel without having to go through Congress—bully pulpit, venting fury, various executive actions, etc. But once again this ignores my arguments: (a) the price, especially in terms of Congressional retaliation on other issues, would be too high, especially since (b) in my judgment, U.S. pressures wouldn’t work anyway, in terms of bringing about substantial changes in Israeli policies.
      More on this last point. The 1956 Eisenhower case doesn’t persuade me: what Dwight Eisenhower could do about Congress and the Israel of 1956 says nothing about what Barack Obama could do about Congress and the Israel of 2010.
      Indeed, pressures on Israel might not merely fail, they could well make things worse. An Israel deprived of US support might become even more paranoid, rageful, and irrational. It is well established that in the mid-1970s Henry Kissinger worried about this possibility, rightly so in my opinion. Consequently, even if Obama had the power to announce that he was so sick of Israel that he was cutting off all aid—which, of course, he can’t, since the power to appropriate funds for public purposes rests with Congress—it might not be wise to do so. Unless you don’t think there is much to worry about a modern Samson, this time armed with nuclear weapons, striking out against its enemies, real and self-created.

      3. The most serious argument against my view, as articulated by Sin Nombre, is that Israel’s policies harm not just itself but U.S. national security, the protection of which is any president’s first responsibility. Not only do I agree, I have been making precisely that argument for at least thirty years—even during the cold war, against the prevailing view (not challenged even by Mearsheimer and Walt) that Israel was a security asset to the U.S then, even if not now.

      I probably should have addressed this argument; I didn’t because it is long and complex. Moreover, I am conflicted myself over this issue, but I guess my bottom line is that in the short run I am somewhat more worried about the damage that would be done to the health of American society--and, indeed, to national security--by a Republican dominance than about the damage done to U.S. national security by failing to pressure Israel. Especially since I think that in any case changes in U.S. policy—by this very late date--wouldn’t soon insulate us from a continued backlash in the Islamic world.

      I can well understand that you might disagree with me on how these considerations—a gradual positive effect on our national security vs. a rapid negative effect on America at home-- balance out, especially since I’m not always sure I don’t disagree with myself.

      Over and out.

    • jnslater July 12, 2010 at 4:59 pm

      I'm going to make a general reply later tonight, but for now, in answer to Robin's question: I suppose that a second term for Obama would somewhat reduce his political incentive to avoid a losing battle, but not entirely. Moreover, as I wrote in my original blog on this issue, we simply don't know how much of Obama's waffling on the Israel issue is a function of his own underlying genuine if misguided pro-Israel views, as opposed simply to the politics of the issue. My hunch is that both play important roles in what he says and does, so if that is correct the chances of change later might also rest on the chances that he will become better educated on the realities of Israel's behavior.

  • Obama's kicking can down the road because he can't save Israel even if he tried
    • jnslater July 11, 2010 at 4:55 pm

      I suppose it is possible that the stronger statement apparently quoted by Cohen was made by Obama, but not in the news conference. Another possibility, maybe, is that Obama actually made the stronger statement, but when it was realized he went further than he meant to, the "official" transcript cleaned it up. But even that was so, it would show that it was not the policy of the US to support anything that Israel thought was necessary for its "security."

      All that said, I agree that Obama should not have bowed to the Israeli definition of "security" at all, given its record of citing "security" when it is really defending occupation and repression.

    • jnslater July 10, 2010 at 1:08 pm with 2 replies

      Danaa: I've now read the transcript of the statement and press conference by Obama and Netanyahu after their meeting. What Obama said is not quite the same as you seemingly quote, and the difference is significant. According to the transcript, Obama said:
      "We strongly believe that, given its size, its history, the region that it’s in, and the threats that are leveled against us -- against it, that Israel has unique security requirements. It’s got to be able to respond to threats or any combination of threats in the region. And that's why we remain unwavering in our commitment to Israel’s security. And the United States will never ask Israel to take any steps that would undermine their security interests."

      Saying you are committed to protecting Israel's security is not the same as saying that "only Israel can determine its security needs," let alone that the US will support it, no matter what it does in the name of "security.' The wording is carefully designed to allow the US to oppose Israeli actions that WE decide does not serve Israel's GENUINE security needs: for example, attacking Iran.

    • jnslater July 9, 2010 at 9:39 pm with 3 replies

      Danaa:
      “The president "told the prime minister he recognizes that Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats, and that only Israel can determine its security needs.” To any who read this it seems to be a carte blanche for israel to attack Iran by any means necessary. This is the statement that israel will point to later after it has bombed parts of Iran to smitherins. Because it was offered publically. Now, was it necessary for Obama to go this far in effectively giving israel the green light?"

      Danaa: I had not read this statement that you quote, and if it is accurate I entirely agree that it is very worrisome. It is hard to imagine that Obama means it to be a green light for Israel to attack Iran, for a variety of reasons. Whatever else you may believe about Obama, he is not stupid, and an Israeli attack on Iran, let alone one that was directly or indirectly encouraged by the U.S., would be quite insane, not merely for Israel but for the U.S. as well. So I have no explanation for this communique.

    • jnslater July 9, 2010 at 6:07 pm with 2 replies

      But I made specific arguments. Do you have refutations?

    • jnslater July 9, 2010 at 6:06 pm

      I stand corrected: reptilian will do fine.

  • 'We struck the civilian population consciously' (Gaza's historical pedigree)
    • jnslater January 21, 2010 at 12:51 pm

      Julian is quite right, of course: Buffalo IS "too much to bare," especially in the winter. Other than that, though, we bear up quite well.

    • jnslater January 20, 2010 at 2:18 pm with 5 replies

      Donald quotes from my article the following: “Moreover, it could well be argued that the Israeli attacks were so indiscriminate as to erase any meaningful distinction between indiscriminate and deliberate attacks on civilians. Still, let us for the moment maintain the distinction: so far as I am aware there is no current proof that intentionally killing civilians as a matter of state policy was part of Israel’s strategy in its attack in 2008-09. ”

      He then comments: "I think that second sentence is unfortunate." He may well be right. I was trying to lean over backwards to maintain the distinctions I referred to, and maybe I leaned too far. I agree that the weight of the evidence, both from Israel's past behavior and in the Gaza attack, provides strong evidence that it was indeed Israel's STATE POLICY (that is, not just a matter of individual murders) to attack civilians. The only issue is whether that evidence is strong enough to be considered conclusive.

      However, Donald's suggestion that we could never prove state policy without an official admission by the state is not necessarily the case. There might indeed be sufficient evidence to establish what the policy was, even if the government denies it. I do think that in a number of the historical cases I cited that the evidence was conclusive, even though there might be room for debate in the case of last year's Israeli Gaza attack might be debatable.

      One other general point. For several years defenders of Israeli attacks on civilians--in Lebanon, the West Bank, Gaza--have been arguing that Israel can't be deliberately attacking civilians because if they were, they would have killed a lot more. Halbertal took that tack, and apparently Dershowitz has, as well.

      As some of the comments have pointed out, the argument is a non-sequitur, and a pretty pathetic one at that. No one (well, hardly anyone) has accused Israel of genocide, and it is not a persuasive defense against the charge of murder that you could have killed a lot more.

Showing comments 107 - 101
Page:

Comments are closed.