by publius
I haven’t waded in too deeply into Gaza – largely because I’ve been holiday traveling. I did, though, happen to be reading Rashid Khalidi’s most excellent The Iron Cage, which provides some interesting longer-term perspective on the ongoing tragedy. Below, then, are just a few scattered thoughts on the book that are hopefully relevant to recent events. (Khalidi is the moderate and well-respected scholar that McCain shamelessly attacked in the closing days of the election).
To begin, what really becomes clear in reading The Iron Cage is how profoundly ignorant Americans (including me) are about the region and its history. And the ignorance exists on many different levels.
For one, Americans (including me) are simply blind to the region’s past. They don’t even see it – or at best see some fairy tale make-believe version. And it’s hard to make them see it because our media and educational systems do a horrible job integrating that history into the lens of current events. To us, the world starts anew with each new rocket attack – that’s all we see, and that’s where our analysis begins.
But that’s not what actual Palestinians see. They see — indeed, they have lived — the institutional obstacles that Western powers (particularly the British, who owe every Palestinian an annuity) have erected against a viable Palestinian state for nearly a century. They also see quite clearly how Western meddling – e.g., the creation of Hamas to undermine Arafat; arming Afghan tribes to fight Communism – are proximate causes of modern suffering in the region. In other words, they see what Americans don’t see, which is that the West helped create much of this mess, but now refuses to help fix it.
Americans are also quite ignorant of Palestinians’ (and Muslims’ more generally) subjective perceptions of these actions. In particular, they don’t understand how the scars of repressive colonialism color modern perceptions. If we were aware that the legacy of colonial occupation still sears the region’s consciousness, we’d be less willing to support, you know, imperial occupations of former colonies.
The sad truth is that an honest debate about what’s going today is difficult because so many Americans (me included) just don’t know anything about anything there.
One additional thought in reading Khalidi’s book is how truly shameful McCain’s attacks were at the close of the campaign. A Cold War historian friend of mine said in an email that it was “the moral lowpoint of McCain’s campaign.”
There’s a decent amount of competition for that honor, but it’s a strong candidate for sure. It’s not merely that Khalidi is an extremely well-respected scholar. He’s actually considered fairly moderate. Indeed, one interesting aspect of the Iron Cage is that he assigns both agency and blame to the failures of the Palestinian leadership. To be sure, he notes that the British and other external forces play extremely important roles as well in creating the modern-day Palestinian misery. But the implication that Khalidi is some sort of dangerous radical is not just absurd – it’s flatly dishonest and not a little racist.
Anybody serious about the ME conflict should read Khalidi’s book. Well said, Publius.
Anybody serious about the ME conflict should read Khalidi’s book. Well said, Publius.
I take your recommendation, and would also direct attention to http://www.ramikhouri.com. He used to be the editor of the Daily Star in Beirut; he’s now with Agence Global. Well worth following, and his December 30 piece, A Marginalized Region, is cause for despair.
I take your recommendation, and would also direct attention to http://www.ramikhouri.com. He used to be the editor of the Daily Star in Beirut; he’s now with Agence Global. Well worth following, and his December 30 piece, A Marginalized Region, is cause for despair.
I bought the book simply for the reason that it appeared to be written by someone unfairly smeared by the thugs amongst the republicans, and I have adopted the habit of tossing said smearees a few coins when such things happen.
Haven’t gotten to it in the to read stack but I’m glad that it sounds like it will be worth the time once I do.
I bought the book simply for the reason that it appeared to be written by someone unfairly smeared by the thugs amongst the republicans, and I have adopted the habit of tossing said smearees a few coins when such things happen.
Haven’t gotten to it in the to read stack but I’m glad that it sounds like it will be worth the time once I do.
Nir Rosen is the author of some of the best reporting available to people in the US on Iraq (see this, for example) and on Afghanistan (see this.) He has summed up the underlying realities laid bare by the present Israeli assault on Gazans in the UK Guardian.
His conclusion is brutal:
I drop this here because it emerges from the consciousness you describe as simply missing for most of us. This is not far out radicalism in that part of the world, but simple realism.
Nir Rosen is the author of some of the best reporting available to people in the US on Iraq (see this, for example) and on Afghanistan (see this.) He has summed up the underlying realities laid bare by the present Israeli assault on Gazans in the UK Guardian.
His conclusion is brutal:
I drop this here because it emerges from the consciousness you describe as simply missing for most of us. This is not far out radicalism in that part of the world, but simple realism.
The usual trope. All the failings of Arab world are
due to the actions of the white man. The brown man
has no agency, no autonomy and is not a moral actor.
The Arab simply reacts in a predictable fashion to
the white man’s stimuli, as would a laboratory rat.
When they do this, are the Left as racist as they appear? Not really – it’s a tactical thing – a way
of dishonestly placing the blame where they prefer it.
The usual trope. All the failings of Arab world are
due to the actions of the white man. The brown man
has no agency, no autonomy and is not a moral actor.
The Arab simply reacts in a predictable fashion to
the white man’s stimuli, as would a laboratory rat.
When they do this, are the Left as racist as they appear? Not really – it’s a tactical thing – a way
of dishonestly placing the blame where they prefer it.
I don’t think that this comment from “q” is seriously meant, but if it were, it would be entirely false. The point about the situation is not that Arabs are gullible, but that because the West and their allies in the region have overwhelming power and are completely ruthless, they can bribe and bully the leaders of the Arab world to do more or less what they want them to do. This is not racism, it is simple common sense; to challenge it is to be delusional.
I don’t think that this comment from “q” is seriously meant, but if it were, it would be entirely false. The point about the situation is not that Arabs are gullible, but that because the West and their allies in the region have overwhelming power and are completely ruthless, they can bribe and bully the leaders of the Arab world to do more or less what they want them to do. This is not racism, it is simple common sense; to challenge it is to be delusional.
I’m listening to NPR right now, where Sallai Meridor, Israel’s ambassador to Washington, is speaking to Steve Inskeep. Although the ambassador was asked briefly about who started the breach of the cease-fire (with some very nonspecific “Palestinian viewpoint” offered by Steve Inskeep), Meridor went on and on “justifying” the Israeli view that Hammas breached it in December. This was an incredibly unfair and error-ridden report. I hope people who hear it write in by the thousands.
I’m listening to NPR right now, where Sallai Meridor, Israel’s ambassador to Washington, is speaking to Steve Inskeep. Although the ambassador was asked briefly about who started the breach of the cease-fire (with some very nonspecific “Palestinian viewpoint” offered by Steve Inskeep), Meridor went on and on “justifying” the Israeli view that Hammas breached it in December. This was an incredibly unfair and error-ridden report. I hope people who hear it write in by the thousands.
Whoa – who created Hamas? Perhaps you meant to phrase that differently…
Whoa – who created Hamas? Perhaps you meant to phrase that differently…
For one, Americans (including me) are simply blind to the region’s past. They don’t even see it – or at best see some fairy tale make-believe version. And it’s hard to make them see it because our media and educational systems do a horrible job integrating that history into the lens of current events. To us, the world starts anew with each new rocket attack – that’s all we see, and that’s where our analysis begins.
I actually think that the situation is worse than this.
Yes, most Americans know nothing of the history of the region. But most Americans know very little of the history of any region.
The bigger problem is that what many Americans think they know of the history of the region is wrong. As a Jewish-American kid, I was taught a standard, Zionist narrative of Jewish settlers making a (presumably empty) desert bloom. The heroic struggle of the Jewish people and the tragedy of the Holocaust were redeemed with the declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. Then, suddenly, the Arabs show up as players in this story, outsiders and intractable foes against which the new Jewish state had to struggle for its existence. The next stop is usually 1967, when again perfidious Arab outsiders attacked the innocent Jewish state.
This is the background against which the most interested Americans have tended to (mis)understand the conflict. The history of the people who lived in the region before the Yishuv is entirely absent. Indeed, their very existence is, in various ways, almost entirely denied. As a result, many Americans who think they know the history of the region “know” a history that conveniently papers over the colonialist aspect of the Zionist enterprise.
For one, Americans (including me) are simply blind to the region’s past. They don’t even see it – or at best see some fairy tale make-believe version. And it’s hard to make them see it because our media and educational systems do a horrible job integrating that history into the lens of current events. To us, the world starts anew with each new rocket attack – that’s all we see, and that’s where our analysis begins.
I actually think that the situation is worse than this.
Yes, most Americans know nothing of the history of the region. But most Americans know very little of the history of any region.
The bigger problem is that what many Americans think they know of the history of the region is wrong. As a Jewish-American kid, I was taught a standard, Zionist narrative of Jewish settlers making a (presumably empty) desert bloom. The heroic struggle of the Jewish people and the tragedy of the Holocaust were redeemed with the declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. Then, suddenly, the Arabs show up as players in this story, outsiders and intractable foes against which the new Jewish state had to struggle for its existence. The next stop is usually 1967, when again perfidious Arab outsiders attacked the innocent Jewish state.
This is the background against which the most interested Americans have tended to (mis)understand the conflict. The history of the people who lived in the region before the Yishuv is entirely absent. Indeed, their very existence is, in various ways, almost entirely denied. As a result, many Americans who think they know the history of the region “know” a history that conveniently papers over the colonialist aspect of the Zionist enterprise.
I grew up with a pretty typical “End-Times” (Evangelical) view of Israel in Palestine, and then becoming politically left in the 80s, ended up with a pretty Zionist-Labor view of the situation.
In both contexts:
Arabs are absent and ignored.
There is no such thing as Arab/Palestinian Christians.
Arabs/Muslims are against progress and modernity/democracy.
I grew up with a pretty typical “End-Times” (Evangelical) view of Israel in Palestine, and then becoming politically left in the 80s, ended up with a pretty Zionist-Labor view of the situation.
In both contexts:
Arabs are absent and ignored.
There is no such thing as Arab/Palestinian Christians.
Arabs/Muslims are against progress and modernity/democracy.
It is certainly the case that within the world of Middle Eastern Studies, Rashid Khalidi is a moderate and respected figure. The problem is that the views which are mainstream within that particularly troubled academic world are at the fringe of American public opinion, and with good reason.
Khalidi, of course, has long since abandoned his youthful radicalism. His early dalliance with the PLO, serving as a director of its press agency WAFA, is a thing of the past. He is older and wiser, more cautious in embracing charismatic figures or the movements that they lead, and as you note, capable of seeing their shortcomings. Few of us would wish to be held to account for the things we did early in life, and it is a profound mistake to privilege those acts above more recent statements. But Khalidi remains an ardent nationalist, who is entirely forthright in declaring that his scholarship is intended to advance that political agenda, and whose treatment of facts and sources is not infrequently cavalier.
McCain’s use of Khalidi as a bludgeon with which to strike Obama was disgraceful on two levels: it took what was (at most) a casual friendship for a sympathy of views; and its clear intent was to further associate Obama with leftist radicals, Muslims, and everything foreign and ‘other.’ This was American politics at its very worst – McCain’s prolonged attempt to suggest that Obama was a secret radical, a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
It was a smear, of course, because Obama is none of these things: not a Muslim, not a leftist, not a radical of any sort, and certainly not an advocate of Palestinian nationalism or opponent of the State of Israel. (I should also add that there is, of course, nothing inherently objectionable about most of these things; they just happen not to be true of Obama.) Like Obama, I have many friends whose views diverge from my own; to assume a congruity of views based upon a casual friendship, when there exists a voluminous record of public statements and acts to the contrary, is the classic paranoid style. Moreover, though I find Khalidi’s views and writings distasteful, they are certainly not beyond the pale. For all these reasons, it was worth decrying the attack upon Obama.
But it would be a dreadful mistake to suppose that because Conservatives find Khalidi objectionable, he must therefore be a paragon of virtue, a scholar of impeccable standing, or a voice of moderation and sanity. He is none of these things. Obama’s friendship with Khalidi was inconsequential because it was not substantive; but if Khalidi were his principal adviser on the Middle East, that would indeed have been scandalous. Khalidi has labeled Israel a “racist” state and an “apartheid system.” He has strongly condemned the killing of civilians on both sides of the conflict, but steadfastly refused to say whether Israeli settlers should be considered civilians, or are instead occupiers subject to “legitimate resistance,” including killing. Moreover, do not presume that because the facts and perspectives that Khalidi advances are unfamiliar, they are therefore correct. His work is best viewed as a balanced, measured, and careful presentation of one perspective; as a useful window into Palestinian thought, and not as a balanced assessment of the conflict as a whole.
It is certainly the case that within the world of Middle Eastern Studies, Rashid Khalidi is a moderate and respected figure. The problem is that the views which are mainstream within that particularly troubled academic world are at the fringe of American public opinion, and with good reason.
Khalidi, of course, has long since abandoned his youthful radicalism. His early dalliance with the PLO, serving as a director of its press agency WAFA, is a thing of the past. He is older and wiser, more cautious in embracing charismatic figures or the movements that they lead, and as you note, capable of seeing their shortcomings. Few of us would wish to be held to account for the things we did early in life, and it is a profound mistake to privilege those acts above more recent statements. But Khalidi remains an ardent nationalist, who is entirely forthright in declaring that his scholarship is intended to advance that political agenda, and whose treatment of facts and sources is not infrequently cavalier.
McCain’s use of Khalidi as a bludgeon with which to strike Obama was disgraceful on two levels: it took what was (at most) a casual friendship for a sympathy of views; and its clear intent was to further associate Obama with leftist radicals, Muslims, and everything foreign and ‘other.’ This was American politics at its very worst – McCain’s prolonged attempt to suggest that Obama was a secret radical, a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
It was a smear, of course, because Obama is none of these things: not a Muslim, not a leftist, not a radical of any sort, and certainly not an advocate of Palestinian nationalism or opponent of the State of Israel. (I should also add that there is, of course, nothing inherently objectionable about most of these things; they just happen not to be true of Obama.) Like Obama, I have many friends whose views diverge from my own; to assume a congruity of views based upon a casual friendship, when there exists a voluminous record of public statements and acts to the contrary, is the classic paranoid style. Moreover, though I find Khalidi’s views and writings distasteful, they are certainly not beyond the pale. For all these reasons, it was worth decrying the attack upon Obama.
But it would be a dreadful mistake to suppose that because Conservatives find Khalidi objectionable, he must therefore be a paragon of virtue, a scholar of impeccable standing, or a voice of moderation and sanity. He is none of these things. Obama’s friendship with Khalidi was inconsequential because it was not substantive; but if Khalidi were his principal adviser on the Middle East, that would indeed have been scandalous. Khalidi has labeled Israel a “racist” state and an “apartheid system.” He has strongly condemned the killing of civilians on both sides of the conflict, but steadfastly refused to say whether Israeli settlers should be considered civilians, or are instead occupiers subject to “legitimate resistance,” including killing. Moreover, do not presume that because the facts and perspectives that Khalidi advances are unfamiliar, they are therefore correct. His work is best viewed as a balanced, measured, and careful presentation of one perspective; as a useful window into Palestinian thought, and not as a balanced assessment of the conflict as a whole.
Isn’t the radical concept of “Palestinian nationalism” also known as the “two-state solution”?
Isn’t the radical concept of “Palestinian nationalism” also known as the “two-state solution”?
i can haz new yearz open threadz?
i can haz new yearz open threadz?
Observer, I don’t know where to start, and maybe I shouldn’t get drawn it at all. However I will say that you seem to respect the intellectual integrity of Khalidi’s work, yet still somehow find his final conclusions ‘distasteful’. This leaves me with the impression that he has simply out-argued you, and that the unease you feel is the unease of a person who feels cherished aspects of their worldview forcefully challenged. This is a symptom of great scholarship, rather than some comforting and anodyne ‘balanced assessment of the conflict as a whole’.
There are, of course, equally impressive people with a variety of differing opinions on the Israel-Palestine issue, but Middle Eastern Studies is only ‘particularly troubled’ in the US because bigoted and ignorant scumbags like Sarah Palin are allowed to hurl excrement at scholars who surpass them in every facet of intellectual and moral character.
Observer, I don’t know where to start, and maybe I shouldn’t get drawn it at all. However I will say that you seem to respect the intellectual integrity of Khalidi’s work, yet still somehow find his final conclusions ‘distasteful’. This leaves me with the impression that he has simply out-argued you, and that the unease you feel is the unease of a person who feels cherished aspects of their worldview forcefully challenged. This is a symptom of great scholarship, rather than some comforting and anodyne ‘balanced assessment of the conflict as a whole’.
There are, of course, equally impressive people with a variety of differing opinions on the Israel-Palestine issue, but Middle Eastern Studies is only ‘particularly troubled’ in the US because bigoted and ignorant scumbags like Sarah Palin are allowed to hurl excrement at scholars who surpass them in every facet of intellectual and moral character.
Steve:
Who said the concept of Palestinian Nationalism, per se, was radical?
At this point in time, I don’t think it could be so characterized. Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and most major state actors have publicly committed themselves to pursuing something that looks very like a two-state solution.
So where’s the radicalism? Well, there’s no shortage of Palestinian Nationalists who still seek a single, Palestinian state on all the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. I’d argue that’s fairly radical (as, of course, is the inverse proposition). Then there’s radicalism of means – those who endorse violence, terror, or killing of civilians as a tool of their nationalist aspirations. And I’d even argue that those who would advance the legitimacy of their own state, but continue to deny the legitimacy or right of existence of the state they expect to exist alongside, could be fairly labeled radical.
When I wrote of Khalidi’s youtful radicalism, I meant to reference his involvement and identification with the PLO during his tenure at the American University in Beirut, when he worked as a principal spokesman for the organization, and his wife worked as a translator for its news agency. The New York-born Khalidi spoke of the PLO with the plural pronoun “we.” The PLO, at the time, was by any definition radical. It embraced terror and violence, indulged in “executing traitors” in Khalidi’s own words, and sought the destruction of the State of Israel.
Steve:
Who said the concept of Palestinian Nationalism, per se, was radical?
At this point in time, I don’t think it could be so characterized. Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and most major state actors have publicly committed themselves to pursuing something that looks very like a two-state solution.
So where’s the radicalism? Well, there’s no shortage of Palestinian Nationalists who still seek a single, Palestinian state on all the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. I’d argue that’s fairly radical (as, of course, is the inverse proposition). Then there’s radicalism of means – those who endorse violence, terror, or killing of civilians as a tool of their nationalist aspirations. And I’d even argue that those who would advance the legitimacy of their own state, but continue to deny the legitimacy or right of existence of the state they expect to exist alongside, could be fairly labeled radical.
When I wrote of Khalidi’s youtful radicalism, I meant to reference his involvement and identification with the PLO during his tenure at the American University in Beirut, when he worked as a principal spokesman for the organization, and his wife worked as a translator for its news agency. The New York-born Khalidi spoke of the PLO with the plural pronoun “we.” The PLO, at the time, was by any definition radical. It embraced terror and violence, indulged in “executing traitors” in Khalidi’s own words, and sought the destruction of the State of Israel.
“He has strongly condemned the killing of civilians on both sides of the conflict, but steadfastly refused to say whether Israeli settlers should be considered civilians, or are instead occupiers subject to “legitimate resistance,” including killing”
Interesting if true. They are racists living in what amounts to an apartheid system, but still civilians, unless they have guns in their homes and use them to assault Palestinians, in which case they are armed thugs. So what’s the context of Khalidi’s remark? Is he talking about armed settlers who use violence against Palestinians on the West Bank?
And would teachers at the Islamic University in Gaza be considered civilians, or rather members of a terrorist organization subject to killing? Is everyone who is a member of Hamas subject to killing?
“He has strongly condemned the killing of civilians on both sides of the conflict, but steadfastly refused to say whether Israeli settlers should be considered civilians, or are instead occupiers subject to “legitimate resistance,” including killing”
Interesting if true. They are racists living in what amounts to an apartheid system, but still civilians, unless they have guns in their homes and use them to assault Palestinians, in which case they are armed thugs. So what’s the context of Khalidi’s remark? Is he talking about armed settlers who use violence against Palestinians on the West Bank?
And would teachers at the Islamic University in Gaza be considered civilians, or rather members of a terrorist organization subject to killing? Is everyone who is a member of Hamas subject to killing?
Khalidi has labeled Israel a “racist” state and an “apartheid system.”
Israeli citizenship is explicitly based on being Jewish (with the exception of a few Arabs grandfathered in). It’s not correct to label Jews a ‘race’ but ‘ethnicist’ isn’t a word, so ‘racist’ is about as close as you can get to a one-word description of the situation.
Anyone familiar with both Apartheid and the situation in the Occupied Territories is aware of the striking similarities. Apartheid is a perfectly good analogy for what is happening there.
Khalidi has labeled Israel a “racist” state and an “apartheid system.”
Israeli citizenship is explicitly based on being Jewish (with the exception of a few Arabs grandfathered in). It’s not correct to label Jews a ‘race’ but ‘ethnicist’ isn’t a word, so ‘racist’ is about as close as you can get to a one-word description of the situation.
Anyone familiar with both Apartheid and the situation in the Occupied Territories is aware of the striking similarities. Apartheid is a perfectly good analogy for what is happening there.
byrningman:
In evaluating scholarship, it’s sometimes useful to separate its facticity from its accuracy. Anyone can selectively array a number of perfectly factual claims to advance a dubious argument. It is that which I find distasteful in the work of Rashid Khalidi – his selective use of the historical record, his tendency to employ theoretical ambiguities to explain away its inconvenient aspects, and his willingness to cross the line from scholar to advocate. As for Middle Eastern Studies, the real problem in the field is its progressive embrace of a fairly rigid orthodoxy. It’s a danger that plagues any self-selecting profession, that it will tend to reward those younger scholars who most agree with their own views, creating a degree of insularity and a lack of skepticism.
Donald Johnson:
The most explicit exchange came on “Scarborough Country,” with Daniel Pipes (a man who makes Khalidi seem moderate). Khalidi, to his credit, is very explicit that attacks on civilians are never excusable. He goes out of his way to specify that Israelis living within the Green Line are certainly civilians. But asked whether settlers should be considered civilians, he replies that: “the killing of civilians anywhere, under any circumstances, is a war crime.” But are settlers civilians, and thus encompassed within that? It’s a simple question to which he seems unable to provide a simple answer.
As for the faculty of the Islamic University, I don’t think anyone would argue that the deliberate assassination of faculty members, even those holding membership in Hamas, is justifiable. But it’s not as if an Israeli sniper shot a professor for teaching a class there. What (I think) you’re referring to is the bombing of two research laboratories at an institution that plays a crucial role in Hamas’ recruitment, and in its legitimation among the civilian population. Those airstrikes were not in the first wave of assaults. The initial strikes were targeted at structures housing those Israel considers combatants – police stations, rocket launching pads, weapons storage facilities – and unleashed in the middle of the day with no warning to maximize damage. The strikes on the Islamic University were carried out around midnight, to minimize casualties. Why were they targeted? Israel claims that the labs are used in weapons research, to develop and manufacture explosives for use in rockets and mortars. If that claim is accurate, then I think the labs were perfectly legitimate targets.
togolosh:
I would argue that both terms obscure more than they reveal; there is, as you acknowledge, nothing racial about Israeli policies, nor does the South African analogy illumine the situation. Both terms tend to be slung about, rather carelessly, as general terms of opprobrium.
But I didn’t raise them to recapitulate that argument here. My point is that when Publius decides to hold up Khalidi as a truth-teller about the current state of affairs in the Middle East, he needs to be far more explicit about the nature of the truths he tells. If Publius believes Israel to be a racist, apartheid entity, he should say so. If he disagrees with Khalidi in that respect, he should explain why.
byrningman:
In evaluating scholarship, it’s sometimes useful to separate its facticity from its accuracy. Anyone can selectively array a number of perfectly factual claims to advance a dubious argument. It is that which I find distasteful in the work of Rashid Khalidi – his selective use of the historical record, his tendency to employ theoretical ambiguities to explain away its inconvenient aspects, and his willingness to cross the line from scholar to advocate. As for Middle Eastern Studies, the real problem in the field is its progressive embrace of a fairly rigid orthodoxy. It’s a danger that plagues any self-selecting profession, that it will tend to reward those younger scholars who most agree with their own views, creating a degree of insularity and a lack of skepticism.
Donald Johnson:
The most explicit exchange came on “Scarborough Country,” with Daniel Pipes (a man who makes Khalidi seem moderate). Khalidi, to his credit, is very explicit that attacks on civilians are never excusable. He goes out of his way to specify that Israelis living within the Green Line are certainly civilians. But asked whether settlers should be considered civilians, he replies that: “the killing of civilians anywhere, under any circumstances, is a war crime.” But are settlers civilians, and thus encompassed within that? It’s a simple question to which he seems unable to provide a simple answer.
As for the faculty of the Islamic University, I don’t think anyone would argue that the deliberate assassination of faculty members, even those holding membership in Hamas, is justifiable. But it’s not as if an Israeli sniper shot a professor for teaching a class there. What (I think) you’re referring to is the bombing of two research laboratories at an institution that plays a crucial role in Hamas’ recruitment, and in its legitimation among the civilian population. Those airstrikes were not in the first wave of assaults. The initial strikes were targeted at structures housing those Israel considers combatants – police stations, rocket launching pads, weapons storage facilities – and unleashed in the middle of the day with no warning to maximize damage. The strikes on the Islamic University were carried out around midnight, to minimize casualties. Why were they targeted? Israel claims that the labs are used in weapons research, to develop and manufacture explosives for use in rockets and mortars. If that claim is accurate, then I think the labs were perfectly legitimate targets.
togolosh:
I would argue that both terms obscure more than they reveal; there is, as you acknowledge, nothing racial about Israeli policies, nor does the South African analogy illumine the situation. Both terms tend to be slung about, rather carelessly, as general terms of opprobrium.
But I didn’t raise them to recapitulate that argument here. My point is that when Publius decides to hold up Khalidi as a truth-teller about the current state of affairs in the Middle East, he needs to be far more explicit about the nature of the truths he tells. If Publius believes Israel to be a racist, apartheid entity, he should say so. If he disagrees with Khalidi in that respect, he should explain why.
…nothing racial about Israeli policies…
Not really. The policies towards the non-Israeli Arab population under their control is pretty much a racial one, despite the fact that they have the Israeli Arab population to point to in order to deflect criticism. Even so, Israeli Arabs are second class citizens in practice.
All analogies obscure some aspects of a situation and highlight others. The Apartheid analogy seems to me to highlight some very important aspects of the situation in Israel and the occupied territories, while the aspects obscured are for the most part secondary, if not outright trivial.
…nothing racial about Israeli policies…
Not really. The policies towards the non-Israeli Arab population under their control is pretty much a racial one, despite the fact that they have the Israeli Arab population to point to in order to deflect criticism. Even so, Israeli Arabs are second class citizens in practice.
All analogies obscure some aspects of a situation and highlight others. The Apartheid analogy seems to me to highlight some very important aspects of the situation in Israel and the occupied territories, while the aspects obscured are for the most part secondary, if not outright trivial.
How Israel and the United States Helped to Bolster Hamas
How Israel and the United States Helped to Bolster Hamas
“The policies towards the non-Israeli Arab population under their control is pretty much a racial one”
How can you write a sentence like that with a straight face? What possible racial distinction can be made between Israeli Arabs and Palestinian Arabs? Between Druze and Muslims? Between Eastern Jews and Arabs?
Does the State of Israel discriminate on the basis of religion? Undoubtedly. But religion is both more definitive and more porous than race. A man born in this country to parents of Arab descent who wishes to emigrate to Israel may not be allowed; if he converts to Judaism, he will be welcomed and showered with benefits. Ethiopian Jews are citizens the moment they arrive; migrant laborers from the Horn of Africa can labor for years as resident aliens. If you accept the concept of a Jewish State, you may find logic in these arrangements; if you do not, you will no doubt find them offensive. Israel’s Jewish citizens hail from a diverse and varied array of racial backgrounds. Its last President was racially indistinguishable from other Persians; the head of its Navy looks as Chinese as his father; its Ethiopian citizens appear no different than their former compatriots on the Horn of Africa; Jews from Goa bear the mark of the subcontinent; black Americans who have converted and emigrated would not look out of place in Harlem. The salient fact of their identity is their religious descent, not their race.
Our steadfast insistence on using that word stems from our own troubled past, from our great original sin of slavery. In the last century, racism became a byword for discriminations of all kinds. It was, after all, the most potent label that could be attached to a discriminatory act; as you noted before, accusing someone of anti-ethnic bias doesn’t pack the same punch. Ethnicity, religion, nationality – all were subsumed beneath this single clumsy label.
“The policies towards the non-Israeli Arab population under their control is pretty much a racial one”
How can you write a sentence like that with a straight face? What possible racial distinction can be made between Israeli Arabs and Palestinian Arabs? Between Druze and Muslims? Between Eastern Jews and Arabs?
Does the State of Israel discriminate on the basis of religion? Undoubtedly. But religion is both more definitive and more porous than race. A man born in this country to parents of Arab descent who wishes to emigrate to Israel may not be allowed; if he converts to Judaism, he will be welcomed and showered with benefits. Ethiopian Jews are citizens the moment they arrive; migrant laborers from the Horn of Africa can labor for years as resident aliens. If you accept the concept of a Jewish State, you may find logic in these arrangements; if you do not, you will no doubt find them offensive. Israel’s Jewish citizens hail from a diverse and varied array of racial backgrounds. Its last President was racially indistinguishable from other Persians; the head of its Navy looks as Chinese as his father; its Ethiopian citizens appear no different than their former compatriots on the Horn of Africa; Jews from Goa bear the mark of the subcontinent; black Americans who have converted and emigrated would not look out of place in Harlem. The salient fact of their identity is their religious descent, not their race.
Our steadfast insistence on using that word stems from our own troubled past, from our great original sin of slavery. In the last century, racism became a byword for discriminations of all kinds. It was, after all, the most potent label that could be attached to a discriminatory act; as you noted before, accusing someone of anti-ethnic bias doesn’t pack the same punch. Ethnicity, religion, nationality – all were subsumed beneath this single clumsy label.
Observer assertion: “…and whose treatment of facts and sources is not infrequently cavalier.”
One example would be nice. Apparently there are many(?)
Observer assertion: “…and whose treatment of facts and sources is not infrequently cavalier.”
One example would be nice. Apparently there are many(?)
European Zionists have had no problem incorporating European constructions of race into their own world view.
Anglo-Protestants have had no problem viewing Black Protestants, within their communities as second-class citizens, no matter how universal they claim their religion, is.
European Zionists have had no problem incorporating European constructions of race into their own world view.
Anglo-Protestants have had no problem viewing Black Protestants, within their communities as second-class citizens, no matter how universal they claim their religion, is.
ARAB JEW
When issues of racial and colonial discourse are discussed in the U.S., people of Middle Eastern and North African origin are often excluded. This piece is written with the intent of opening up the multicultural debate, going beyond the U.S. census’s simplistic categorization of Middle Eastern peoples as “whites.”
It’s also written with the intent of multiculturalizing American notions of Jewishness. My personal narrative questions the Eurocentric opposition of Arab and Jew, particularly the denial of Arab Jewish (Sephardic) voices both in the Middle Eastern and American contexts.
ARAB JEW
When issues of racial and colonial discourse are discussed in the U.S., people of Middle Eastern and North African origin are often excluded. This piece is written with the intent of opening up the multicultural debate, going beyond the U.S. census’s simplistic categorization of Middle Eastern peoples as “whites.”
It’s also written with the intent of multiculturalizing American notions of Jewishness. My personal narrative questions the Eurocentric opposition of Arab and Jew, particularly the denial of Arab Jewish (Sephardic) voices both in the Middle Eastern and American contexts.
What possible racial distinction can be made between Israeli Arabs and Palestinian Arabs?
Neither is subject to draft into the IDF, to name one legal commonality. There is also substantial informal discrimination against Israeli Arabs. Race is a social construction, not a genetic one. Overlap between racial categories and genetic categories exists, but the primary basis of racial distinction in social, as witness the one drop theory of blackness in America, or the fact that Australian Aborigines are shoehorned into the same category as people of African descent.
What possible racial distinction can be made between Israeli Arabs and Palestinian Arabs?
Neither is subject to draft into the IDF, to name one legal commonality. There is also substantial informal discrimination against Israeli Arabs. Race is a social construction, not a genetic one. Overlap between racial categories and genetic categories exists, but the primary basis of racial distinction in social, as witness the one drop theory of blackness in America, or the fact that Australian Aborigines are shoehorned into the same category as people of African descent.
“But are settlers civilians, and thus encompassed within that? It’s a simple question to which he seems unable to provide a simple answer.”
It’s not a simple question, because some of the settlers are violent and terrorize Palestinians, so perhaps Khalidi was thinking of them if he didn’t want to issue a blanket statement that they are all civilians. They are all, of course, taking advantage of an apartheid-like system.
Which leads to the racism charge. Perhaps one needs another word to describe the particular form of brutal bigotry at work, one in which Israeli Jews are allowed to settle the West Bank and Palestinian Arabs are not allowed to settle inside the Green Line. Anyway, South African blacks (including Desmond Tutu) have said that Israel’s behavior on the West Bank is much like South African apartheid, and I take his word for that.
On the targeting of the universities, I would accept that places where munitions are manufactured are legitimate targets, not that I place much faith in Israeli government assurances. I’d add that it is unfortunate that Palestinians cannot target such places in Israel.
“But are settlers civilians, and thus encompassed within that? It’s a simple question to which he seems unable to provide a simple answer.”
It’s not a simple question, because some of the settlers are violent and terrorize Palestinians, so perhaps Khalidi was thinking of them if he didn’t want to issue a blanket statement that they are all civilians. They are all, of course, taking advantage of an apartheid-like system.
Which leads to the racism charge. Perhaps one needs another word to describe the particular form of brutal bigotry at work, one in which Israeli Jews are allowed to settle the West Bank and Palestinian Arabs are not allowed to settle inside the Green Line. Anyway, South African blacks (including Desmond Tutu) have said that Israel’s behavior on the West Bank is much like South African apartheid, and I take his word for that.
On the targeting of the universities, I would accept that places where munitions are manufactured are legitimate targets, not that I place much faith in Israeli government assurances. I’d add that it is unfortunate that Palestinians cannot target such places in Israel.
European Jews have always had a contested relationship with European Christians…but the bottom line is that they were European and there are some very powerful privileges that come, as an a result of that.
The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity by Eric L. Goldman
How Jews Became White Folks & What That Says About Race in America by Karen Brodkin
I don’t think this is a phenomenon that transpired only in the US.
European Jews have always had a contested relationship with European Christians…but the bottom line is that they were European and there are some very powerful privileges that come, as an a result of that.
The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity by Eric L. Goldman
How Jews Became White Folks & What That Says About Race in America by Karen Brodkin
I don’t think this is a phenomenon that transpired only in the US.
In evaluating scholarship, it’s sometimes useful to separate its facticity from its accuracy. Anyone can selectively array a number of perfectly factual claims to advance a dubious argument. It is that which I find distasteful in the work of Rashid Khalidi – his selective use of the historical record, his tendency to employ theoretical ambiguities to explain away its inconvenient aspects, and his willingness to cross the line from scholar to advocate.
On the one hand, I don’t really expect you to go into a blow-by-blow refutation of his arguments here, but on the other hand, that’s sort of warranted in order to make the claim you are making, as I am of the opinion that he is a first-rate historian, as are most of his colleagues in the profession. Probably his most important work is a deconstruction of the palestinian national identity – a courageous intellectual exercise for anyone dealing with a subject so evidently close to his heart, which surely engendered mistrust on the part of other Palestinian intellectuals, and an accomplishment that makes the accusation that he is some kind of slanted mouthpiece so laughable.
As for “crossing the line from scholar to advocate”, all I can say is that once again you are positing that scholarship is not supposed to be opinionated. On the contrary, by definition good scholarship is highly opinionated in addition to being very well argued. It is true that he has crossed the line from pure academic to ‘public intellectual’, but that doesn’t make his work any less credible than, say, recent releases by people like John Gaddis or Niall Ferguson that sit astride the main tables of Barnes and Noble.
As for Middle Eastern Studies, the real problem in the field is its progressive embrace of a fairly rigid orthodoxy. It’s a danger that plagues any self-selecting profession, that it will tend to reward those younger scholars who most agree with their own views, creating a degree of insularity and a lack of skepticism.
I also just don’t think this is true at all, and this talking point is simply one particularly notable aspect of the broader conservative criticism of academia when the opinions of very intelligent people studying various issues all day long don’t agree with their much less-informed opinions. Certainly academic reality does not live up an intellectual idyll, but in my experience at any rate, good work will always find appreciation. If anything, academics complain that the championing of new approaches or new ideas is excessive. Like any community of human beings, it requires substantial efforts to dislodge accepted wisdom, but the fact remains that freedom of debate is simply FAR superior in the academy than in society in general, especially in comparison to the media or politics. Middle East Studies included.
In evaluating scholarship, it’s sometimes useful to separate its facticity from its accuracy. Anyone can selectively array a number of perfectly factual claims to advance a dubious argument. It is that which I find distasteful in the work of Rashid Khalidi – his selective use of the historical record, his tendency to employ theoretical ambiguities to explain away its inconvenient aspects, and his willingness to cross the line from scholar to advocate.
On the one hand, I don’t really expect you to go into a blow-by-blow refutation of his arguments here, but on the other hand, that’s sort of warranted in order to make the claim you are making, as I am of the opinion that he is a first-rate historian, as are most of his colleagues in the profession. Probably his most important work is a deconstruction of the palestinian national identity – a courageous intellectual exercise for anyone dealing with a subject so evidently close to his heart, which surely engendered mistrust on the part of other Palestinian intellectuals, and an accomplishment that makes the accusation that he is some kind of slanted mouthpiece so laughable.
As for “crossing the line from scholar to advocate”, all I can say is that once again you are positing that scholarship is not supposed to be opinionated. On the contrary, by definition good scholarship is highly opinionated in addition to being very well argued. It is true that he has crossed the line from pure academic to ‘public intellectual’, but that doesn’t make his work any less credible than, say, recent releases by people like John Gaddis or Niall Ferguson that sit astride the main tables of Barnes and Noble.
As for Middle Eastern Studies, the real problem in the field is its progressive embrace of a fairly rigid orthodoxy. It’s a danger that plagues any self-selecting profession, that it will tend to reward those younger scholars who most agree with their own views, creating a degree of insularity and a lack of skepticism.
I also just don’t think this is true at all, and this talking point is simply one particularly notable aspect of the broader conservative criticism of academia when the opinions of very intelligent people studying various issues all day long don’t agree with their much less-informed opinions. Certainly academic reality does not live up an intellectual idyll, but in my experience at any rate, good work will always find appreciation. If anything, academics complain that the championing of new approaches or new ideas is excessive. Like any community of human beings, it requires substantial efforts to dislodge accepted wisdom, but the fact remains that freedom of debate is simply FAR superior in the academy than in society in general, especially in comparison to the media or politics. Middle East Studies included.
Although I do certainly admit that Middle East Studies has suffered a great deal from bomb-throwers (in the intellectual sense), who have poisoned the atmosphere somewhat.
Although I do certainly admit that Middle East Studies has suffered a great deal from bomb-throwers (in the intellectual sense), who have poisoned the atmosphere somewhat.
A focus of the post is to lament the state of ignorance of Americans regarding conflicts in the ME. I agree (and include myself, as well). This state is not very surprising given the general inadequacies of our educational process which is best at teaching skills designed to be minimally functional and employable within our society and instilling certain superficial political notions but little in the way of political principles to build on. The same lament could be repeated regarding Americans’ ignorance of their own history and its important events in shaping this country and principles underlying its formation. Today’s government participation through the bailouts of various businesses shows we have lost our way. One cause of this direction is our loss of the knowledge of who we are. Each new President takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and each new Congress member takes a similar oath. They then, almost without exception, proceed to pass and sign legislation that cannot pass the tests of constitutionality under any measure.
How can we have any expectation that our leaders and our population generally can act knowledgeably on ME affairs if they don’t act so at home?
A focus of the post is to lament the state of ignorance of Americans regarding conflicts in the ME. I agree (and include myself, as well). This state is not very surprising given the general inadequacies of our educational process which is best at teaching skills designed to be minimally functional and employable within our society and instilling certain superficial political notions but little in the way of political principles to build on. The same lament could be repeated regarding Americans’ ignorance of their own history and its important events in shaping this country and principles underlying its formation. Today’s government participation through the bailouts of various businesses shows we have lost our way. One cause of this direction is our loss of the knowledge of who we are. Each new President takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and each new Congress member takes a similar oath. They then, almost without exception, proceed to pass and sign legislation that cannot pass the tests of constitutionality under any measure.
How can we have any expectation that our leaders and our population generally can act knowledgeably on ME affairs if they don’t act so at home?
I’m going to disagree, a bit.
I grew up with very detailed historical accounts as a child in a Puerto Rican Evangelical household. When I met with my little multicultural evangelical church, we had a whole story as to why there were troubles in the Middle East. Christ was coming, and this was inevitable. And when I was being radicalized by an assortment of Leftists, I had a very distinctive account of the illiberal nature of Muslims and the Social Democratic dreams of European Zionists. In these Zionists defense, they would begin changing these views in the 1990s, well the ones I knew.
Many American have views, of the Middle East, and just think the view the currently have is the right one, and there is no need to go deeper.
I’m going to disagree, a bit.
I grew up with very detailed historical accounts as a child in a Puerto Rican Evangelical household. When I met with my little multicultural evangelical church, we had a whole story as to why there were troubles in the Middle East. Christ was coming, and this was inevitable. And when I was being radicalized by an assortment of Leftists, I had a very distinctive account of the illiberal nature of Muslims and the Social Democratic dreams of European Zionists. In these Zionists defense, they would begin changing these views in the 1990s, well the ones I knew.
Many American have views, of the Middle East, and just think the view the currently have is the right one, and there is no need to go deeper.
Human Rights Watch on the violations of both sides–
Link
Human Rights Watch on the violations of both sides–
Link
That should be:
Many Americans have views, of the Middle East, and just think their view is the right one, and there is no need to go deeper.
That should be:
Many Americans have views, of the Middle East, and just think their view is the right one, and there is no need to go deeper.
Khalidi has labeled Israel a “racist” state and an “apartheid system.”
What’s cool about reading footnotes? Is that it means you don’t miss passages like this, from page 262 of The Iron Cage:
“The parallels with South Africa are only superficially accurate. The disparity in numbers between nonwhites and whites there was much greater than between Arabs and Jews in Palestine (at least since the earliest decades of the twentieth century). Moreover, the South African liberation movement always had relatively secure rear areas from which to wage its struggle, and strong allies, unlike the Palestinians. Also unlike the Palestinian national movement, which has repeatedly changed its focus over more than eighty-five years, the South African liberation movement never wavered from its goal of a single democratic state with equal rights for all. South Africa has always claimed sovereignty over its entire territory, and over the entire people, even as it tried to turn some areas into ‘self-governing’ Bantustans: Israeli governments have shown no desire for sovereignty over Palestinian populations, even as they have coveted their land. Most importantly, although less based on a formal, explicit, legal framework of separation than was apartheid, the flexible, dynamic, ad hoc regime that Israel has erected in the occupied territories over nearly four decades, but especially since 1991, is more controlling, and more flexible, than anything undertaken under the apartheid regime. Leaving aside superficial similarities between the South African pass system and Israel’s permit system, there are thus only limited parallels between the defunct apartheid system and the comprehensive and sophisticated matrix of control that Israel has created in the occupied West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem.”
Khalidi has labeled Israel a “racist” state and an “apartheid system.”
What’s cool about reading footnotes? Is that it means you don’t miss passages like this, from page 262 of The Iron Cage:
“The parallels with South Africa are only superficially accurate. The disparity in numbers between nonwhites and whites there was much greater than between Arabs and Jews in Palestine (at least since the earliest decades of the twentieth century). Moreover, the South African liberation movement always had relatively secure rear areas from which to wage its struggle, and strong allies, unlike the Palestinians. Also unlike the Palestinian national movement, which has repeatedly changed its focus over more than eighty-five years, the South African liberation movement never wavered from its goal of a single democratic state with equal rights for all. South Africa has always claimed sovereignty over its entire territory, and over the entire people, even as it tried to turn some areas into ‘self-governing’ Bantustans: Israeli governments have shown no desire for sovereignty over Palestinian populations, even as they have coveted their land. Most importantly, although less based on a formal, explicit, legal framework of separation than was apartheid, the flexible, dynamic, ad hoc regime that Israel has erected in the occupied territories over nearly four decades, but especially since 1991, is more controlling, and more flexible, than anything undertaken under the apartheid regime. Leaving aside superficial similarities between the South African pass system and Israel’s permit system, there are thus only limited parallels between the defunct apartheid system and the comprehensive and sophisticated matrix of control that Israel has created in the occupied West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem.”
For the reasons Observer states, “racism” is simply an inaccurate description of Zionism. Khalidi’s first language is English and he is a scholar in I/P affairs, so the innacuracy cannot be accidental.
He could have said, philo-Semitic, though I admit it would be sheer tautology and linguistically perverse. He could have said nationalist, which would reflect the fact that Zionism was just like other 19-20th Century self-determination movements of oppressed nations. Even if he wanted to deny that, he could have respected the fact that Jews span all nations and religions, and called it chauvinist or tribalist. But he went for the flame word.
You may feel that tribalism is just as bad as racism — but it carries a little less baggage and may lend more light and less heat to the question. Observer is correct again when he says that we view the world through our own national experiences, and our experience with racism was atrocious. Israelis are often tribalist, and even racist, about Arabs, but that is not the issue. The point of using this term is not to criticize the morality of individual Israelis.
When pro-Palestinians say or resolve that “Zionism is racism,” they mean that a Jewish State is by definition morally bankrupt. Maintaining a Jewish State is per se an act of racism, just like lynching the Scottsboro Boys or making Rosa Parks sit in the back of the bus. In this framing, nothing Israel can do except dissolve can possibly cure the problem. By existing, Israel does harm.
And this is why many Jews (and some fair-minded gentiles) get upset at the use of that word. “Zionism is racism” means, simply, a Jewish State taints the world no matter what it does. We have heard this concept before. All you have to do is take out “ish State.”
If the people who said “Zionism is racism” felt the same way about nationalism or tribalism in general, I would not mind so much. But they do not. They do not say such things about separatist Quebecois, the Irish (south or north), ‘We Free’ Scots, Vlemish, Kurds, or the many other ethnic, tribal groups that have or want their own self-governance. Eire does not taint the world by existing, even if some Scots were displaced in creating it. Only Israel does that. Only the Jews.
Most of all, they don’t EVER say it about the Palestinians.
Quite the contrary, the whole goal of the Zionism is racism concept is to advance Palestinian self-governance. Many commentors on this very site seem to hold that the Palestinians have an absolute right to self-governance, on every inch of the land that some of their ancestors held in tenancy, even though those people were ethnically and culturally indistinguishable from most Jordanians, Lebanese, or Syrians. These particular Arabs must have a separate nation on that land. And it is positively racist, I gather, to take seriously the fact that many of them say clearly that they want to wipe out the Jews who live there.
In short, Jewish nationalism is racism, but Arab racism is mere nationalism. Arabs must have many states. Jews may have none. I have never seen a coherent explanation for this double standard. I doubt one exists.
So, no, it’s not a minor semantic quibble.
For the reasons Observer states, “racism” is simply an inaccurate description of Zionism. Khalidi’s first language is English and he is a scholar in I/P affairs, so the innacuracy cannot be accidental.
He could have said, philo-Semitic, though I admit it would be sheer tautology and linguistically perverse. He could have said nationalist, which would reflect the fact that Zionism was just like other 19-20th Century self-determination movements of oppressed nations. Even if he wanted to deny that, he could have respected the fact that Jews span all nations and religions, and called it chauvinist or tribalist. But he went for the flame word.
You may feel that tribalism is just as bad as racism — but it carries a little less baggage and may lend more light and less heat to the question. Observer is correct again when he says that we view the world through our own national experiences, and our experience with racism was atrocious. Israelis are often tribalist, and even racist, about Arabs, but that is not the issue. The point of using this term is not to criticize the morality of individual Israelis.
When pro-Palestinians say or resolve that “Zionism is racism,” they mean that a Jewish State is by definition morally bankrupt. Maintaining a Jewish State is per se an act of racism, just like lynching the Scottsboro Boys or making Rosa Parks sit in the back of the bus. In this framing, nothing Israel can do except dissolve can possibly cure the problem. By existing, Israel does harm.
And this is why many Jews (and some fair-minded gentiles) get upset at the use of that word. “Zionism is racism” means, simply, a Jewish State taints the world no matter what it does. We have heard this concept before. All you have to do is take out “ish State.”
If the people who said “Zionism is racism” felt the same way about nationalism or tribalism in general, I would not mind so much. But they do not. They do not say such things about separatist Quebecois, the Irish (south or north), ‘We Free’ Scots, Vlemish, Kurds, or the many other ethnic, tribal groups that have or want their own self-governance. Eire does not taint the world by existing, even if some Scots were displaced in creating it. Only Israel does that. Only the Jews.
Most of all, they don’t EVER say it about the Palestinians.
Quite the contrary, the whole goal of the Zionism is racism concept is to advance Palestinian self-governance. Many commentors on this very site seem to hold that the Palestinians have an absolute right to self-governance, on every inch of the land that some of their ancestors held in tenancy, even though those people were ethnically and culturally indistinguishable from most Jordanians, Lebanese, or Syrians. These particular Arabs must have a separate nation on that land. And it is positively racist, I gather, to take seriously the fact that many of them say clearly that they want to wipe out the Jews who live there.
In short, Jewish nationalism is racism, but Arab racism is mere nationalism. Arabs must have many states. Jews may have none. I have never seen a coherent explanation for this double standard. I doubt one exists.
So, no, it’s not a minor semantic quibble.
That’s one clever arthropod.
That’s one clever arthropod.
“When pro-Palestinians say or resolve that “Zionism is racism,” they mean that a Jewish State is by definition morally bankrupt. Maintaining a Jewish State is per se an act of racism, just like lynching the Scottsboro Boys or making Rosa Parks sit in the back of the bus. In this framing, nothing Israel can do except dissolve can possibly cure the problem. By existing, Israel does harm.”
A long post and you miss the point. There are anti-semites who say Zionism is racism, of course. Anti-semites say much worse things than that. But among the non anti-semites who say such things, they mean that Israel’s existence as a Jewish state came about and could only come about because hundreds of thousands of Arab inhabitants of the land were forced out and not allowed back in and this attitude is still there in the settlement project. Yes, other countries have done that kind of thing–I’m sitting in one as I type–but they often had the foresight to do it centuries ago, when people would unashamedly proclaim the moral superiority of their own culture and think this gave them the right to shove the pesky natives out of the way. Israel got into this game very late.
Now there were early Zionists who didn’t have this as as a goal–people like Judah Magnes, for instance. They wanted to live side-by-side in total equality with Arabs, and I gather that in that viewpoint there’d be no notion of, say, Arab numbers or birthrates being a demographic problem. But anyone who wanted a majority Jewish state in a land mostly inhabited by Arabs was clearly thinking like the European colonialists, which is hardly surprising given the time period–the desires of the natives were only relevant as a problem to be solved somehow, perhaps by “transfer” and it made perfect sense to have Great Britain promise a Jewish homeland in a place outside Britain already inhabited by Arabs. Incidentally, that little problem is why there was a myth of “a land without a people for a people without a land”, a myth that was revived a couple of decades ago by Joan Peters. The myth serves a purpose.
Now at this stage of the game, 60 years after the ethnic cleansing, there are generations of people who’ve grown up in a Jewish state and while I might think it’d be better to have one man, one vote without regard to ethnicity or religion, in practice I don’t expect any more of Israel in that regard than I do of Iraq or Lebanon or other Arab states. America took about 200 years to approximate that ideal and rightwing Americans still worry about the Hispanic demographic menace. If the vast majority of people in the Mideast get over this notion that a state should be Arab or Muslim or Jewish, great, but we’re a long way from that. So a two state solution seems best, not because I think there’s anything noble about a Jewish state, any more than I think that there’s something good about an Islamic state, but because it’s not America’s business to force everyone to live up to a standard we’ve only sorta reached ourselves and a two state solution might be the least bad solution that’s achievable. (Not that I take our democratic idealistic rhetoric seriously anyway,)
“When pro-Palestinians say or resolve that “Zionism is racism,” they mean that a Jewish State is by definition morally bankrupt. Maintaining a Jewish State is per se an act of racism, just like lynching the Scottsboro Boys or making Rosa Parks sit in the back of the bus. In this framing, nothing Israel can do except dissolve can possibly cure the problem. By existing, Israel does harm.”
A long post and you miss the point. There are anti-semites who say Zionism is racism, of course. Anti-semites say much worse things than that. But among the non anti-semites who say such things, they mean that Israel’s existence as a Jewish state came about and could only come about because hundreds of thousands of Arab inhabitants of the land were forced out and not allowed back in and this attitude is still there in the settlement project. Yes, other countries have done that kind of thing–I’m sitting in one as I type–but they often had the foresight to do it centuries ago, when people would unashamedly proclaim the moral superiority of their own culture and think this gave them the right to shove the pesky natives out of the way. Israel got into this game very late.
Now there were early Zionists who didn’t have this as as a goal–people like Judah Magnes, for instance. They wanted to live side-by-side in total equality with Arabs, and I gather that in that viewpoint there’d be no notion of, say, Arab numbers or birthrates being a demographic problem. But anyone who wanted a majority Jewish state in a land mostly inhabited by Arabs was clearly thinking like the European colonialists, which is hardly surprising given the time period–the desires of the natives were only relevant as a problem to be solved somehow, perhaps by “transfer” and it made perfect sense to have Great Britain promise a Jewish homeland in a place outside Britain already inhabited by Arabs. Incidentally, that little problem is why there was a myth of “a land without a people for a people without a land”, a myth that was revived a couple of decades ago by Joan Peters. The myth serves a purpose.
Now at this stage of the game, 60 years after the ethnic cleansing, there are generations of people who’ve grown up in a Jewish state and while I might think it’d be better to have one man, one vote without regard to ethnicity or religion, in practice I don’t expect any more of Israel in that regard than I do of Iraq or Lebanon or other Arab states. America took about 200 years to approximate that ideal and rightwing Americans still worry about the Hispanic demographic menace. If the vast majority of people in the Mideast get over this notion that a state should be Arab or Muslim or Jewish, great, but we’re a long way from that. So a two state solution seems best, not because I think there’s anything noble about a Jewish state, any more than I think that there’s something good about an Islamic state, but because it’s not America’s business to force everyone to live up to a standard we’ve only sorta reached ourselves and a two state solution might be the least bad solution that’s achievable. (Not that I take our democratic idealistic rhetoric seriously anyway,)
Well, this nationalist movement, Zionism, left Europe and nationalized land its British Colonial Government was running in Palestine. That’s a bit different than the other conflicts you bring up.
I suspect European Zionism’s relationship with European colonialism gave it the racial? ethnic? privilege of leaving Europe and establishing itself in Palestine. And signing up Jews from all over to take up its fight looks a lot like South Africa and the United States who had no problem hiring racial and ethnic outsiders to handle their other racial and ethnic problems.
Well, this nationalist movement, Zionism, left Europe and nationalized land its British Colonial Government was running in Palestine. That’s a bit different than the other conflicts you bring up.
I suspect European Zionism’s relationship with European colonialism gave it the racial? ethnic? privilege of leaving Europe and establishing itself in Palestine. And signing up Jews from all over to take up its fight looks a lot like South Africa and the United States who had no problem hiring racial and ethnic outsiders to handle their other racial and ethnic problems.
“Israel got into this game very late.”
One other advantage the European settlers of the US had, of course, besides living in a time period where non-white objections to Manifest Destiny weren’t taken seriously was, of course, simple numbers. If you are going to move into a land and take it over, it helps to have overwhelming numerical superiority. Then you can allow a right of return once you’re firmly established and not even worry about demography if that sort of thing is the sort of thing you worry about.
“Israel got into this game very late.”
One other advantage the European settlers of the US had, of course, besides living in a time period where non-white objections to Manifest Destiny weren’t taken seriously was, of course, simple numbers. If you are going to move into a land and take it over, it helps to have overwhelming numerical superiority. Then you can allow a right of return once you’re firmly established and not even worry about demography if that sort of thing is the sort of thing you worry about.
Trilobyte, Jewish nationalism is not at all the same thing as Zionism. I think Zionism’s critics would argue that it is not at all a national liberation project as seen in Ireland etc., but that it is almost the opposite, that is, that the Zionists were more like the Africaaners than the Zulus. Israel’s critics have always argued that it is a colonial project.
Personally, I think that disinterested observers would probably agree that the Zionist project has attributes of both a national liberation movement and a colonial endeavour, in the sense that it was undoubtedly a national project by a minority group that had experienced varying degrees of repression in different countries, but that it was also very much a scheme to create a settler society in a distant land by disenfranchising the people who happened to live there. The support of the unambiguous colonial power – Britain – underscores Zionism’s colonial nature, while the atrocities of WW2 paradoxically strengthen Israel’s legitimacy as a national liberation project. The Israelis I know regularly demonstrate the conflicted duality of their national project: most of my Israeli friends are in fact quite insistent on identifying themselves as Israelis first and Jews second, and have little taste for the right-wingers in their country. On the other hand, importing people from Russia and Brooklyn who typically don’t even speak Hebrew, and sticking them in the West Bank is unambiguously a colonial exercise. You can tell because they call themselves settlers.
The racism debate I think is rather boring. Israel is incontestable a racial entity since citizenship is essentially based not on where you are were born but who your mother was (debates over whether the Jews are a race or an ethnicity or a religious group or whatever seem like needless semantics to me). The racist debate thus effectively boils down to whether you can be racial without being racist, and you probably can’t.
The real question — which is both more intractable and more interesting from a philosophical point of view — is whether 21st century Western norms can allow for racism/racialism to be justified on other grounds, i.e. on the basis of the Jews’ almost-uniquely horrific recent history. I should add that Israel is by no means the only country relevant to this question, although it certainly has a much stronger case than certain other countries I can think of, such as Germany.
This is not to say that I don’t greatly sympathise with Jews’ and Israelis’ need to push back on the ‘racism’ charge, simply on the basis that such hot-button terms are used in the Western media to discredit any point of view without actually engaging with it. That’s all part of the PR game, unfortunately, whereby taboo words are used to circumvent debate. Although to Khalidi’s credit, I think you do him a disservice here, as he strikes me as being quite studious in his use of the ‘racist/racialist’ charge to make an argument based on international law or international norms, rather than to incite the mob. As another poster has shown, he has been quite scrupulous to clarify his nuanced take on the Israel-South Africa comparison.
Which all leads back to my initial point that while there are surely thousands of rabble-rousing, unpleasant advocates of the Palestinian cause that we can single out for opprobrium, there is nothing to suggest that Khalidi’s critics are engaged in anything other than slander. In reality he is singled out precisely because his arguments are compelling, rather than unpalatable, and merit engagement.
Trilobyte, Jewish nationalism is not at all the same thing as Zionism. I think Zionism’s critics would argue that it is not at all a national liberation project as seen in Ireland etc., but that it is almost the opposite, that is, that the Zionists were more like the Africaaners than the Zulus. Israel’s critics have always argued that it is a colonial project.
Personally, I think that disinterested observers would probably agree that the Zionist project has attributes of both a national liberation movement and a colonial endeavour, in the sense that it was undoubtedly a national project by a minority group that had experienced varying degrees of repression in different countries, but that it was also very much a scheme to create a settler society in a distant land by disenfranchising the people who happened to live there. The support of the unambiguous colonial power – Britain – underscores Zionism’s colonial nature, while the atrocities of WW2 paradoxically strengthen Israel’s legitimacy as a national liberation project. The Israelis I know regularly demonstrate the conflicted duality of their national project: most of my Israeli friends are in fact quite insistent on identifying themselves as Israelis first and Jews second, and have little taste for the right-wingers in their country. On the other hand, importing people from Russia and Brooklyn who typically don’t even speak Hebrew, and sticking them in the West Bank is unambiguously a colonial exercise. You can tell because they call themselves settlers.
The racism debate I think is rather boring. Israel is incontestable a racial entity since citizenship is essentially based not on where you are were born but who your mother was (debates over whether the Jews are a race or an ethnicity or a religious group or whatever seem like needless semantics to me). The racist debate thus effectively boils down to whether you can be racial without being racist, and you probably can’t.
The real question — which is both more intractable and more interesting from a philosophical point of view — is whether 21st century Western norms can allow for racism/racialism to be justified on other grounds, i.e. on the basis of the Jews’ almost-uniquely horrific recent history. I should add that Israel is by no means the only country relevant to this question, although it certainly has a much stronger case than certain other countries I can think of, such as Germany.
This is not to say that I don’t greatly sympathise with Jews’ and Israelis’ need to push back on the ‘racism’ charge, simply on the basis that such hot-button terms are used in the Western media to discredit any point of view without actually engaging with it. That’s all part of the PR game, unfortunately, whereby taboo words are used to circumvent debate. Although to Khalidi’s credit, I think you do him a disservice here, as he strikes me as being quite studious in his use of the ‘racist/racialist’ charge to make an argument based on international law or international norms, rather than to incite the mob. As another poster has shown, he has been quite scrupulous to clarify his nuanced take on the Israel-South Africa comparison.
Which all leads back to my initial point that while there are surely thousands of rabble-rousing, unpleasant advocates of the Palestinian cause that we can single out for opprobrium, there is nothing to suggest that Khalidi’s critics are engaged in anything other than slander. In reality he is singled out precisely because his arguments are compelling, rather than unpalatable, and merit engagement.
“f the vast majority of people in the Mideast get over this notion that a state should be Arab or Muslim or Jewish, great, but we’re a long way from that”
Hmm, having said that, I don’t know what fraction of people in the Mideast would like to live in a secular democracy where all religions and ethnicities were treated equally. One gets the impression it’s a small fraction, given all the conflict, but maybe not.
“f the vast majority of people in the Mideast get over this notion that a state should be Arab or Muslim or Jewish, great, but we’re a long way from that”
Hmm, having said that, I don’t know what fraction of people in the Mideast would like to live in a secular democracy where all religions and ethnicities were treated equally. One gets the impression it’s a small fraction, given all the conflict, but maybe not.
Many commentors on this very site seem to hold that the Palestinians have an absolute right to self-governance, on every inch of the land that some of their ancestors held in tenancy, even though those people were ethnically and culturally indistinguishable from most Jordanians, Lebanese, or Syrians. These particular Arabs must have a separate nation on that land.
Also, since it is highly pertinent, I feel compelled to point out that Khalidi made his reputation with a book that actually deconstructs the Palestinian nationalist project. So he is quite literally one of the last people in the world guilty of the criticism you are making there.
Many commentors on this very site seem to hold that the Palestinians have an absolute right to self-governance, on every inch of the land that some of their ancestors held in tenancy, even though those people were ethnically and culturally indistinguishable from most Jordanians, Lebanese, or Syrians. These particular Arabs must have a separate nation on that land.
Also, since it is highly pertinent, I feel compelled to point out that Khalidi made his reputation with a book that actually deconstructs the Palestinian nationalist project. So he is quite literally one of the last people in the world guilty of the criticism you are making there.
Donald Johnson: Not going to wade in here, I just wanted to note that I think you had some very thoughtful and balanced comments on this thread and gave me something to think about.
Donald Johnson: Not going to wade in here, I just wanted to note that I think you had some very thoughtful and balanced comments on this thread and gave me something to think about.
Does Khalidi believe the “One Man One Vote” solution?
Does Khalidi believe the “One Man One Vote” solution?
Thanks, OC–that’s flattering, given that I think you’re generally on the other side from me on this issue.
I’ll probably be offline for a few days.
Thanks, OC–that’s flattering, given that I think you’re generally on the other side from me on this issue.
I’ll probably be offline for a few days.
A one-state solution. A unitary Arab-Jewish homeland could bring lasting peace to the Middle East
Ahmad Samih Khalidi
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1051542,00.html
Monday September 29, 2003
The Guardian
A one-state solution. A unitary Arab-Jewish homeland could bring lasting peace to the Middle East
Ahmad Samih Khalidi
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1051542,00.html
Monday September 29, 2003
The Guardian
I think that disinterested observers would probably agree that the Zionist project has attributes of both a national liberation movement and a colonial endeavour, in the sense that it was undoubtedly a national project by a minority group that had experienced varying degrees of repression in different countries but that it was also very much a scheme to create a settler society in a distant land by disenfranchising the people who happened to live there
I agree for the most part. That combination is one reason I dislike cheap name-calling like “racism,” or “colonialism.” The situation just isn’t that black and white. So to speak.
Two things, though. First, your phrasing suggests that the early Zionists intended “disenfranchisement.” Bear in mind that there had never been a Palestinian state, and that the local Arabs had accepted subordinate status in a series of empires without any particular show of resentment. I don’t think the very first Zionists expected settlement to be so much more disliked. There’s early Zionist rhetoric about uplifting the fellaheen in brotherhood. Herzl et al. were not incredibly practical people, and Europeans had massive blind spots about cultural differences. I think they expected to be treated as just one more set of foreign landlords at worst, proletarian brothers at best. That didn’t happen for a number of reasons, including though not limited to racism, religious bigotry, and cultural intolerance on both sides.
Second, like most ‘colonialists,’ the Zionists were far more refugees than lordly conquerors. Very rarely do happy people abandon their homes to struggle in the wilderness, whatever inspiring tales they like to tell about themselves. Zionism was a movement of desperation even in 1900. By 1948, yes, creating a Jewish majority by displacing half a million Arabs was disenfranchisement — but the alternative was mass suicide.
After the Shoah, where on earth were all those Jewish settlers and refugees supposed to go? Clearly not Europe, almost all of which had joined in the slaughter, and was unrepentant. Not Russia, with its own genocidal efforts. Not America, which had kept its quota of 20,000 Jewish immigrants per year throughout the war, and was turning more isolationist, not less. The world dumped its Jews in Israel and called it a gift. The Jews acted like they wanted this all along. What else could they say?
So now what?
The recent book, The Hebrew Republic, suggests a very arms-length federal single state solution, sort of like the modern UK — shared nominal executive and foreign policy, legislative autonomy with some restrictions, and a shared official language. I like the concept, but I don’t see how we get there. At best, I think we would need two generations of two states and economic interchange to build trust. The two nations really need each other economically, like America and Mexico but even more so. Maybe, if America pushes, and if there’s an unreasonable amount of luck, they could get to that point.
I think that disinterested observers would probably agree that the Zionist project has attributes of both a national liberation movement and a colonial endeavour, in the sense that it was undoubtedly a national project by a minority group that had experienced varying degrees of repression in different countries but that it was also very much a scheme to create a settler society in a distant land by disenfranchising the people who happened to live there
I agree for the most part. That combination is one reason I dislike cheap name-calling like “racism,” or “colonialism.” The situation just isn’t that black and white. So to speak.
Two things, though. First, your phrasing suggests that the early Zionists intended “disenfranchisement.” Bear in mind that there had never been a Palestinian state, and that the local Arabs had accepted subordinate status in a series of empires without any particular show of resentment. I don’t think the very first Zionists expected settlement to be so much more disliked. There’s early Zionist rhetoric about uplifting the fellaheen in brotherhood. Herzl et al. were not incredibly practical people, and Europeans had massive blind spots about cultural differences. I think they expected to be treated as just one more set of foreign landlords at worst, proletarian brothers at best. That didn’t happen for a number of reasons, including though not limited to racism, religious bigotry, and cultural intolerance on both sides.
Second, like most ‘colonialists,’ the Zionists were far more refugees than lordly conquerors. Very rarely do happy people abandon their homes to struggle in the wilderness, whatever inspiring tales they like to tell about themselves. Zionism was a movement of desperation even in 1900. By 1948, yes, creating a Jewish majority by displacing half a million Arabs was disenfranchisement — but the alternative was mass suicide.
After the Shoah, where on earth were all those Jewish settlers and refugees supposed to go? Clearly not Europe, almost all of which had joined in the slaughter, and was unrepentant. Not Russia, with its own genocidal efforts. Not America, which had kept its quota of 20,000 Jewish immigrants per year throughout the war, and was turning more isolationist, not less. The world dumped its Jews in Israel and called it a gift. The Jews acted like they wanted this all along. What else could they say?
So now what?
The recent book, The Hebrew Republic, suggests a very arms-length federal single state solution, sort of like the modern UK — shared nominal executive and foreign policy, legislative autonomy with some restrictions, and a shared official language. I like the concept, but I don’t see how we get there. At best, I think we would need two generations of two states and economic interchange to build trust. The two nations really need each other economically, like America and Mexico but even more so. Maybe, if America pushes, and if there’s an unreasonable amount of luck, they could get to that point.
OCSteve, I think you may have left Donald speechless and shocked his system too much. But I agree with you, his comments have been extremely well expressed.
Another comment I want to make about this thread. Considering the degree of disagreement on many things, this discussion has been extremely civil.
Just an observation about general American knowledge of the Middle East. The person who runs the little restaurant in our office building was talking to me today and mentioning he was going to his church tonight to sing in his choir. Hementioned that it was an Egyptian Christian church and when I said “Coptic?” he just about fell on the floor that someone in this country would know that.
We got to talking about American ignorance of Christianity’s place in the ME, including, as someone mentioned above, Palestinian Arab Christians. I bring this up to point out that American’s are pretty ignorant and some even believe that there are no good things produced by Arab/Muslim culture.
I leave it at that because my own ignorance of the situation there keeps me from trying to make any substantive comment. I will read Khalidi’s book, however, to bring my knowledge level up at least a little.
OCSteve, I think you may have left Donald speechless and shocked his system too much. But I agree with you, his comments have been extremely well expressed.
Another comment I want to make about this thread. Considering the degree of disagreement on many things, this discussion has been extremely civil.
Just an observation about general American knowledge of the Middle East. The person who runs the little restaurant in our office building was talking to me today and mentioning he was going to his church tonight to sing in his choir. Hementioned that it was an Egyptian Christian church and when I said “Coptic?” he just about fell on the floor that someone in this country would know that.
We got to talking about American ignorance of Christianity’s place in the ME, including, as someone mentioned above, Palestinian Arab Christians. I bring this up to point out that American’s are pretty ignorant and some even believe that there are no good things produced by Arab/Muslim culture.
I leave it at that because my own ignorance of the situation there keeps me from trying to make any substantive comment. I will read Khalidi’s book, however, to bring my knowledge level up at least a little.
Is the notion that a state should be all Arab, Muslim, or Jewish, or any other religion or ethnicity for that matter, forward looking or backward looking? It certainly seems to be the antithesis of where we have journeyed in the American experience. It also seems that if it were a conclusive fact that a very large fraction of a state’s population thought this way, it would be in the interest of those parts of the world that think otherwise to inhibit its spread beyond its already existing area of influence.
Is the notion that a state should be all Arab, Muslim, or Jewish, or any other religion or ethnicity for that matter, forward looking or backward looking? It certainly seems to be the antithesis of where we have journeyed in the American experience. It also seems that if it were a conclusive fact that a very large fraction of a state’s population thought this way, it would be in the interest of those parts of the world that think otherwise to inhibit its spread beyond its already existing area of influence.
myth of “a land without a people for a people without a land”,
Actually, that was not a myth, it has just been misunderstood. “A people” meant “a nation,” i.e., a distinct and united ethno-cultural group with rightful aspirations to self-governance.
Most Americans today do not understand how central nationalism was to political and moral thought in the early 20th Century. When Woodrow Wilson promised a “War to End War,” for instance, he meant that tearing down the Austro-Hungarian, Russian, and Prussian Empires and freeing brave little Belgium and saucy little Serbia from the oppressor’s yoke, would end all need for war, because all those naturally-different sub-races would live in peace if not subjected to the horror of foreign rule. (It helped that Wilson was a romantic neo-Confederate twit.) That’s also why it was considered so idealistic to create a “League of Nations.” (and note the not-so-subtle shift to “United Nations” later.)
Anyway, the point of that little bromide was that the Arabs were seen as lacking national self-consciousness, and the Palestinians were seen as undifferentiated from any other Arabs, so there was no “people” there to displace, just many individual persons. That was even more or less correct — ironically, it was the resistance to invasion that gave them a distinct cultural identity.
myth of “a land without a people for a people without a land”,
Actually, that was not a myth, it has just been misunderstood. “A people” meant “a nation,” i.e., a distinct and united ethno-cultural group with rightful aspirations to self-governance.
Most Americans today do not understand how central nationalism was to political and moral thought in the early 20th Century. When Woodrow Wilson promised a “War to End War,” for instance, he meant that tearing down the Austro-Hungarian, Russian, and Prussian Empires and freeing brave little Belgium and saucy little Serbia from the oppressor’s yoke, would end all need for war, because all those naturally-different sub-races would live in peace if not subjected to the horror of foreign rule. (It helped that Wilson was a romantic neo-Confederate twit.) That’s also why it was considered so idealistic to create a “League of Nations.” (and note the not-so-subtle shift to “United Nations” later.)
Anyway, the point of that little bromide was that the Arabs were seen as lacking national self-consciousness, and the Palestinians were seen as undifferentiated from any other Arabs, so there was no “people” there to displace, just many individual persons. That was even more or less correct — ironically, it was the resistance to invasion that gave them a distinct cultural identity.
Back for a moment.
John Miller, you’re right. This place does sometimes bring out the civility in people. And I find myself in agreement with most of what the crafty trilobite wrote in his 9:40 statement. He in turn might possibly agree when I say the ultimate cause of the I/P conflict is, in a sense, European (and to a lesser extent American) antisemitism. Without that factor, there wouldn’t have been this pressure to form a Jewish state at all costs.
I’m not so sure about the 10:03 statement–my impression is that for at least some, that phrase was meant to imply that Palestine was a mostly empty and desolate land, though maybe others meant what trilobite says. I don’t have time to look it up, but I think a couple of rabbis went to Palestine in the early days of Zionism to check out the situation and reported back that “the bride (meaning the land) was beautiful, but already married to another” meaning that it was inhabited after all. Certainly in more modern polemics people sometimes use “land without a people” in a literal way–this is why some passages in one of Mark Twain’s travel books are sometimes used to “prove” Palestine was a nearly empty wasteland.
Back for a moment.
John Miller, you’re right. This place does sometimes bring out the civility in people. And I find myself in agreement with most of what the crafty trilobite wrote in his 9:40 statement. He in turn might possibly agree when I say the ultimate cause of the I/P conflict is, in a sense, European (and to a lesser extent American) antisemitism. Without that factor, there wouldn’t have been this pressure to form a Jewish state at all costs.
I’m not so sure about the 10:03 statement–my impression is that for at least some, that phrase was meant to imply that Palestine was a mostly empty and desolate land, though maybe others meant what trilobite says. I don’t have time to look it up, but I think a couple of rabbis went to Palestine in the early days of Zionism to check out the situation and reported back that “the bride (meaning the land) was beautiful, but already married to another” meaning that it was inhabited after all. Certainly in more modern polemics people sometimes use “land without a people” in a literal way–this is why some passages in one of Mark Twain’s travel books are sometimes used to “prove” Palestine was a nearly empty wasteland.
Trilobite’s 9:40 is excellent, I think.
On the subject of economic cooperation, IIRC some of the original partition plans contemplated close cooperation between Israel and the Arab state. That surely would be very desirable if a two-state solution emerges.
I remember once being told that the best current example of such cooperation was auto theft. Israeli thieves identified targets in Israel, and their Palestinian partners stole the cars and took them to the West Bank for sale or disassembly. Could be apocryphal.
Trilobite’s 9:40 is excellent, I think.
On the subject of economic cooperation, IIRC some of the original partition plans contemplated close cooperation between Israel and the Arab state. That surely would be very desirable if a two-state solution emerges.
I remember once being told that the best current example of such cooperation was auto theft. Israeli thieves identified targets in Israel, and their Palestinian partners stole the cars and took them to the West Bank for sale or disassembly. Could be apocryphal.
Incidentally, that little problem is why there was a myth of “a land without a people for a people without a land”, a myth that was revived a couple of decades ago by Joan Peters. The myth serves a purpose.
Let me address two points by adding on to Trilobyte’s post. The phrase was coined and employed by British Christians promoting the return of the Jews; it never gained wide circulation within the Zionist movement itself. there’s a decent overview of this topic in the admittedly partisan Middle East Quarterly.
That same article also points out that on just one page, Khalidi claimed that Herzl didn’t so much as mention Arabs in his Der Judenstat (in fact, he did); that this was a widely propagated Zionist slogan (it wasn’t); and deliberately misunderstands the phrase as suggesting that the land was depopulated when it simply suggested the lack of national consciousness. That, I hope, will whet the appetites of those who have asked for specific claims; I encourage them to chase down some randomly selected footnotes on their own, to see what they find.
But let’s also take a close look at the passage that Hogan has been kind enough to transcribe:
The disparity in numbers between nonwhites and whites there was much greater than between Arabs and Jews in Palestine.
-Here, he lies by misdirection. It’s certainly true that the disparity was much greater in South Africa. But it’s also the case that the disparity in Palestine tilts the other way. To make sense, the sentence ought to read: “In South Africa, a white minority ruled a disenfranchised black majority; in Palestine, a Jewish majority rules a disenfranchised Arab minority.”
although less based on a formal, explicit, legal framework of separation than was apartheid, the flexible, dynamic, ad hoc regime that Israel has erected in the occupied territories over nearly four decades, but especially since 1991, is more controlling, and more flexible, than anything undertaken under the apartheid regime.
-It’s a tough sentence to untangle. But then, that’s the point. How can a system be simultaneously more controlling and more flexible? Think of it this way – how would one falsify such a claim? Any leniency, change or reform can be dismissed the very flexibility that makes the system insidious; any stringency taken as confirmation of control. Khalidi is comparing two system here. One was an explicit system of control, enshrined in law. The other has been a largely ad hoc response to events. Which do you think is more controlling?
there are thus only limited parallels between the defunct apartheid system and the comprehensive and sophisticated matrix of control that Israel has created
And here’s the kicker. Shorter Khalidi: Apartheid? Ha! They had it easy!
Yes, that’s right. With a little bit of nuance, Khalidi is essentially arguing that the Palestinians have labored to overcome greater obstacles with fewer resources than black South Africans enjoyed. The nuance he injects into labeling Israel an Apartheid state is that he thinks the term understates matters. The Palestinians, he writes, have had to contend with greater numbers of occupiers; don’t enjoy secure rear areas or support from neighboring states; have suffered as the movement shifts its goals; and endured a more controlling legal regime.
This is why I find his arguments distasteful. And I rather think that, if Desmond Tutu read this passage, he’d quite agree.
Incidentally, that little problem is why there was a myth of “a land without a people for a people without a land”, a myth that was revived a couple of decades ago by Joan Peters. The myth serves a purpose.
Let me address two points by adding on to Trilobyte’s post. The phrase was coined and employed by British Christians promoting the return of the Jews; it never gained wide circulation within the Zionist movement itself. there’s a decent overview of this topic in the admittedly partisan Middle East Quarterly.
That same article also points out that on just one page, Khalidi claimed that Herzl didn’t so much as mention Arabs in his Der Judenstat (in fact, he did); that this was a widely propagated Zionist slogan (it wasn’t); and deliberately misunderstands the phrase as suggesting that the land was depopulated when it simply suggested the lack of national consciousness. That, I hope, will whet the appetites of those who have asked for specific claims; I encourage them to chase down some randomly selected footnotes on their own, to see what they find.
But let’s also take a close look at the passage that Hogan has been kind enough to transcribe:
The disparity in numbers between nonwhites and whites there was much greater than between Arabs and Jews in Palestine.
-Here, he lies by misdirection. It’s certainly true that the disparity was much greater in South Africa. But it’s also the case that the disparity in Palestine tilts the other way. To make sense, the sentence ought to read: “In South Africa, a white minority ruled a disenfranchised black majority; in Palestine, a Jewish majority rules a disenfranchised Arab minority.”
although less based on a formal, explicit, legal framework of separation than was apartheid, the flexible, dynamic, ad hoc regime that Israel has erected in the occupied territories over nearly four decades, but especially since 1991, is more controlling, and more flexible, than anything undertaken under the apartheid regime.
-It’s a tough sentence to untangle. But then, that’s the point. How can a system be simultaneously more controlling and more flexible? Think of it this way – how would one falsify such a claim? Any leniency, change or reform can be dismissed the very flexibility that makes the system insidious; any stringency taken as confirmation of control. Khalidi is comparing two system here. One was an explicit system of control, enshrined in law. The other has been a largely ad hoc response to events. Which do you think is more controlling?
there are thus only limited parallels between the defunct apartheid system and the comprehensive and sophisticated matrix of control that Israel has created
And here’s the kicker. Shorter Khalidi: Apartheid? Ha! They had it easy!
Yes, that’s right. With a little bit of nuance, Khalidi is essentially arguing that the Palestinians have labored to overcome greater obstacles with fewer resources than black South Africans enjoyed. The nuance he injects into labeling Israel an Apartheid state is that he thinks the term understates matters. The Palestinians, he writes, have had to contend with greater numbers of occupiers; don’t enjoy secure rear areas or support from neighboring states; have suffered as the movement shifts its goals; and endured a more controlling legal regime.
This is why I find his arguments distasteful. And I rather think that, if Desmond Tutu read this passage, he’d quite agree.
Let me address two points
Insane racist ranting is not “addressing points”.
Let me address two points
Insane racist ranting is not “addressing points”.
Insane racist ranting is not “addressing points”.
Why, no, it is not. I am, however, driven to assume that this was a non sequitur. Not only does your description entirely fail to reflect Bernard Yomtov’s civil and lucid comment, but if you called another commentor “insane,” ranting” and “racist,” simply because you disagreed with him, you would clearly be in violation of the posting rules.
The same, of course, would apply if you used such terms merely because Bernard is Jewish. But doubtless, you have some other reason for despising him. Perhaps you would care to share it?
Insane racist ranting is not “addressing points”.
Why, no, it is not. I am, however, driven to assume that this was a non sequitur. Not only does your description entirely fail to reflect Bernard Yomtov’s civil and lucid comment, but if you called another commentor “insane,” ranting” and “racist,” simply because you disagreed with him, you would clearly be in violation of the posting rules.
The same, of course, would apply if you used such terms merely because Bernard is Jewish. But doubtless, you have some other reason for despising him. Perhaps you would care to share it?
In my last, please read “Observer,” for “Bernard.” I misread the posting order.
In my last, please read “Observer,” for “Bernard.” I misread the posting order.
Observer, I have limited tolerance for reading Khalidi ever since I went to his University. Does he in this text ever mention the considerable advantages of the Palestinian struggle over that of the South African indigenous population?
In particular, armament, allies, and foreign military aid?
Observer, I have limited tolerance for reading Khalidi ever since I went to his University. Does he in this text ever mention the considerable advantages of the Palestinian struggle over that of the South African indigenous population?
In particular, armament, allies, and foreign military aid?
How can a system be simultaneously more controlling and more flexible? Think of it this way – how would one falsify such a claim? Any leniency, change or reform can be dismissed the very flexibility that makes the system insidious; any stringency taken as confirmation of control. Khalidi is comparing two system here. One was an explicit system of control, enshrined in law. The other has been a largely ad hoc response to events. Which do you think is more controlling?
You know, there are a lot of ways that a non-explicit system of control can be more powerful than an explicit system of control. I think it was Raul Hilberg who noted that Jews had more rights when they were convicted and imprisoned by the German criminal justice system and that this was a way that some Jews attempted to escape the Holocaust. The explicitness of German penal law actually provided some protections for Jews.
This isn’t to draw a parallel to the situations, but any situation where there is a differential application of rights is going to result in a system of both greater flexibility and greater control.
How can a system be simultaneously more controlling and more flexible? Think of it this way – how would one falsify such a claim? Any leniency, change or reform can be dismissed the very flexibility that makes the system insidious; any stringency taken as confirmation of control. Khalidi is comparing two system here. One was an explicit system of control, enshrined in law. The other has been a largely ad hoc response to events. Which do you think is more controlling?
You know, there are a lot of ways that a non-explicit system of control can be more powerful than an explicit system of control. I think it was Raul Hilberg who noted that Jews had more rights when they were convicted and imprisoned by the German criminal justice system and that this was a way that some Jews attempted to escape the Holocaust. The explicitness of German penal law actually provided some protections for Jews.
This isn’t to draw a parallel to the situations, but any situation where there is a differential application of rights is going to result in a system of both greater flexibility and greater control.
Not only does your description entirely fail to reflect Bernard Yomtov’s civil and lucid comment
Hahaha. Civil and lucid, huh?
Get some sleep.
Not only does your description entirely fail to reflect Bernard Yomtov’s civil and lucid comment
Hahaha. Civil and lucid, huh?
Get some sleep.
//Anybody serious about the ME conflict should read Khalidi’s book. Well said, Publius.//
Because a book will solve the problem? Not.
Because if I internalize the book’s notions it will solve the problem? Not.
There is nothing that either one of us can do about the problem no matter what. What’s more, there is nothing Khalidi can do about the problem.
//Anybody serious about the ME conflict should read Khalidi’s book. Well said, Publius.//
Because a book will solve the problem? Not.
Because if I internalize the book’s notions it will solve the problem? Not.
There is nothing that either one of us can do about the problem no matter what. What’s more, there is nothing Khalidi can do about the problem.
d’d’d’dave: The US’s pro-Israel stance in the Middle East and the widespread American ignorance of the situation in Israel/the Occupied Territories (both present-day and historically) is certainly not the only reason that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is usually moving away from a peaceful resolution.
But, insofar as the US could perform the important function of a neutral and powerful mediator in the conflict, and instead invariably chooses to side with Israel, while ignorant Americans sanctimoniously lecture better-informed people for being “pro-Palestinian”, yes, d’d’d’dave: it can help – not you individually, perhaps, but…
…oh, what am I saying? A change in US international policy that depends on a majority of Americans becoming better informed on the history and political issues of countries they’d probably have trouble finding on a map?
Never mind. I just have a personal preference for information over ignorance, which you, evidently, do not share.
d’d’d’dave: The US’s pro-Israel stance in the Middle East and the widespread American ignorance of the situation in Israel/the Occupied Territories (both present-day and historically) is certainly not the only reason that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is usually moving away from a peaceful resolution.
But, insofar as the US could perform the important function of a neutral and powerful mediator in the conflict, and instead invariably chooses to side with Israel, while ignorant Americans sanctimoniously lecture better-informed people for being “pro-Palestinian”, yes, d’d’d’dave: it can help – not you individually, perhaps, but…
…oh, what am I saying? A change in US international policy that depends on a majority of Americans becoming better informed on the history and political issues of countries they’d probably have trouble finding on a map?
Never mind. I just have a personal preference for information over ignorance, which you, evidently, do not share.
My slow-motion packing is almost done–Desmond Tutu on the apartheid analogy–
Link
My slow-motion packing is almost done–Desmond Tutu on the apartheid analogy–
Link
They see — indeed, they have lived — the institutional obstacles that Western powers (particularly the British, who owe every Palestinian an annuity) have erected against a viable Palestinian state for nearly a century.
You mean institutional obstacles such as offering them a state in 1937, 1947, and 2000? Groups such as the Kurds or Saharawis wish they had to face such “obstacles.”
They see — indeed, they have lived — the institutional obstacles that Western powers (particularly the British, who owe every Palestinian an annuity) have erected against a viable Palestinian state for nearly a century.
You mean institutional obstacles such as offering them a state in 1937, 1947, and 2000? Groups such as the Kurds or Saharawis wish they had to face such “obstacles.”
Take that d’d’d’dave. Some commenters’ views are based on what they know to be true and others’ are based on ignorance. The same elitist approach that has filled our youth with superficial political notions of egalitarianism and discarded our founding principle of individual liberty.
Take that d’d’d’dave. Some commenters’ views are based on what they know to be true and others’ are based on ignorance. The same elitist approach that has filled our youth with superficial political notions of egalitarianism and discarded our founding principle of individual liberty.
To give some context to Nephtuli’s comment:
The 1937 proposal entailed creating a Jewish-only state in the centre of Palestine and removing by force all Arabs from within that state. As this mini-state would have included Jerusalem, it is hardly surprising that it was roundly rejected by the Arab Palestinians. Once the difficulty of removing by force a large native population had been made clear to the British, they too dropped the proposal.
The 1947 proposal offered a thoroughly muddled state in which Jerusalem was at the centre of the largest Arab territory, but was under control of the UN. To Jewish Palestinians this offered the creation of an independent Jewish state, which they accepted: to Arab Palestianians, this offered the carving up of Palestine – it had no conceivable benefits. (Granted, it now looks like a better solution after sixty-plus years, but it’s perfectly clear why it didn’t in 1947 appear at all acceptable to Arab Palestinians why they should hand over a large part of their country to European and American colonialists.)
I am not aware of any offer made by the Israelis to create a Palestinian state in 1967; a large settlement movement to the Occupied Territories began soon after the Six-Day War, and no part of the territories taken by Israel in 1967 was given back to any nation till 1978, at which time the settlements on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were well-established.
To give some context to Nephtuli’s comment:
The 1937 proposal entailed creating a Jewish-only state in the centre of Palestine and removing by force all Arabs from within that state. As this mini-state would have included Jerusalem, it is hardly surprising that it was roundly rejected by the Arab Palestinians. Once the difficulty of removing by force a large native population had been made clear to the British, they too dropped the proposal.
The 1947 proposal offered a thoroughly muddled state in which Jerusalem was at the centre of the largest Arab territory, but was under control of the UN. To Jewish Palestinians this offered the creation of an independent Jewish state, which they accepted: to Arab Palestianians, this offered the carving up of Palestine – it had no conceivable benefits. (Granted, it now looks like a better solution after sixty-plus years, but it’s perfectly clear why it didn’t in 1947 appear at all acceptable to Arab Palestinians why they should hand over a large part of their country to European and American colonialists.)
I am not aware of any offer made by the Israelis to create a Palestinian state in 1967; a large settlement movement to the Occupied Territories began soon after the Six-Day War, and no part of the territories taken by Israel in 1967 was given back to any nation till 1978, at which time the settlements on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were well-established.
I puzzle about whether it is possible to reconcile what one may think about the right and wrong when two foreign parties are involved in a dispute with the long-term national interest of one’s own nation. In my case, the latter is the United States, and that influences my views ahead of the detailed analysis of all the historical rights and wrongs.
I puzzle about whether it is possible to reconcile what one may think about the right and wrong when two foreign parties are involved in a dispute with the long-term national interest of one’s own nation. In my case, the latter is the United States, and that influences my views ahead of the detailed analysis of all the historical rights and wrongs.
GoodOleBoy, are you the same person who does “Rugged in Montana” on Pandagon? Your last comment reminded me irresistibly of him…
GoodOleBoy, are you the same person who does “Rugged in Montana” on Pandagon? Your last comment reminded me irresistibly of him…
You mean institutional obstacles such as offering them a state in 1937, 1947, and 2000? Groups such as the Kurds or Saharawis wish they had to face such “obstacles.”
To follow up on Jes’ comments, I don’t think there was ever any offer made in 2000. A serious offer would involve a piece of paper. I mean, no one in their right mind would consider any business offer that wasn’t written down, but so far as I know, no such offer was ever made in 2000. But perhaps I’m wrong. Can anyone link to a PDF of the “offer” that Palestinians supposedly rejected?
You mean institutional obstacles such as offering them a state in 1937, 1947, and 2000? Groups such as the Kurds or Saharawis wish they had to face such “obstacles.”
To follow up on Jes’ comments, I don’t think there was ever any offer made in 2000. A serious offer would involve a piece of paper. I mean, no one in their right mind would consider any business offer that wasn’t written down, but so far as I know, no such offer was ever made in 2000. But perhaps I’m wrong. Can anyone link to a PDF of the “offer” that Palestinians supposedly rejected?
the Arabs were seen as lacking national self-consciousness, and the Palestinians were seen as undifferentiated from any other Arabs, so there was no “people” there to displace, just many individual persons.
As Eddie Izzard has pointed out, it all came down to the cunning use of flags.
the Arabs were seen as lacking national self-consciousness, and the Palestinians were seen as undifferentiated from any other Arabs, so there was no “people” there to displace, just many individual persons.
As Eddie Izzard has pointed out, it all came down to the cunning use of flags.
Well, let’s put it this way. My notions of what it means to act American are old-fashioned. So you will sense a tone of patriotism in my comments (which should be refreshing since there’s not much of that here). One important element of my sense of patriotism is supporting and defending the US Constitution and the principle of individual liberty expressed by our founding fathers. I always try to make comments that reflect a logical reasoning process but my ignorance has been overwhelmed by the enormous knowledge of others here resulting in my being called unsavory names on occasion. I don’t know ‘Rugged in Montana’ but I like the handle.
Well, let’s put it this way. My notions of what it means to act American are old-fashioned. So you will sense a tone of patriotism in my comments (which should be refreshing since there’s not much of that here). One important element of my sense of patriotism is supporting and defending the US Constitution and the principle of individual liberty expressed by our founding fathers. I always try to make comments that reflect a logical reasoning process but my ignorance has been overwhelmed by the enormous knowledge of others here resulting in my being called unsavory names on occasion. I don’t know ‘Rugged in Montana’ but I like the handle.
So you will sense a tone of patriotism in my comments (which should be refreshing since there’s not much of that here).
First of all, a number of the people here are not from the US, so complaining about a lack of patriotism based on that seems a bit misguided. Second, perhaps under your definition of patriotism, there isn’t much, but I would question if your definition is the definitive one.
So you will sense a tone of patriotism in my comments (which should be refreshing since there’s not much of that here).
First of all, a number of the people here are not from the US, so complaining about a lack of patriotism based on that seems a bit misguided. Second, perhaps under your definition of patriotism, there isn’t much, but I would question if your definition is the definitive one.
It’s certainly not definitive, but essential. I understand many here are not US, but that should not keep them from understanding what a patriot position would be, and that then should help in understanding US official actions.
It’s certainly not definitive, but essential. I understand many here are not US, but that should not keep them from understanding what a patriot position would be, and that then should help in understanding US official actions.
I understand many here are not US, but that should not keep them from understanding what a patriot position would be, and that then should help in understanding US official actions.
But your complaint was that patriotism (which seems to revolve around the US) was not much in evidence. This suggests that your definition of patriotism is more focussed on displays of patriotism rather than the actual heart of the matter. That you feel this is essential points to a disagreement with me, at least, and probably with several others. And, bringing it back to the topic of this post, what would you define as ‘essential’ for a display of Palestinian patriotism?
I understand many here are not US, but that should not keep them from understanding what a patriot position would be, and that then should help in understanding US official actions.
But your complaint was that patriotism (which seems to revolve around the US) was not much in evidence. This suggests that your definition of patriotism is more focussed on displays of patriotism rather than the actual heart of the matter. That you feel this is essential points to a disagreement with me, at least, and probably with several others. And, bringing it back to the topic of this post, what would you define as ‘essential’ for a display of Palestinian patriotism?
The 1937 proposal entailed creating a Jewish-only state in the centre of Palestine and removing by force all Arabs from within that state. As this mini-state would have included Jerusalem, it is hardly surprising that it was roundly rejected by the Arab Palestinians. Once the difficulty of removing by force a large native population had been made clear to the British, they too dropped the proposal.
This is only partially true. Jerusalem was to be part of an international regime under Peel’s plan. Also, the Jews would have received a small percentage of Palestine, and the Palestinians would have received the vast majority of the territory. The Palestinian response to Peel was an uptick in the violence that had been going on since 1936, not any alternative offer of settlement.
The 1947 proposal offered a thoroughly muddled state in which Jerusalem was at the centre of the largest Arab territory, but was under control of the UN. To Jewish Palestinians this offered the creation of an independent Jewish state, which they accepted: to Arab Palestinians, this offered the carving up of Palestine – it had no conceivable benefits. (Granted, it now looks like a better solution after sixty-plus years, but it’s perfectly clear why it didn’t in 1947 appear at all acceptable to Arab Palestinians why they should hand over a large part of their country to European and American colonialists.)
Notwithstanding that, again, the Palestinians were to receive the larger piece of territory, it is important to note that the Palestinians again did not offer any alternative but merely violently opposed the plan.
Remember the original point I was making. The Western countries (and especially Israel) have made attempts to accommodate the Palestinians (which they have not done for other groups; I await with eagerness the UN’s Sahawari day). Whether the Palestinians thought the deals were perfect or not is immaterial because they never negotiated the terms, and never made any attempt to work out a deal with the Jews. They thought they were in the right and refused to compromise. The Jews also thought they were in the right, but they were willing to accept a sub par deal rather than see the violence continue.
I am similarly unaware of any proposal for a Palestinian state in 1967. The fact that UNSC 242’s only reference to the Palestinians was as refugees was a major reason the PLO opposed the plan.
To follow up on Jes’ comments, I don’t think there was ever any offer made in 2000. A serious offer would involve a piece of paper. I mean, no one in their right mind would consider any business offer that wasn’t written down, but so far as I know, no such offer was ever made in 2000. But perhaps I’m wrong. Can anyone link to a PDF of the “offer” that Palestinians supposedly rejected?
What Clinton offered at Taba were principles that were slightly modifiable but not a “sign on the dotted line” offer. These principles went as far as I can imagine Israel ever going. Barak accepted the principles, Arafat rejected them. The details are painstakingly recounted in Dennis Ross’ The Missing Peace.
The 1937 proposal entailed creating a Jewish-only state in the centre of Palestine and removing by force all Arabs from within that state. As this mini-state would have included Jerusalem, it is hardly surprising that it was roundly rejected by the Arab Palestinians. Once the difficulty of removing by force a large native population had been made clear to the British, they too dropped the proposal.
This is only partially true. Jerusalem was to be part of an international regime under Peel’s plan. Also, the Jews would have received a small percentage of Palestine, and the Palestinians would have received the vast majority of the territory. The Palestinian response to Peel was an uptick in the violence that had been going on since 1936, not any alternative offer of settlement.
The 1947 proposal offered a thoroughly muddled state in which Jerusalem was at the centre of the largest Arab territory, but was under control of the UN. To Jewish Palestinians this offered the creation of an independent Jewish state, which they accepted: to Arab Palestinians, this offered the carving up of Palestine – it had no conceivable benefits. (Granted, it now looks like a better solution after sixty-plus years, but it’s perfectly clear why it didn’t in 1947 appear at all acceptable to Arab Palestinians why they should hand over a large part of their country to European and American colonialists.)
Notwithstanding that, again, the Palestinians were to receive the larger piece of territory, it is important to note that the Palestinians again did not offer any alternative but merely violently opposed the plan.
Remember the original point I was making. The Western countries (and especially Israel) have made attempts to accommodate the Palestinians (which they have not done for other groups; I await with eagerness the UN’s Sahawari day). Whether the Palestinians thought the deals were perfect or not is immaterial because they never negotiated the terms, and never made any attempt to work out a deal with the Jews. They thought they were in the right and refused to compromise. The Jews also thought they were in the right, but they were willing to accept a sub par deal rather than see the violence continue.
I am similarly unaware of any proposal for a Palestinian state in 1967. The fact that UNSC 242’s only reference to the Palestinians was as refugees was a major reason the PLO opposed the plan.
To follow up on Jes’ comments, I don’t think there was ever any offer made in 2000. A serious offer would involve a piece of paper. I mean, no one in their right mind would consider any business offer that wasn’t written down, but so far as I know, no such offer was ever made in 2000. But perhaps I’m wrong. Can anyone link to a PDF of the “offer” that Palestinians supposedly rejected?
What Clinton offered at Taba were principles that were slightly modifiable but not a “sign on the dotted line” offer. These principles went as far as I can imagine Israel ever going. Barak accepted the principles, Arafat rejected them. The details are painstakingly recounted in Dennis Ross’ The Missing Peace.
What Clinton offered at Taba were principles that were slightly modifiable but not a “sign on the dotted line” offer. These principles went as far as I can imagine Israel ever going. Barak accepted the principles, Arafat rejected them. The details are painstakingly recounted in Dennis Ross’ The Missing Peace.
Is this some sort of sick joke? Clinton couldn’t offer a damn thing: he did not represent the state of Israel. I mean, I could offer Abbas something as well as Clinton could. Moreover, Tabba was meaningless: the Israeli government was on its way out and totally unable to sign an agreement that its successors would adhere to. What exactly is the point of cutting a deal with a lame duck when the successor will not follow it?
In any event, you’ve proven my point for me. The Palestinians were not “offered” any deal in 2000; they were given a bunch of “principles” by someone with no power. Yay. Aren’t they lucky.
What Clinton offered at Taba were principles that were slightly modifiable but not a “sign on the dotted line” offer. These principles went as far as I can imagine Israel ever going. Barak accepted the principles, Arafat rejected them. The details are painstakingly recounted in Dennis Ross’ The Missing Peace.
Is this some sort of sick joke? Clinton couldn’t offer a damn thing: he did not represent the state of Israel. I mean, I could offer Abbas something as well as Clinton could. Moreover, Tabba was meaningless: the Israeli government was on its way out and totally unable to sign an agreement that its successors would adhere to. What exactly is the point of cutting a deal with a lame duck when the successor will not follow it?
In any event, you’ve proven my point for me. The Palestinians were not “offered” any deal in 2000; they were given a bunch of “principles” by someone with no power. Yay. Aren’t they lucky.
liberal japonicus,
Re: patriotism expressions here or not here, an observation, not a complaint. I’m well accustomed to a lack of patriotic expression or action right here in the US. On the contrary, I value action much more than talk, and I personally have a long history of service as well as a family heritage of patriotism going back to the American Revolutionary War. The use of essential in my earlier reference is for an American to be an American patriot. How would I be expected to define patriotism for a Palestinian? The difference in cultural context is too great for me. As to the conflict itself, I would like hands off, but it seems my elected leaders have concluded we have an interest there. I’m not sure.
liberal japonicus,
Re: patriotism expressions here or not here, an observation, not a complaint. I’m well accustomed to a lack of patriotic expression or action right here in the US. On the contrary, I value action much more than talk, and I personally have a long history of service as well as a family heritage of patriotism going back to the American Revolutionary War. The use of essential in my earlier reference is for an American to be an American patriot. How would I be expected to define patriotism for a Palestinian? The difference in cultural context is too great for me. As to the conflict itself, I would like hands off, but it seems my elected leaders have concluded we have an interest there. I’m not sure.
GoodOleBoy, I remain confused. Personally I have seen more American patriotism displayed here than at sites such as Red State and other so-called conservative blogs. It would really help if you defined your meaning of patriotism.
GoodOleBoy, I remain confused. Personally I have seen more American patriotism displayed here than at sites such as Red State and other so-called conservative blogs. It would really help if you defined your meaning of patriotism.
Also, the Jews would have received a small percentage of Palestine, and the Palestinians would have received the vast majority of the territory.
Did you miss the point about the difficulties of removing by force a large native population?
Notwithstanding that, again, the Palestinians were to receive the larger piece of territory, it is important to note that the Palestinians again did not offer any alternative but merely violently opposed the plan.
Er, the alternative the Arab Palestinians offered in 1947 was to keep Palestine as a whole country. This alternative was violently opposed by the European/American-origin Jewish minority.
The Western countries (and especially Israel) have made attempts to accommodate the Palestinians (which they have not done for other groups
Is this some kind of joke? The group which, in 1937 and in 1947 Western countries and the UN made “attempts to accommodate” were the Palestinian Jews – both the colonists and the refugees. The UN and the British Government were attempting to convince the Palestinian Arabs that they ought to give up a part of their own country to foreign settlers in order to “accommodate” them.
The Jews also thought they were in the right, but they were willing to accept a sub par deal rather than see the violence continue.
The Jewish Palestinians were doubtless practically aware that clearing all the Arabs out of the whole of Palestine would be a long, messy job, and were willing not to bother if the British would do the job for them for at least part of the country. This wasn’t a “sub-par deal”: this was their being offered special accommodation to set up a colonialist nation with the last gasp of the British Empire to suppress the natives.
Whereas the Arab Palestinians didn’t want to subdivide Palestine at all – and, if democracy had counted for anything under the British Mandate, when the majority do not want to divide their own country and hand over part of it to colonialists, the majority ordinarily are in the right.
Also, the Jews would have received a small percentage of Palestine, and the Palestinians would have received the vast majority of the territory.
Did you miss the point about the difficulties of removing by force a large native population?
Notwithstanding that, again, the Palestinians were to receive the larger piece of territory, it is important to note that the Palestinians again did not offer any alternative but merely violently opposed the plan.
Er, the alternative the Arab Palestinians offered in 1947 was to keep Palestine as a whole country. This alternative was violently opposed by the European/American-origin Jewish minority.
The Western countries (and especially Israel) have made attempts to accommodate the Palestinians (which they have not done for other groups
Is this some kind of joke? The group which, in 1937 and in 1947 Western countries and the UN made “attempts to accommodate” were the Palestinian Jews – both the colonists and the refugees. The UN and the British Government were attempting to convince the Palestinian Arabs that they ought to give up a part of their own country to foreign settlers in order to “accommodate” them.
The Jews also thought they were in the right, but they were willing to accept a sub par deal rather than see the violence continue.
The Jewish Palestinians were doubtless practically aware that clearing all the Arabs out of the whole of Palestine would be a long, messy job, and were willing not to bother if the British would do the job for them for at least part of the country. This wasn’t a “sub-par deal”: this was their being offered special accommodation to set up a colonialist nation with the last gasp of the British Empire to suppress the natives.
Whereas the Arab Palestinians didn’t want to subdivide Palestine at all – and, if democracy had counted for anything under the British Mandate, when the majority do not want to divide their own country and hand over part of it to colonialists, the majority ordinarily are in the right.
That was even more or less correct — ironically, it was the resistance to invasion that gave them a distinct cultural identity.
Ironic, perhaps, but to be expected. That has been a typical response to colonialism throughout human history. Even as far back as the Romans, there would be no way Vercingetorix could have united the Gauls under his leadership if not for the Roman threat.
That was even more or less correct — ironically, it was the resistance to invasion that gave them a distinct cultural identity.
Ironic, perhaps, but to be expected. That has been a typical response to colonialism throughout human history. Even as far back as the Romans, there would be no way Vercingetorix could have united the Gauls under his leadership if not for the Roman threat.
So you will sense a tone of patriotism in my comments (which should be refreshing since there’s not much of that here).
GoodOleBoy,
If you actually revere the US Constitution as the highest object of patriotic loyalty in the US then presumably you have some knowledge regarding the historical circumstances under which that document was negotiated. Such being the case, you of all people should have a better appreciation for the idea that there are as many forms of patriotic expression as there are Amercians, and that no one way is canonical.
Your comment above was either ill phrased or indicative of someone who doesn’t understand the very diverse forms of American patriotism very well. Perhaps hitting the history books might help.
Now please carry on with what is one of the better I/P threads I’ve read in some time.
Oh, and Happy New Year to everybody!
So you will sense a tone of patriotism in my comments (which should be refreshing since there’s not much of that here).
GoodOleBoy,
If you actually revere the US Constitution as the highest object of patriotic loyalty in the US then presumably you have some knowledge regarding the historical circumstances under which that document was negotiated. Such being the case, you of all people should have a better appreciation for the idea that there are as many forms of patriotic expression as there are Amercians, and that no one way is canonical.
Your comment above was either ill phrased or indicative of someone who doesn’t understand the very diverse forms of American patriotism very well. Perhaps hitting the history books might help.
Now please carry on with what is one of the better I/P threads I’ve read in some time.
Oh, and Happy New Year to everybody!
John Miller,
Most of this discussion here has focused on the long history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the right actions and wrong actions of those two sides, from the view of the various commenters. Some of those comments have castigated the US for leaning toward Israel based on the commenters’ views that aid to Israel does not reflect supporting right in the conflict. But US action, in my view, should reflect what we judge to be in the long term national interests of the US, and not was is right or wrong vis-a-vis Israel and Palestine. A discussion of the rightness or wrongness of the US position on the conflict with respect to the US interests might involve patriotism for Americans who engaged in that discussion.
John Miller,
Most of this discussion here has focused on the long history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the right actions and wrong actions of those two sides, from the view of the various commenters. Some of those comments have castigated the US for leaning toward Israel based on the commenters’ views that aid to Israel does not reflect supporting right in the conflict. But US action, in my view, should reflect what we judge to be in the long term national interests of the US, and not was is right or wrong vis-a-vis Israel and Palestine. A discussion of the rightness or wrongness of the US position on the conflict with respect to the US interests might involve patriotism for Americans who engaged in that discussion.
Is this some sort of sick joke? Clinton couldn’t offer a damn thing: he did not represent the state of Israel. I mean, I could offer Abbas something as well as Clinton could. Moreover, Tabba was meaningless: the Israeli government was on its way out and totally unable to sign an agreement that its successors would adhere to. What exactly is the point of cutting a deal with a lame duck when the successor will not follow it?
Clinton acted a mediator. He proposed a solution (which the US would back up in a variety of ways). Barak said yes, Arafat said no. The whole point of the mediator is to find common ground and propose solutions and that’s what Clinton did.
If Arafat accepted the deal, Sharon would have had no choice but to follow it, especially given the composition of the Knesset after his election. Labor was still the largest party after Sharon’s election. At the very least, Arafat could have pointed to the agreement in principle as a PR weapon against Israel if Israel abrogated the agreement and Israel would have been under enormous pressure to keep the deal.
The point is that Israel accepted fairly specific principles, which the parties could modify slightly via agreement. Had Arafat accepted those principles, the parties would have reached essentially reached an agreement (especially if the Plaintians hadn’t decided to start Intifada #2, but that’s a different matter).
Is this some sort of sick joke? Clinton couldn’t offer a damn thing: he did not represent the state of Israel. I mean, I could offer Abbas something as well as Clinton could. Moreover, Tabba was meaningless: the Israeli government was on its way out and totally unable to sign an agreement that its successors would adhere to. What exactly is the point of cutting a deal with a lame duck when the successor will not follow it?
Clinton acted a mediator. He proposed a solution (which the US would back up in a variety of ways). Barak said yes, Arafat said no. The whole point of the mediator is to find common ground and propose solutions and that’s what Clinton did.
If Arafat accepted the deal, Sharon would have had no choice but to follow it, especially given the composition of the Knesset after his election. Labor was still the largest party after Sharon’s election. At the very least, Arafat could have pointed to the agreement in principle as a PR weapon against Israel if Israel abrogated the agreement and Israel would have been under enormous pressure to keep the deal.
The point is that Israel accepted fairly specific principles, which the parties could modify slightly via agreement. Had Arafat accepted those principles, the parties would have reached essentially reached an agreement (especially if the Plaintians hadn’t decided to start Intifada #2, but that’s a different matter).
Did you miss the point about the difficulties of removing by force a large native population?
Not at all. There were actually discussion within the Yishuv about that part of the plan and whether it was acceptable. The Yishuv accepted it, but with reservations.
Nevertheless, what alternative did the Palestinians? That’s your next comment:
Er, the alternative the Arab Palestinians offered in 1947 was to keep Palestine as a whole country. This alternative was violently opposed by the European/American-origin Jewish minority.
As a whole country with who in charge? What rights would the very large Jewish minority have? That’s not an alternative; it’s refusing to compromise.
Is this some kind of joke? The group which, in 1937 and in 1947 Western countries and the UN made “attempts to accommodate” were the Palestinian Jews – both the colonists and the refugees. The UN and the British Government were attempting to convince the Palestinian Arabs that they ought to give up a part of their own country to foreign settlers in order to “accommodate” them.
And the Jews who have thousands of years of ties to the land felt that they were giving up a major chunk of their homeland as well…
Both sides felt they were giving something up, and both sides had a maximalist position, but only the Jews were willing to take a compromise deal. As you’ve admitted, the Palestinians simply were not.
The Jewish Palestinians were doubtless practically aware that clearing all the Arabs out of the whole of Palestine would be a long, messy job, and were willing not to bother if the British would do the job for them for at least part of the country. This wasn’t a “sub-par deal”: this was their being offered special accommodation to set up a colonialist nation with the last gasp of the British Empire to suppress the natives.
Sadly the above nonsense has no basis in reality. The partition plan called for no such transfer. There is no evidence that the Jews wanted to “clear[] all the Arabs out of the whole of Palestine (although some Palestinians were surely expelled)” The parties’ stubborn adherence to their respective mythologies is one of the reasons for the current mess.
Whereas the Arab Palestinians didn’t want to subdivide Palestine at all – and, if democracy had counted for anything under the British Mandate, when the majority do not want to divide their own country and hand over part of it to colonialists, the majority ordinarily are in the right.
Of course they didn’t want to divide Palestine; that was their strongest position. The Jews didn’t want to divide it either, but the realities simply did not permit the two sides to live side by side under the Arab majority. And does anyone believe a unified Palestine would have been remotely democratic? Since when does the majority have the right to take away the rights of the minority?
Did you miss the point about the difficulties of removing by force a large native population?
Not at all. There were actually discussion within the Yishuv about that part of the plan and whether it was acceptable. The Yishuv accepted it, but with reservations.
Nevertheless, what alternative did the Palestinians? That’s your next comment:
Er, the alternative the Arab Palestinians offered in 1947 was to keep Palestine as a whole country. This alternative was violently opposed by the European/American-origin Jewish minority.
As a whole country with who in charge? What rights would the very large Jewish minority have? That’s not an alternative; it’s refusing to compromise.
Is this some kind of joke? The group which, in 1937 and in 1947 Western countries and the UN made “attempts to accommodate” were the Palestinian Jews – both the colonists and the refugees. The UN and the British Government were attempting to convince the Palestinian Arabs that they ought to give up a part of their own country to foreign settlers in order to “accommodate” them.
And the Jews who have thousands of years of ties to the land felt that they were giving up a major chunk of their homeland as well…
Both sides felt they were giving something up, and both sides had a maximalist position, but only the Jews were willing to take a compromise deal. As you’ve admitted, the Palestinians simply were not.
The Jewish Palestinians were doubtless practically aware that clearing all the Arabs out of the whole of Palestine would be a long, messy job, and were willing not to bother if the British would do the job for them for at least part of the country. This wasn’t a “sub-par deal”: this was their being offered special accommodation to set up a colonialist nation with the last gasp of the British Empire to suppress the natives.
Sadly the above nonsense has no basis in reality. The partition plan called for no such transfer. There is no evidence that the Jews wanted to “clear[] all the Arabs out of the whole of Palestine (although some Palestinians were surely expelled)” The parties’ stubborn adherence to their respective mythologies is one of the reasons for the current mess.
Whereas the Arab Palestinians didn’t want to subdivide Palestine at all – and, if democracy had counted for anything under the British Mandate, when the majority do not want to divide their own country and hand over part of it to colonialists, the majority ordinarily are in the right.
Of course they didn’t want to divide Palestine; that was their strongest position. The Jews didn’t want to divide it either, but the realities simply did not permit the two sides to live side by side under the Arab majority. And does anyone believe a unified Palestine would have been remotely democratic? Since when does the majority have the right to take away the rights of the minority?
step away from those italics
step away from those italics
GoodOleBoy: “US action, in my view, should reflect what we judge to be in the long term national interests of the US, and not was is right or wrong vis-a-vis Israel and Palestine.”
There are, as others have said, a lot of different forms patriotism can take. Mine does not hold that it is an act of love for one’s country to encourage it to participate in injustice, absent very, very compelling reasons. (E.g., the US Will be destroyed if we do not help someone keep a paperclip from its rightful owner.) Likewise, I love my siblings, and for that reason would not assist them in becoming murderers, even if that seemed to them to be “in their interests”, on some definition of “interest”. Loving something or someone involves wanting that entity or person to be the best he/she/it can be.
Moreover, I think that even leaving aside the question whether a country’s interests can involve immorality (conceptually), I think that in general they do not. (There are, I think, specific but rare exceptions to this.) For the most part, the idea that they do involves either too narrow a conception of interests, or a lack of appreciation of the damage it does us when people hate us and think we are amoral.
In the specific case at hand, the idea that US interests require support for Israel is bizarre. An amoral, cold-hearted, unsentimental view of what’s in what are normally called our interests would, I think, lead to the conclusion that our support for Israel has been disastrous for us. It’s because I don’t share that view that I do not think it’s an open-and-shut question.
GoodOleBoy: “US action, in my view, should reflect what we judge to be in the long term national interests of the US, and not was is right or wrong vis-a-vis Israel and Palestine.”
There are, as others have said, a lot of different forms patriotism can take. Mine does not hold that it is an act of love for one’s country to encourage it to participate in injustice, absent very, very compelling reasons. (E.g., the US Will be destroyed if we do not help someone keep a paperclip from its rightful owner.) Likewise, I love my siblings, and for that reason would not assist them in becoming murderers, even if that seemed to them to be “in their interests”, on some definition of “interest”. Loving something or someone involves wanting that entity or person to be the best he/she/it can be.
Moreover, I think that even leaving aside the question whether a country’s interests can involve immorality (conceptually), I think that in general they do not. (There are, I think, specific but rare exceptions to this.) For the most part, the idea that they do involves either too narrow a conception of interests, or a lack of appreciation of the damage it does us when people hate us and think we are amoral.
In the specific case at hand, the idea that US interests require support for Israel is bizarre. An amoral, cold-hearted, unsentimental view of what’s in what are normally called our interests would, I think, lead to the conclusion that our support for Israel has been disastrous for us. It’s because I don’t share that view that I do not think it’s an open-and-shut question.
Hilzoy:
Eloquently put. My only quibble is with your concluding paragraph: “An amoral, cold-hearted, unsentimental view of what’s in what are normally called our interests would, I think, lead to the conclusion that our support for Israel has been disastrous for us.”
I believe I understand the point you’re making, but would point out that in the paragraph immediately prior, you note that immorality is very rarely in our national interest. I think that’s absolutely right. Perhaps we might substitute “short-term interests” for “what are normally called our interests.” I don’t think there’s any doubt that, at various points over the past sixty years, the short-term economic or geopolitical interests of the United States might have been advanced by capitulating to the demands of various Middle Eastern regimes. But over the long term, such a decision would have eroded our international standing. It is not just our wealth and our military might which allow us to exercise our influence around the world; it is the perception that we stand for something. That we will be resolute in support of our friends, and steadfast in opposition to our foes. That, even when we might eke out some immediate advantage, we will not betray our principles.
There are, of course, innumerable instances when we have betrayed those principles in pursuit of some immediate advantage. And there are others when we have attempted to defend our principles, and ended up betraying them. But, on balance, that perception is the greatest weapon we have, and a powerful tool for positive change.
That, to my mind, is an amoral, cold-hearted, unsentimental truth. Even realists and pragmatists can acknowledge the practical utility of idealism. It’s not that we need to sacrifice our interests for our principles; it’s that, over the long term, defending those principles best serves our interests.
Hilzoy:
Eloquently put. My only quibble is with your concluding paragraph: “An amoral, cold-hearted, unsentimental view of what’s in what are normally called our interests would, I think, lead to the conclusion that our support for Israel has been disastrous for us.”
I believe I understand the point you’re making, but would point out that in the paragraph immediately prior, you note that immorality is very rarely in our national interest. I think that’s absolutely right. Perhaps we might substitute “short-term interests” for “what are normally called our interests.” I don’t think there’s any doubt that, at various points over the past sixty years, the short-term economic or geopolitical interests of the United States might have been advanced by capitulating to the demands of various Middle Eastern regimes. But over the long term, such a decision would have eroded our international standing. It is not just our wealth and our military might which allow us to exercise our influence around the world; it is the perception that we stand for something. That we will be resolute in support of our friends, and steadfast in opposition to our foes. That, even when we might eke out some immediate advantage, we will not betray our principles.
There are, of course, innumerable instances when we have betrayed those principles in pursuit of some immediate advantage. And there are others when we have attempted to defend our principles, and ended up betraying them. But, on balance, that perception is the greatest weapon we have, and a powerful tool for positive change.
That, to my mind, is an amoral, cold-hearted, unsentimental truth. Even realists and pragmatists can acknowledge the practical utility of idealism. It’s not that we need to sacrifice our interests for our principles; it’s that, over the long term, defending those principles best serves our interests.
An amoral, cold-hearted, unsentimental view of what’s in what are normally called our interests would, I think, lead to the conclusion that our support for Israel has been disastrous for us.
I do wonder sometimes what we get out of treating Israel as the 51st state.
An amoral, cold-hearted, unsentimental view of what’s in what are normally called our interests would, I think, lead to the conclusion that our support for Israel has been disastrous for us.
I do wonder sometimes what we get out of treating Israel as the 51st state.
It is not just our wealth and our military might which allow us to exercise our influence around the world; it is the perception that we stand for something. That we will be resolute in support of our friends, and steadfast in opposition to our foes. That, even when we might eke out some immediate advantage, we will not betray our principles.
Is there any evidence for this assertion at all? As you yourself point out, America has repeatedly acted in opposition to these principles. Principles that are often and consistently violated can’t be relied upon to guide future behavior, now can they? If there’s no evidence and this is just something you like to believe because it makes you feel good, that’s fine too, but I’d like to know.
Moreover, I’m curious: what exactly does America stand for? We don’t stand for the international rule of law. And while we might sort of stand by our friends if you narrowly define the term friend, we’ve propped up all manner of brutal dictators who have murdered their own people. We’re not even particularly steadfast in opposing our foes: arms for hostages anyone? You’ve written down some heart warming platitudes, but it seems that our foreign policy would be better served by honesty rather than cloying sentiment.
It is not just our wealth and our military might which allow us to exercise our influence around the world; it is the perception that we stand for something. That we will be resolute in support of our friends, and steadfast in opposition to our foes. That, even when we might eke out some immediate advantage, we will not betray our principles.
Is there any evidence for this assertion at all? As you yourself point out, America has repeatedly acted in opposition to these principles. Principles that are often and consistently violated can’t be relied upon to guide future behavior, now can they? If there’s no evidence and this is just something you like to believe because it makes you feel good, that’s fine too, but I’d like to know.
Moreover, I’m curious: what exactly does America stand for? We don’t stand for the international rule of law. And while we might sort of stand by our friends if you narrowly define the term friend, we’ve propped up all manner of brutal dictators who have murdered their own people. We’re not even particularly steadfast in opposing our foes: arms for hostages anyone? You’ve written down some heart warming platitudes, but it seems that our foreign policy would be better served by honesty rather than cloying sentiment.
@Nephtuli:
Uhm? Unless I’m misremembering (and Wikipedia strongly suggests I’m not), I don’t see how 43% of Palestine can be in any way be conceived to be “larger” than 56%.
@Nephtuli:
Uhm? Unless I’m misremembering (and Wikipedia strongly suggests I’m not), I don’t see how 43% of Palestine can be in any way be conceived to be “larger” than 56%.
Italics off?
Italics off?
Is there any evidence for this assertion at all?
I submit that there is negative evidence in support of the notion that the US has derived benefits from its reputation: the absence of an explicitly anti-American alliance structure incorporating one or more major geopolitical powers, designed to oppose the power and constrain the actions of the US.
In strictly realpolitick balance of power terms, such an alliance should have formed by now, since the fall of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the Warsaw Pact was over a decade ago, unless the other major powers of the world have collectively decided to discount the need for it by assuming that US intentions are broadly speaking benign until proven otherwise. That they have persisted in this course of inaction despite the behavior of the Bush administration suggests that this sentiment is actually quite strong and durable.
Is there any evidence for this assertion at all?
I submit that there is negative evidence in support of the notion that the US has derived benefits from its reputation: the absence of an explicitly anti-American alliance structure incorporating one or more major geopolitical powers, designed to oppose the power and constrain the actions of the US.
In strictly realpolitick balance of power terms, such an alliance should have formed by now, since the fall of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the Warsaw Pact was over a decade ago, unless the other major powers of the world have collectively decided to discount the need for it by assuming that US intentions are broadly speaking benign until proven otherwise. That they have persisted in this course of inaction despite the behavior of the Bush administration suggests that this sentiment is actually quite strong and durable.
Uhm? Unless I’m misremembering (and Wikipedia strongly suggests I’m not), I don’t see how 43% of Palestine can be in any way be conceived to be “larger” than 56%.
You are correct. Doesn’t really affect my point though.
And yes, I forgot an italics tag.
Uhm? Unless I’m misremembering (and Wikipedia strongly suggests I’m not), I don’t see how 43% of Palestine can be in any way be conceived to be “larger” than 56%.
You are correct. Doesn’t really affect my point though.
And yes, I forgot an italics tag.
In strictly realpolitick balance of power terms, such an alliance should have formed by now,
I know of no IR model that necessitates this particular result with anywhere near the degree of certainty your argument suggests. As a result, I don’t find this argument to be persuasive.
In strictly realpolitick balance of power terms, such an alliance should have formed by now,
I know of no IR model that necessitates this particular result with anywhere near the degree of certainty your argument suggests. As a result, I don’t find this argument to be persuasive.
Since Six Apart broke the blogging software Obsidian Wings uses, it takes a mod going in to edit comments to fix italics – hopefully one of the mods will have time at some point.
There were actually discussion within the Yishuv about that part of the plan and whether it was acceptable. The Yishuv accepted it, but with reservations.
But the representatives of the people who would have been forcibly removed from their homes rejected it. That the people who would have *benefited* from the forcible removal of so many Arabs from their homes had doubts about whether it was “acceptable” to do so is I suppose a smidgeon more to their credit than if they’d just agreed to this mass dispossession for their benefit without *any* debate – but only a smidgeon.
As a whole country with who in charge?
A democratically elected government, one person one vote.
What rights would the very large Jewish minority have?
The same rights as the Muslim and Christian population. You have a problem with that?
That’s not an alternative
Of course it’s an alternative. If the Palestinian Jews had been willing to compromise, (which, as we know, they were not) that would have been the unified-state solution, which now looks like the only possible solution for peace.
Speaking against that alternative, in 1947, of course there was the immediate and awful history of the Holocaust, which gave the Palestinian Jews a strong diplomatic edge which they were (from both historical and first-person report – my father has an interesting anecdote from a peace conference he attended in Germany about that time) not at all slow to exploit in their uncompromising demand for an all-Jewish or Jewish-majority state.
Since when does the majority have the right to take away the rights of the minority?
Since the establishment of the state of Israel, in which the Jewish majority took away many of the rights of the Arab minority. Next question?
Since Six Apart broke the blogging software Obsidian Wings uses, it takes a mod going in to edit comments to fix italics – hopefully one of the mods will have time at some point.
There were actually discussion within the Yishuv about that part of the plan and whether it was acceptable. The Yishuv accepted it, but with reservations.
But the representatives of the people who would have been forcibly removed from their homes rejected it. That the people who would have *benefited* from the forcible removal of so many Arabs from their homes had doubts about whether it was “acceptable” to do so is I suppose a smidgeon more to their credit than if they’d just agreed to this mass dispossession for their benefit without *any* debate – but only a smidgeon.
As a whole country with who in charge?
A democratically elected government, one person one vote.
What rights would the very large Jewish minority have?
The same rights as the Muslim and Christian population. You have a problem with that?
That’s not an alternative
Of course it’s an alternative. If the Palestinian Jews had been willing to compromise, (which, as we know, they were not) that would have been the unified-state solution, which now looks like the only possible solution for peace.
Speaking against that alternative, in 1947, of course there was the immediate and awful history of the Holocaust, which gave the Palestinian Jews a strong diplomatic edge which they were (from both historical and first-person report – my father has an interesting anecdote from a peace conference he attended in Germany about that time) not at all slow to exploit in their uncompromising demand for an all-Jewish or Jewish-majority state.
Since when does the majority have the right to take away the rights of the minority?
Since the establishment of the state of Israel, in which the Jewish majority took away many of the rights of the Arab minority. Next question?
Observer: you’re right. I was wondering how to put that: I do think that if we were to calculate “interests” in the narrow, short-term way that people often invoke in this context, and ask whether supporting Israel serves our “interests”, the answer is “no”. As you note, though, I also don’t think that’s the right conception of ‘interests’ at all, both because it’s too short-run and because our interests include being a decent country.
Observer: you’re right. I was wondering how to put that: I do think that if we were to calculate “interests” in the narrow, short-term way that people often invoke in this context, and ask whether supporting Israel serves our “interests”, the answer is “no”. As you note, though, I also don’t think that’s the right conception of ‘interests’ at all, both because it’s too short-run and because our interests include being a decent country.
Supporting Israel could mean anything hilzoy. Can you explain what specific sort of support you think would be justified by either a “longer term” national interest calculus or a “decent country” calculus? I mean, Israel is not a poor country. Our dollars and diplomatic pressure that we expend on Israel could go to improving the lives of many many people in the world…
Supporting Israel could mean anything hilzoy. Can you explain what specific sort of support you think would be justified by either a “longer term” national interest calculus or a “decent country” calculus? I mean, Israel is not a poor country. Our dollars and diplomatic pressure that we expend on Israel could go to improving the lives of many many people in the world…
Hilzoy:
You used the terms immorality and injustice in a very conclusive manner as if the US role historically in this conflict is not subject to further debate. I find that conclusion bizarre since you are quarreling with policies that have been followed more or less by administration after administration with the tacit approval of the electorate. Not all of us are quite as sure of ourselves on these kinds of questions and I’m sure the Israeli populace does not feel that conclusion. It seems that disagreement with your conclusions is part of what drives remarks here, even if your group itself has few dissenters.
Hilzoy:
You used the terms immorality and injustice in a very conclusive manner as if the US role historically in this conflict is not subject to further debate. I find that conclusion bizarre since you are quarreling with policies that have been followed more or less by administration after administration with the tacit approval of the electorate. Not all of us are quite as sure of ourselves on these kinds of questions and I’m sure the Israeli populace does not feel that conclusion. It seems that disagreement with your conclusions is part of what drives remarks here, even if your group itself has few dissenters.
I puzzle about whether it is possible to reconcile what one may think about the right and wrong when two foreign parties are involved in a dispute with the long-term national interest of one’s own nation. In my case, the latter is the United States, and that influences my views ahead of the detailed analysis of all the historical rights and wrongs.
Well, it’s certainly nice to see American conservatives continue to be the standard bearers for proper moral direction.
I puzzle about whether it is possible to reconcile what one may think about the right and wrong when two foreign parties are involved in a dispute with the long-term national interest of one’s own nation. In my case, the latter is the United States, and that influences my views ahead of the detailed analysis of all the historical rights and wrongs.
Well, it’s certainly nice to see American conservatives continue to be the standard bearers for proper moral direction.
And who is the arbiter of ‘proper moral direction’. You folks sure start with a lot of assumptions.
And who is the arbiter of ‘proper moral direction’. You folks sure start with a lot of assumptions.
Turbulence:
I’m not advancing any novel claims. Whether packaged as soft power, moral suasion, or international standing, theorists have long recognized that the idea of America is at least as powerful as any other weapon at its disposal. What does it stand for? In the broadest terms, the notion that the peoples of the earth have the right to opportunity, freedom, and self-government.
The most powerful and sweeping creeds are those enduring ideals by which we measure our shortcomings. It is not our attainment of these ideals which lends them power, but rather, our continual striving to more closely adhere to them in spite of our struggles. When you write pejoratively of the brutal dictators we have enabled, you offer a rebuke that implicitly draws on the notion that America ought to do better. People around the world agree. And that is a powerful testament to the widespread notion that America does, in fact, stand for a better world.
Where does Israel fit into this? It is a democracy in a region of autocracies, it offers opportunity to its people, and a respect for basic freedoms. It is an imperfect and flawed state – more so than some, less so than others. But its professed ideals are largely aligned with our own; those of its enemies diametrically opposed. In general, it has been American policy to encourage Israel to live up to its ideals – to divest itself of territories that it governs undemocratically, to enhance opportunities for all of its citizens, to encourage the broad spread of peace and democracy in the region. We have done this well at times – Camp David stands as a signal success – and poorly at others. But the steadfastness of American support for Israel has provided it with the reassurance the embattled and beleaguered state required to make the concessions that led to peace with two of its neighbors, and to devolve authority to the Palestinian Authority and continue down the road to a final settlement. I cannot think that the interests of our own nation would have been better served by a policy of scrupulous neutrality – what would amount to moral indifference. Our persuasive power rests on the perception of all sides that America’s ultimate aim is a peaceful and stable region, receptive to democracy and economic growth – and not on our own narrowly conceived interests.
Without our decency, our only persuasive power would stem directly from our tangible power – and that is a fragile and fleeting thing.
Turbulence:
I’m not advancing any novel claims. Whether packaged as soft power, moral suasion, or international standing, theorists have long recognized that the idea of America is at least as powerful as any other weapon at its disposal. What does it stand for? In the broadest terms, the notion that the peoples of the earth have the right to opportunity, freedom, and self-government.
The most powerful and sweeping creeds are those enduring ideals by which we measure our shortcomings. It is not our attainment of these ideals which lends them power, but rather, our continual striving to more closely adhere to them in spite of our struggles. When you write pejoratively of the brutal dictators we have enabled, you offer a rebuke that implicitly draws on the notion that America ought to do better. People around the world agree. And that is a powerful testament to the widespread notion that America does, in fact, stand for a better world.
Where does Israel fit into this? It is a democracy in a region of autocracies, it offers opportunity to its people, and a respect for basic freedoms. It is an imperfect and flawed state – more so than some, less so than others. But its professed ideals are largely aligned with our own; those of its enemies diametrically opposed. In general, it has been American policy to encourage Israel to live up to its ideals – to divest itself of territories that it governs undemocratically, to enhance opportunities for all of its citizens, to encourage the broad spread of peace and democracy in the region. We have done this well at times – Camp David stands as a signal success – and poorly at others. But the steadfastness of American support for Israel has provided it with the reassurance the embattled and beleaguered state required to make the concessions that led to peace with two of its neighbors, and to devolve authority to the Palestinian Authority and continue down the road to a final settlement. I cannot think that the interests of our own nation would have been better served by a policy of scrupulous neutrality – what would amount to moral indifference. Our persuasive power rests on the perception of all sides that America’s ultimate aim is a peaceful and stable region, receptive to democracy and economic growth – and not on our own narrowly conceived interests.
Without our decency, our only persuasive power would stem directly from our tangible power – and that is a fragile and fleeting thing.
GoodOleBoy: I was responding to your more general claim that policy should reflect our interests, not what’s right or wrong, and that this is dictated by patriotism. I don’t think that my comment implied anything at all about where justice or injustice lie in the I/P conflict.
GoodOleBoy: I was responding to your more general claim that policy should reflect our interests, not what’s right or wrong, and that this is dictated by patriotism. I don’t think that my comment implied anything at all about where justice or injustice lie in the I/P conflict.
Jesurgislac, you say this like it’s a bad thing:
in 1947, of course there was the immediate and awful history of the Holocaust, which gave the Palestinian Jews a strong diplomatic edge which they were [snip] not at all slow to exploit in their uncompromising demand for an all-Jewish or Jewish-majority state.
How gauche! How dare they take advantage of the fact that the Nazis had murdered half their people, to seek independence from people who followed the Nazi Grand Mufti of Jerusalem? They should certainly have been more polite and not mentioned all that unpleasantness, so the Palestinians could finish the job.
What you call “exploiting,” I would call asking for a remedy. The only plausible remedy was a state of their own.
Similarly, when you say “colonialist,” and decry the British mandate, you seem to be working out some national guilt. Britain has a lot to be guilty for, but it doesn’t make sense to call the Jews colonials. British colonies, even its penal colonies in America and Australia, were culturally British. Britain made no real attempt to culturally incorporate Mandate Transjordan/Palestine. They were simply conquered imperial territories. Israel was essentially a big refugee camp, administered by Britain but used by the rest of Europe. The Jews went there “voluntarily” because they had no real alternatives. This is like calling the Scots-Irish “colonists.”
Jesurgislac, you say this like it’s a bad thing:
in 1947, of course there was the immediate and awful history of the Holocaust, which gave the Palestinian Jews a strong diplomatic edge which they were [snip] not at all slow to exploit in their uncompromising demand for an all-Jewish or Jewish-majority state.
How gauche! How dare they take advantage of the fact that the Nazis had murdered half their people, to seek independence from people who followed the Nazi Grand Mufti of Jerusalem? They should certainly have been more polite and not mentioned all that unpleasantness, so the Palestinians could finish the job.
What you call “exploiting,” I would call asking for a remedy. The only plausible remedy was a state of their own.
Similarly, when you say “colonialist,” and decry the British mandate, you seem to be working out some national guilt. Britain has a lot to be guilty for, but it doesn’t make sense to call the Jews colonials. British colonies, even its penal colonies in America and Australia, were culturally British. Britain made no real attempt to culturally incorporate Mandate Transjordan/Palestine. They were simply conquered imperial territories. Israel was essentially a big refugee camp, administered by Britain but used by the rest of Europe. The Jews went there “voluntarily” because they had no real alternatives. This is like calling the Scots-Irish “colonists.”
If there is anything that should not be the arbiter of proper moral direction, it is the even more amorphous concept of “national interest”.
If there is anything that should not be the arbiter of proper moral direction, it is the even more amorphous concept of “national interest”.
This is like calling the Scots-Irish “colonists.”
However, it seems completely apropos when you talk about sending Scottish protestants to Ireland…
This is like calling the Scots-Irish “colonists.”
However, it seems completely apropos when you talk about sending Scottish protestants to Ireland…
Hilzoy:
Thanks for the clarification. I tried earlier to limit my reference to patriotism to one aspect that I consider essential and that is support the Constitution as our basic governing document. Specific policies and actions by or on behalf of our government remain debatable as to their morality, justness, and whether or not they are patriotic among other attributes. Much has been voiced in the past few years regarding the constitutionality of President Bush actions. The Congress apparently did not care to address this. No surprises here. I think both the executive and legislative branches long ago abandoned any pretext of considering constitutionality an important factor in passing and signing legislation or in issuing executive orders. Do you see any implications if this is true?
Hilzoy:
Thanks for the clarification. I tried earlier to limit my reference to patriotism to one aspect that I consider essential and that is support the Constitution as our basic governing document. Specific policies and actions by or on behalf of our government remain debatable as to their morality, justness, and whether or not they are patriotic among other attributes. Much has been voiced in the past few years regarding the constitutionality of President Bush actions. The Congress apparently did not care to address this. No surprises here. I think both the executive and legislative branches long ago abandoned any pretext of considering constitutionality an important factor in passing and signing legislation or in issuing executive orders. Do you see any implications if this is true?
But the representatives of the people who would have been forcibly removed from their homes rejected it. That the people who would have *benefited* from the forcible removal of so many Arabs from their homes had doubts about whether it was “acceptable” to do so is I suppose a smidgeon more to their credit than if they’d just agreed to this mass dispossession for their benefit without *any* debate – but only a smidgeon.
And had some Palestinian leader come out and said “we oppose this plan because of the dispossession element, but we’re willing to do….” things likely would have been different. That’s essentially the crux of this conflict: the Palestinians complete and utter refusal to make any compromise whatsoever.
A democratically elected government, one person one vote.
Which was completely realistic in 1947 Palestine.
The same rights as the Muslim and Christian population. You have a problem with that?
Seriously? Do you realize who the head of the AHC was in 1947? This is a fantasy born of a willful disregard of the facts.
Of course it’s an alternative. If the Palestinian Jews had been willing to compromise, (which, as we know, they were not) that would have been the unified-state solution, which now looks like the only possible solution for peace.
That’s quite an Orwellian definition of compromise you got there. Two sides want a pizza, one group supports splitting it, the other says it should have the whole thing for itself. And it’s the first group that refuses to compromise….
Though I guess in a world where the Palestinians were on the verge of implementing the Warren Court’s constitutional vision in 1947, perhaps a unified state solution may have made sense. Too bad that world has never existed.
Since the establishment of the state of Israel, in which the Jewish majority took away many of the rights of the Arab minority. Next question?
And you think that was a good thing?!
But the representatives of the people who would have been forcibly removed from their homes rejected it. That the people who would have *benefited* from the forcible removal of so many Arabs from their homes had doubts about whether it was “acceptable” to do so is I suppose a smidgeon more to their credit than if they’d just agreed to this mass dispossession for their benefit without *any* debate – but only a smidgeon.
And had some Palestinian leader come out and said “we oppose this plan because of the dispossession element, but we’re willing to do….” things likely would have been different. That’s essentially the crux of this conflict: the Palestinians complete and utter refusal to make any compromise whatsoever.
A democratically elected government, one person one vote.
Which was completely realistic in 1947 Palestine.
The same rights as the Muslim and Christian population. You have a problem with that?
Seriously? Do you realize who the head of the AHC was in 1947? This is a fantasy born of a willful disregard of the facts.
Of course it’s an alternative. If the Palestinian Jews had been willing to compromise, (which, as we know, they were not) that would have been the unified-state solution, which now looks like the only possible solution for peace.
That’s quite an Orwellian definition of compromise you got there. Two sides want a pizza, one group supports splitting it, the other says it should have the whole thing for itself. And it’s the first group that refuses to compromise….
Though I guess in a world where the Palestinians were on the verge of implementing the Warren Court’s constitutional vision in 1947, perhaps a unified state solution may have made sense. Too bad that world has never existed.
Since the establishment of the state of Israel, in which the Jewish majority took away many of the rights of the Arab minority. Next question?
And you think that was a good thing?!
What you call “exploiting,” I would call asking for a remedy. The only plausible remedy was a state of their own.
Posted by: The Crafty Trilobite | January 01, 2009 at 06:56 PM
European Christians using Palestinian Christians and Muslims, to say sorry to European Jews.
Europeans using Palestinians to say sorry to Europeans.
It must be nice to be the King.
What you call “exploiting,” I would call asking for a remedy. The only plausible remedy was a state of their own.
Posted by: The Crafty Trilobite | January 01, 2009 at 06:56 PM
European Christians using Palestinian Christians and Muslims, to say sorry to European Jews.
Europeans using Palestinians to say sorry to Europeans.
It must be nice to be the King.
I’m not advancing any novel claims.
No, you’re not. And yet even widely held ideas can easily be wrong. That’s why I ask for evidence.
theorists have long recognized that the idea of America is at least as powerful as any other weapon at its disposal.
“Theorists” describes every random drunk at the bar who decides to opine about foreign affairs, doesn’t it? If you name some theorists, we can talk about what sort of predictions their theories lead to and then judge the quality of these theorists based on the success of their predictions, but as long as you leave them unnamed, well, I don’t find appeals to popularity to be very convincing. Astrology is popular. No doubt there are many theorists who agree that the stars really do foretell our futures.
In the broadest terms, the notion that the peoples of the earth have the right to opportunity, freedom, and self-government.
No, that’s not true at all. America stands for the notions that might makes right and that sometimes, the desires of the powerful can benefit the weak. See? Anyone can do it. This is a fun game! Now, how do you propose we adjudicate our two competing claims for what America “stands for”?
The most powerful and sweeping creeds are those enduring ideals by which we measure our shortcomings.
These are some nice words that don’t actually mean anything. Who cares what the most powerful and sweeping creeds are? Why is that at all important? Isn’t it better to do good than to adhere to a powerful and sweeping creed of evil?
It is not our attainment of these ideals which lends them power, but rather, our continual striving to more closely adhere to them in spite of our struggles.
I can just imagine what someone cheating on their spouse would use this argument: “Honey, my slavish obedience to our marriage vows wouldn’t lend them power, but my continued failing, over and over again to remain faithful to you is what gives them power. Why, our marriage was strengthened every single time I defiled our marital bed with one of my many lovers!” I think in this context most people can recognize how absurd your argument is. If you consistently fail to meet your goals of being a good person and you also consistently do bad things, then you’re a bad person. Striving is neither here nor there. If you sometimes fail to achieve your good goals and mostly avoid doing bad things, then striving might be relevant. But in the realm of foreign policy, I don’t think we’re there yet.
When you write pejoratively of the brutal dictators we have enabled, you offer a rebuke that implicitly draws on the notion that America ought to do better. People around the world agree. And that is a powerful testament to the widespread notion that America does, in fact, stand for a better world.
This is nonsense. If I cheat on my spouse repeatedly in front of everyone in town, everyone will call me a rotten terrible husband. No one would say that the fact that I repeatedly do violence to my marriage means that I “stand” for the power of fidelity and faithfulness.
It is a democracy in a region of autocracies,
Autocracies like Lebanon? Also, I wonder if there wouldn’t be more democracies in the middle east right now if we hadn’t supported dictatorial regimes for the last few decades….
it offers opportunity to its people, and a respect for basic freedoms. It is an imperfect and flawed state – more so than some, less so than others.
Every state in the world makes these claims. They’re meaningless. This is like praising your child by talking about how she has not one but two eyes!
But its professed ideals are largely aligned with our own; those of its enemies diametrically opposed.
Huh? This is not true at all. You simply cannot make such broad and evidence-free assertions and expect to be taken seriously. Israel’s ideals include a devotion to expand settlements no matter what. I don’t share that ideal and I don’t think most Americans do either.
In general, it has been American policy to encourage Israel to live up to its ideals – to divest itself of territories that it governs undemocratically, to enhance opportunities for all of its citizens, to encourage the broad spread of peace and democracy in the region.
There is a difference between encouraging and enabling. America has enabled Israel to continue its settlement program and to avoid making peace. We know this because no matter what Israel does, American money continues to flow towards it.
But the steadfastness of American support for Israel has provided it with the reassurance the embattled and beleaguered state required to make the concessions that led to peace with two of its neighbors, and to devolve authority to the Palestinian Authority and continue down the road to a final settlement.
Secure in the knowledge that America will always back it up no matter what it does, Israel has no incentive to ever make peace. After all, America will always back it up no matter what since that’s what America does.
Without our decency, our only persuasive power would stem directly from our tangible power – and that is a fragile and fleeting thing.
So? Lots of nations have decency and it doesn’t seem to get them very much so far as I can see. That doesn’t mean it is a bad idea, but it does mean that we shouldn’t lie to ourselves about the power of decency.
I’m not advancing any novel claims.
No, you’re not. And yet even widely held ideas can easily be wrong. That’s why I ask for evidence.
theorists have long recognized that the idea of America is at least as powerful as any other weapon at its disposal.
“Theorists” describes every random drunk at the bar who decides to opine about foreign affairs, doesn’t it? If you name some theorists, we can talk about what sort of predictions their theories lead to and then judge the quality of these theorists based on the success of their predictions, but as long as you leave them unnamed, well, I don’t find appeals to popularity to be very convincing. Astrology is popular. No doubt there are many theorists who agree that the stars really do foretell our futures.
In the broadest terms, the notion that the peoples of the earth have the right to opportunity, freedom, and self-government.
No, that’s not true at all. America stands for the notions that might makes right and that sometimes, the desires of the powerful can benefit the weak. See? Anyone can do it. This is a fun game! Now, how do you propose we adjudicate our two competing claims for what America “stands for”?
The most powerful and sweeping creeds are those enduring ideals by which we measure our shortcomings.
These are some nice words that don’t actually mean anything. Who cares what the most powerful and sweeping creeds are? Why is that at all important? Isn’t it better to do good than to adhere to a powerful and sweeping creed of evil?
It is not our attainment of these ideals which lends them power, but rather, our continual striving to more closely adhere to them in spite of our struggles.
I can just imagine what someone cheating on their spouse would use this argument: “Honey, my slavish obedience to our marriage vows wouldn’t lend them power, but my continued failing, over and over again to remain faithful to you is what gives them power. Why, our marriage was strengthened every single time I defiled our marital bed with one of my many lovers!” I think in this context most people can recognize how absurd your argument is. If you consistently fail to meet your goals of being a good person and you also consistently do bad things, then you’re a bad person. Striving is neither here nor there. If you sometimes fail to achieve your good goals and mostly avoid doing bad things, then striving might be relevant. But in the realm of foreign policy, I don’t think we’re there yet.
When you write pejoratively of the brutal dictators we have enabled, you offer a rebuke that implicitly draws on the notion that America ought to do better. People around the world agree. And that is a powerful testament to the widespread notion that America does, in fact, stand for a better world.
This is nonsense. If I cheat on my spouse repeatedly in front of everyone in town, everyone will call me a rotten terrible husband. No one would say that the fact that I repeatedly do violence to my marriage means that I “stand” for the power of fidelity and faithfulness.
It is a democracy in a region of autocracies,
Autocracies like Lebanon? Also, I wonder if there wouldn’t be more democracies in the middle east right now if we hadn’t supported dictatorial regimes for the last few decades….
it offers opportunity to its people, and a respect for basic freedoms. It is an imperfect and flawed state – more so than some, less so than others.
Every state in the world makes these claims. They’re meaningless. This is like praising your child by talking about how she has not one but two eyes!
But its professed ideals are largely aligned with our own; those of its enemies diametrically opposed.
Huh? This is not true at all. You simply cannot make such broad and evidence-free assertions and expect to be taken seriously. Israel’s ideals include a devotion to expand settlements no matter what. I don’t share that ideal and I don’t think most Americans do either.
In general, it has been American policy to encourage Israel to live up to its ideals – to divest itself of territories that it governs undemocratically, to enhance opportunities for all of its citizens, to encourage the broad spread of peace and democracy in the region.
There is a difference between encouraging and enabling. America has enabled Israel to continue its settlement program and to avoid making peace. We know this because no matter what Israel does, American money continues to flow towards it.
But the steadfastness of American support for Israel has provided it with the reassurance the embattled and beleaguered state required to make the concessions that led to peace with two of its neighbors, and to devolve authority to the Palestinian Authority and continue down the road to a final settlement.
Secure in the knowledge that America will always back it up no matter what it does, Israel has no incentive to ever make peace. After all, America will always back it up no matter what since that’s what America does.
Without our decency, our only persuasive power would stem directly from our tangible power – and that is a fragile and fleeting thing.
So? Lots of nations have decency and it doesn’t seem to get them very much so far as I can see. That doesn’t mean it is a bad idea, but it does mean that we shouldn’t lie to ourselves about the power of decency.
Secure in the knowledge that America will always back it up no matter what it does, Israel has no incentive to ever make peace. After all, America will always back it up no matter what since that’s what America does.
What exactly in the last 60 years of Israel’s history makes anyone think that it’s Israel that doesn’t want to make peace?
Secure in the knowledge that America will always back it up no matter what it does, Israel has no incentive to ever make peace. After all, America will always back it up no matter what since that’s what America does.
What exactly in the last 60 years of Israel’s history makes anyone think that it’s Israel that doesn’t want to make peace?
The Crafty Trilobite: How dare they take advantage of the fact that the Nazis had murdered half their people, to seek independence from people who followed the Nazi Grand Mufti of Jerusalem?
The anecdote my dad told me (which I just went away to see if I could find the personal memoir he wrote for his children, but couldn’t – I wanted to check dates) is of a peace conference he went to in Germany, which must have been either just pre-1948 or sometime after 1950.
The Belsen concentration camp had just been opened to visitors, and the peace delegates took a day’s outing to visit. The small group with which my dad was guided round the camp included a Palestinian and an Israeli (or, if it was pre-1948, I suppose, this would have been a Palestinian Arab and a Palestinian Jew). Both had been noticeable at the conference, apparently, because they clearly loathed each other and yet would not be separated from each other – neither was willing to let the other have unsupervised access to the other delegates.
As they went round the concentration camp, my dad noticed a curious thing: while most of the group – including my dad – were horrified and appalled by the atrocities that had been committed there, the horror building as they went round the camp and the scale was more and more apparent – neither the Israeli nor the Palestinian reacted like that.
What both of them were seeing, was evidence for the need for a Jewish state in Palestine.
The Palestinian got more and more angry as the tour went on – furious as the evidence built up, seeing that this would lend strong moral support to the Jewish argument.
The Israeli got smugger and smugger – for the same reason.
You might ssy the Palestinian’s reaction wasn’t properly human.
But neither was the Israeli’s.
The Crafty Trilobite: How dare they take advantage of the fact that the Nazis had murdered half their people, to seek independence from people who followed the Nazi Grand Mufti of Jerusalem?
The anecdote my dad told me (which I just went away to see if I could find the personal memoir he wrote for his children, but couldn’t – I wanted to check dates) is of a peace conference he went to in Germany, which must have been either just pre-1948 or sometime after 1950.
The Belsen concentration camp had just been opened to visitors, and the peace delegates took a day’s outing to visit. The small group with which my dad was guided round the camp included a Palestinian and an Israeli (or, if it was pre-1948, I suppose, this would have been a Palestinian Arab and a Palestinian Jew). Both had been noticeable at the conference, apparently, because they clearly loathed each other and yet would not be separated from each other – neither was willing to let the other have unsupervised access to the other delegates.
As they went round the concentration camp, my dad noticed a curious thing: while most of the group – including my dad – were horrified and appalled by the atrocities that had been committed there, the horror building as they went round the camp and the scale was more and more apparent – neither the Israeli nor the Palestinian reacted like that.
What both of them were seeing, was evidence for the need for a Jewish state in Palestine.
The Palestinian got more and more angry as the tour went on – furious as the evidence built up, seeing that this would lend strong moral support to the Jewish argument.
The Israeli got smugger and smugger – for the same reason.
You might ssy the Palestinian’s reaction wasn’t properly human.
But neither was the Israeli’s.
What exactly in the last 60 years of Israel’s history makes anyone think that it’s Israel that doesn’t want to make peace?
The fact that no matter what party is in power in Israel, the number of settlements and the number of people living in those settlements inexorably grows larger? And this growth occurs despite repeated agreements to the contrary and despite the danger those settlements pose for Israel’s own security and governing institutions? Is that enough or do I need another reason?
Of course, the belief that Israeli leaders have little interest in peace does not mean that Palestinian leaders are any better.
What exactly in the last 60 years of Israel’s history makes anyone think that it’s Israel that doesn’t want to make peace?
The fact that no matter what party is in power in Israel, the number of settlements and the number of people living in those settlements inexorably grows larger? And this growth occurs despite repeated agreements to the contrary and despite the danger those settlements pose for Israel’s own security and governing institutions? Is that enough or do I need another reason?
Of course, the belief that Israeli leaders have little interest in peace does not mean that Palestinian leaders are any better.
Turbulence:
For a poster who professes disdain for empty rhetoric, that’s a lot of high-falutin’ language. But your post is curiously devoid of the sort of facts or citations you constantly demand of others. I can’t escape the suspicion that, at base, you harbor a profound antipathy toward the State of Israel. That all your repeated appeals to cold calculation of national interest are little more than justification of a predetermined conclusion: you don’t think America should support Israel because you view its policies as immoral.
You’re entitled to your opinion. I just wish you’d be a little more forthright about its nature.
Turbulence:
For a poster who professes disdain for empty rhetoric, that’s a lot of high-falutin’ language. But your post is curiously devoid of the sort of facts or citations you constantly demand of others. I can’t escape the suspicion that, at base, you harbor a profound antipathy toward the State of Israel. That all your repeated appeals to cold calculation of national interest are little more than justification of a predetermined conclusion: you don’t think America should support Israel because you view its policies as immoral.
You’re entitled to your opinion. I just wish you’d be a little more forthright about its nature.
The fact that no matter what party is in power in Israel, the number of settlements and the number of people living in those settlements inexorably grows larger? And this growth occurs despite repeated agreements to the contrary and despite the danger those settlements pose for Israel’s own security and governing institutions? Is that enough or do I need another reason?
I think you need another reason. Settlements only began in earnest during the Begin administration in the late 70s. Essentially from 1967 until 1977 there were only minor settlements and the Alon Plan was in vogue.
For ten years Israel waited for the Arab world to offer a peace deal and only Egypt was willing to step to the plate, which didn’t help with the Palestinian issue, as Egypt wanted nothing to do with Gaza. At some point the Messianic Religious Zionist ethos, which was all about settling the land as a religious commandment, was going to take over.
The Palestinians waited forty years — forty years! — before they were willing to even engage with Israel as a legitimate entity.
Yes, the settlement growth during Oslo (besides for the natural growth that would inevitably occur) was disconcerting. But Israel transferred control of most of the West Bank to the Palestinians (and all of Gaza) during that time. It also made a far reaching offer (by accepting the Clinton Principles at Taba) before the Intifada. I don’t think Israel’s good faith, in the aggregate, can be diminished by settlements. I mean, come on, Israel has been negotiating with Arab countries since literally its birth. It’s ALWAYS the other side that says no.
The fact that no matter what party is in power in Israel, the number of settlements and the number of people living in those settlements inexorably grows larger? And this growth occurs despite repeated agreements to the contrary and despite the danger those settlements pose for Israel’s own security and governing institutions? Is that enough or do I need another reason?
I think you need another reason. Settlements only began in earnest during the Begin administration in the late 70s. Essentially from 1967 until 1977 there were only minor settlements and the Alon Plan was in vogue.
For ten years Israel waited for the Arab world to offer a peace deal and only Egypt was willing to step to the plate, which didn’t help with the Palestinian issue, as Egypt wanted nothing to do with Gaza. At some point the Messianic Religious Zionist ethos, which was all about settling the land as a religious commandment, was going to take over.
The Palestinians waited forty years — forty years! — before they were willing to even engage with Israel as a legitimate entity.
Yes, the settlement growth during Oslo (besides for the natural growth that would inevitably occur) was disconcerting. But Israel transferred control of most of the West Bank to the Palestinians (and all of Gaza) during that time. It also made a far reaching offer (by accepting the Clinton Principles at Taba) before the Intifada. I don’t think Israel’s good faith, in the aggregate, can be diminished by settlements. I mean, come on, Israel has been negotiating with Arab countries since literally its birth. It’s ALWAYS the other side that says no.
@Nephtuli:
You are correct. Doesn’t really affect my point though.
It doesn’t affect the substance of your point. It certain changes the tone, though, as you were offering that “fact” up in the context of tut-tutting at unreasonable Palestinians rejecting yet another “most generous offer”.
@Nephtuli:
You are correct. Doesn’t really affect my point though.
It doesn’t affect the substance of your point. It certain changes the tone, though, as you were offering that “fact” up in the context of tut-tutting at unreasonable Palestinians rejecting yet another “most generous offer”.
Missed this part:
And this growth occurs despite repeated agreements to the contrary….
Which agreement did Israel violate by building settlements?
Missed this part:
And this growth occurs despite repeated agreements to the contrary….
Which agreement did Israel violate by building settlements?
It doesn’t affect the substance of your point. It certain changes the tone, though, as you were offering that “fact” up in the context of tut-tutting at unreasonable Palestinians rejecting yet another “most generous offer”.
It you’ve read my comments, you’d realize that my point was not that the Palestinians said no, but rather that they said no and refused to engage in further dialogue. “No” almost inevitably preceded an outbreak of violence.
It doesn’t affect the substance of your point. It certain changes the tone, though, as you were offering that “fact” up in the context of tut-tutting at unreasonable Palestinians rejecting yet another “most generous offer”.
It you’ve read my comments, you’d realize that my point was not that the Palestinians said no, but rather that they said no and refused to engage in further dialogue. “No” almost inevitably preceded an outbreak of violence.
That’s quite an Orwellian definition of compromise you got there. Two sides want a pizza, one group supports splitting it, the other says it should have the whole thing for itself. And it’s the first group that refuses to compromise….
Well, yes. Keep in mind that that pizza was something that a third party owed the second party. A fourth party, with some participation of the third, owed the first party a pizza, and to make up that debt, offered them a part of the pizza owed to the second party. Why should the second party be obligated to give up a part of the pizza they are owed?
The Palestinians had no duty to compromise in 1948. It was their pizza.
That’s quite an Orwellian definition of compromise you got there. Two sides want a pizza, one group supports splitting it, the other says it should have the whole thing for itself. And it’s the first group that refuses to compromise….
Well, yes. Keep in mind that that pizza was something that a third party owed the second party. A fourth party, with some participation of the third, owed the first party a pizza, and to make up that debt, offered them a part of the pizza owed to the second party. Why should the second party be obligated to give up a part of the pizza they are owed?
The Palestinians had no duty to compromise in 1948. It was their pizza.
Well, yes. Keep in mind that that pizza was something that a third party owed the second party. A fourth party, with some participation of the third, owed the first party a pizza, and to make up that debt, offered them a part of the pizza owed to the second party. Why should the second party be obligated to give up a part of the pizza they are owed?
The Palestinians had no duty to compromise in 1948. It was their pizza.
Fine (although I disagree). The Palestinians may or may not have had a duty to compromise, but let’s not pretend their uncompromising position was actually a compromise. That’s patently absurd and a misuse of language.
Well, yes. Keep in mind that that pizza was something that a third party owed the second party. A fourth party, with some participation of the third, owed the first party a pizza, and to make up that debt, offered them a part of the pizza owed to the second party. Why should the second party be obligated to give up a part of the pizza they are owed?
The Palestinians had no duty to compromise in 1948. It was their pizza.
Fine (although I disagree). The Palestinians may or may not have had a duty to compromise, but let’s not pretend their uncompromising position was actually a compromise. That’s patently absurd and a misuse of language.
It you’ve read my comments, you’d realize that my point was not that the Palestinians said no, but rather that they said no and refused to engage in further dialogue.
I did read your comments. Which is why I find it more than slightly disingenuous of you to claim here that you weren’t trying to paint the Palestinians as unreasonable, that despite yet again being made an extremely generous offer, one where they even would have got more territory, why, they were just intractable, unreasonable, and just responded with violence because they wouldn’t take even an offer that favored them.
Really, I can’t see any other reason for your “Notwithstanding that, again, the Palestinians were to receive the larger piece of territory” rhetorical flourish.
But this is getting a bit afield, so I’m going to drop it.
It you’ve read my comments, you’d realize that my point was not that the Palestinians said no, but rather that they said no and refused to engage in further dialogue.
I did read your comments. Which is why I find it more than slightly disingenuous of you to claim here that you weren’t trying to paint the Palestinians as unreasonable, that despite yet again being made an extremely generous offer, one where they even would have got more territory, why, they were just intractable, unreasonable, and just responded with violence because they wouldn’t take even an offer that favored them.
Really, I can’t see any other reason for your “Notwithstanding that, again, the Palestinians were to receive the larger piece of territory” rhetorical flourish.
But this is getting a bit afield, so I’m going to drop it.
For a poster who professes disdain for empty rhetoric, that’s a lot of high-falutin’ language.
What is? If you notice, people here quote sections they’re referring to for clarity. It helps.
But your post is curiously devoid of the sort of facts or citations you constantly demand of others.
1. I don’t constantly demand anything.
2. If you’d like cites, then you need to specify what you’d like me to provide citations for. So, what specific statements have I made that you would like cites for? Or where you just complaining for the sake of complaining?
I can’t escape the suspicion that, at base, you harbor a profound antipathy toward the State of Israel.
1. If you can’t escape a suspicion, then, um, maybe you should seek the help of a mental health care provider. Paranoid delusions are no laughing matter.
2. You’ve got me. I do hold a profound antipathy towards the state of Israel. And every other state as well. Or at least, all of the states that have ever started wars or acted unjustly. Like I said, all of them.
That all your repeated appeals to cold calculation of national interest are little more than justification of a predetermined conclusion: you don’t think America should support Israel because you view its policies as immoral.
Well, I do think that America’s policies are immoral. You’ve got me again. I also think Israel’s policies are immoral. I think that there is little justification for America’s Israel policy based on either moral or realpolitik grounds.
You’re entitled to your opinion. I just wish you’d be a little more forthright about its nature.
What are you talking about? I’ve been commenting here for years. Your ignorance does not change that. And why exactly does the nature of my opinion matter? Shouldn’t you be focused on the quality of my arguments instead?
For a poster who professes disdain for empty rhetoric, that’s a lot of high-falutin’ language.
What is? If you notice, people here quote sections they’re referring to for clarity. It helps.
But your post is curiously devoid of the sort of facts or citations you constantly demand of others.
1. I don’t constantly demand anything.
2. If you’d like cites, then you need to specify what you’d like me to provide citations for. So, what specific statements have I made that you would like cites for? Or where you just complaining for the sake of complaining?
I can’t escape the suspicion that, at base, you harbor a profound antipathy toward the State of Israel.
1. If you can’t escape a suspicion, then, um, maybe you should seek the help of a mental health care provider. Paranoid delusions are no laughing matter.
2. You’ve got me. I do hold a profound antipathy towards the state of Israel. And every other state as well. Or at least, all of the states that have ever started wars or acted unjustly. Like I said, all of them.
That all your repeated appeals to cold calculation of national interest are little more than justification of a predetermined conclusion: you don’t think America should support Israel because you view its policies as immoral.
Well, I do think that America’s policies are immoral. You’ve got me again. I also think Israel’s policies are immoral. I think that there is little justification for America’s Israel policy based on either moral or realpolitik grounds.
You’re entitled to your opinion. I just wish you’d be a little more forthright about its nature.
What are you talking about? I’ve been commenting here for years. Your ignorance does not change that. And why exactly does the nature of my opinion matter? Shouldn’t you be focused on the quality of my arguments instead?
Observer contends that Israel deserves the level of US support it has received because “its professed ideals are largely aligned with our own.”
This is at best half true. Israel’s principle political commitment is to the maintenance of a mono-ethnic state. This couldn’t be further from the (dominant) U.S. understandings of democracy–one person, one vote–and of our pluralistic society (though there are certainly still some in the U.S. who conceive of this country as essentially white and/or what used to be called Anglo-Saxon).
In and of itself, this central difference in ethos between the U.S. and Israel is not an argument against the historic level of U.S. support for Israel; a case can be made that we should be friends with countries that have very different regimes from ours. But the essentially ethnic character of the State of Israel puts the lie to the Observer’s argument that Israel and the U.S. share a political ethos. We don’t.
Observer contends that Israel deserves the level of US support it has received because “its professed ideals are largely aligned with our own.”
This is at best half true. Israel’s principle political commitment is to the maintenance of a mono-ethnic state. This couldn’t be further from the (dominant) U.S. understandings of democracy–one person, one vote–and of our pluralistic society (though there are certainly still some in the U.S. who conceive of this country as essentially white and/or what used to be called Anglo-Saxon).
In and of itself, this central difference in ethos between the U.S. and Israel is not an argument against the historic level of U.S. support for Israel; a case can be made that we should be friends with countries that have very different regimes from ours. But the essentially ethnic character of the State of Israel puts the lie to the Observer’s argument that Israel and the U.S. share a political ethos. We don’t.
Dept. of Preview is Your Friend:
That’s “principal political commitment” not “principle political commitment” (obviously!).
Dept. of Preview is Your Friend:
That’s “principal political commitment” not “principle political commitment” (obviously!).
This is at best half true. Israel’s principle political commitment is to the maintenance of a mono-ethnic state.
The truth of this claim depends on what is meant by “mono-ethnic.” While Israel is devoted to retaining a Jewish character, it strives (although does not always succeed) to create society where minorities have equal political and social rights. As such, it has strong civil institutions designed to protect minority rights.
There are profound differences between the US and Israel but those differences are swallowed up by both countries’ commitment to democratic values and adherence to the rule of law.
This is at best half true. Israel’s principle political commitment is to the maintenance of a mono-ethnic state.
The truth of this claim depends on what is meant by “mono-ethnic.” While Israel is devoted to retaining a Jewish character, it strives (although does not always succeed) to create society where minorities have equal political and social rights. As such, it has strong civil institutions designed to protect minority rights.
There are profound differences between the US and Israel but those differences are swallowed up by both countries’ commitment to democratic values and adherence to the rule of law.
And who is the arbiter of ‘proper moral direction’. You folks sure start with a lot of assumptions.
Certainly not someone who believes right and wrong can be discarded the moment there’s an opportunity to meddle in some other country’s affairs. And who are “you folks?” You responded to me, and I’m just one guy. I am not Legion. If you want to respond to someone else, do so separately, but don’t rope me into some arbitrary grouping you’ve decided to create.
Anyway this all could have been avoided if, post-war, the world had given the Jewish people the state it really deserved: Germany. Or go with the Michael Chabon solution. One or the other.
And who is the arbiter of ‘proper moral direction’. You folks sure start with a lot of assumptions.
Certainly not someone who believes right and wrong can be discarded the moment there’s an opportunity to meddle in some other country’s affairs. And who are “you folks?” You responded to me, and I’m just one guy. I am not Legion. If you want to respond to someone else, do so separately, but don’t rope me into some arbitrary grouping you’ve decided to create.
Anyway this all could have been avoided if, post-war, the world had given the Jewish people the state it really deserved: Germany. Or go with the Michael Chabon solution. One or the other.
I did read your comments. Which is why I find it more than slightly disingenuous of you to claim here that you weren’t trying to paint the Palestinians as unreasonable, that despite yet again being made an extremely generous offer, one where they even would have got more territory, why, they were just intractable, unreasonable, and just responded with violence because they wouldn’t take even an offer that favored them.
I still don’t think you read my comments because I neither said nor implied any of the above. I did try to paint the Palestinians as unreasonable, but not because they did not take the deal, but because they refused to engage in anything even resembling good faith negotiations.
I hardly think a throw away statement detracts from my essential point throughout my comments. Rather than focusing on that (as it has taken this comment thread far afield) why not respond to the substance of my comments?
I did read your comments. Which is why I find it more than slightly disingenuous of you to claim here that you weren’t trying to paint the Palestinians as unreasonable, that despite yet again being made an extremely generous offer, one where they even would have got more territory, why, they were just intractable, unreasonable, and just responded with violence because they wouldn’t take even an offer that favored them.
I still don’t think you read my comments because I neither said nor implied any of the above. I did try to paint the Palestinians as unreasonable, but not because they did not take the deal, but because they refused to engage in anything even resembling good faith negotiations.
I hardly think a throw away statement detracts from my essential point throughout my comments. Rather than focusing on that (as it has taken this comment thread far afield) why not respond to the substance of my comments?
Ben, Israel is pluralistic — about 1/5 is Palestinian, and the Jewish population is split between religious and secular, and among Africans, Russians, sabras, Americans, etc. That pluralism is actually one reason they find it hard to formulate a coherent foreign policy. They’re also authentically democratic, both in the sense of one-person one-vote, and in having the balance of powers and civil rights that make democracy meaningful. The Israeli Supreme Court is arguably more powerful than ours, and its press more free. Israel shares many other key moral values with us that many countries do not — we have similar labor laws, taxes, our governments do not run on bribery (we hope), etc.
What they aren’t, is happy to invite in a hostile majority population. Who would be? We here in the States get our knickers in a twist about a relatively tiny increase in Mexican immigration, and all the Mexicans want is jobs. We restrict immigration, so do most countries. Israel’s refusal to replace its population does not make it unlike us.
Ben, Israel is pluralistic — about 1/5 is Palestinian, and the Jewish population is split between religious and secular, and among Africans, Russians, sabras, Americans, etc. That pluralism is actually one reason they find it hard to formulate a coherent foreign policy. They’re also authentically democratic, both in the sense of one-person one-vote, and in having the balance of powers and civil rights that make democracy meaningful. The Israeli Supreme Court is arguably more powerful than ours, and its press more free. Israel shares many other key moral values with us that many countries do not — we have similar labor laws, taxes, our governments do not run on bribery (we hope), etc.
What they aren’t, is happy to invite in a hostile majority population. Who would be? We here in the States get our knickers in a twist about a relatively tiny increase in Mexican immigration, and all the Mexicans want is jobs. We restrict immigration, so do most countries. Israel’s refusal to replace its population does not make it unlike us.
The Israeli Supreme Court is arguably more powerful than ours, and its press more free.
I disagree about the press. Israel still has a military censor who can prohibit, or redact section of, certain news article. Although the censor rarely exercises his power, US law would surely prohibit having a censor.
The Israeli Supreme Court is arguably more powerful than ours, and its press more free.
I disagree about the press. Israel still has a military censor who can prohibit, or redact section of, certain news article. Although the censor rarely exercises his power, US law would surely prohibit having a censor.
Israel looks more like a Nordic/Southern European social democracy (which doesn’t resemble the US at all) with the responsibility for taking care of mega-concentration camps on its borders.
Israel looks more like a Nordic/Southern European social democracy (which doesn’t resemble the US at all) with the responsibility for taking care of mega-concentration camps on its borders.
We here in the States get our knickers in a twist about a relatively tiny increase in Mexican immigration, and all the Mexicans want is jobs. We restrict immigration, so do most countries. Israel’s refusal to replace its population does not make it unlike us.
More half truths here.
First, those who get their knickers in a twist over Mexican immigration are in a distinct minority in the U.S….and even in the Republican Party, as Tom Tancredo discovered when his presidential run went nowhere.
Israel, on the other hand, is deeply committed to maintaining its “Jewish character” (as Nephtuli euphemistically puts it), which in the dominant Israeli understanding involves assuring a perpetual numerical majority of Jewish citizens. Unlike a number of European countries whose versions of anti-immigrant hysteria are also based on concerns about national character, Israel essentially rejects the notion that non-Jews might ever meaningfully assimilate into its political culture. Israel insists on maintaining not simply some vaguely Jewish character, but rather a majority Jewish population. Such an insistence is, at the very least, on a logical collision course with one-person-one-vote notions of democracy.
Israel’s insistence on maintaining a numerical Jewish majority already involves a lot more than simply restricting immigration, most notably decades of legal fictions in the administration of the occupied territories.
And Israel’s immigration restriction–the Law of Return–is fundamentally unlike U.S. immigration law. I suppose one might draw a very loose analogy between 1920s-1960s US immigration laws–which were designed to set in stone the then current ethnic mix in the U.S.–and those of Israel. But since the 1960s, U.S. immigration law simply has not been about maintaining the ethnic character of the U.S. Moreover, Israel’s immigration law has never been about maintaining the ethnic character of I/P, but rather about altering it. The very sizable Palestinian minority doesn’t even get an immigration quota.
We here in the States get our knickers in a twist about a relatively tiny increase in Mexican immigration, and all the Mexicans want is jobs. We restrict immigration, so do most countries. Israel’s refusal to replace its population does not make it unlike us.
More half truths here.
First, those who get their knickers in a twist over Mexican immigration are in a distinct minority in the U.S….and even in the Republican Party, as Tom Tancredo discovered when his presidential run went nowhere.
Israel, on the other hand, is deeply committed to maintaining its “Jewish character” (as Nephtuli euphemistically puts it), which in the dominant Israeli understanding involves assuring a perpetual numerical majority of Jewish citizens. Unlike a number of European countries whose versions of anti-immigrant hysteria are also based on concerns about national character, Israel essentially rejects the notion that non-Jews might ever meaningfully assimilate into its political culture. Israel insists on maintaining not simply some vaguely Jewish character, but rather a majority Jewish population. Such an insistence is, at the very least, on a logical collision course with one-person-one-vote notions of democracy.
Israel’s insistence on maintaining a numerical Jewish majority already involves a lot more than simply restricting immigration, most notably decades of legal fictions in the administration of the occupied territories.
And Israel’s immigration restriction–the Law of Return–is fundamentally unlike U.S. immigration law. I suppose one might draw a very loose analogy between 1920s-1960s US immigration laws–which were designed to set in stone the then current ethnic mix in the U.S.–and those of Israel. But since the 1960s, U.S. immigration law simply has not been about maintaining the ethnic character of the U.S. Moreover, Israel’s immigration law has never been about maintaining the ethnic character of I/P, but rather about altering it. The very sizable Palestinian minority doesn’t even get an immigration quota.
The fact that party B was wronged by party A has nothing to do with negotiations between party B and party C, who was not in the picture at all during interactions between A and B. So, yes. It is gauche. And nasty. And immature. And taking advantage of the good nature of others by playing the victim. While this behaviour is excusable for kids ten and under, using it as a bargaining chip shows a certain lack of moral character. I’ve also had insurance guys and car salesmen casually slip in the fact that they have x kids to support, one of whom has some distressing infirmity, if you want to know what category I place that sort of special pleading in.
Really? It looks an awful lot to me like Israel is treating the Palestinians exactly like the United states treated the Indians during the 19th century. Trust me on this one, most people 150 years later think the Indians were entirely justified in their stated intents to drive the white man back across the sea. The difference is, what happened to the Indians happened in the century before the last. What’s happening to the Palestinians is happening now.
The fact that party B was wronged by party A has nothing to do with negotiations between party B and party C, who was not in the picture at all during interactions between A and B. So, yes. It is gauche. And nasty. And immature. And taking advantage of the good nature of others by playing the victim. While this behaviour is excusable for kids ten and under, using it as a bargaining chip shows a certain lack of moral character. I’ve also had insurance guys and car salesmen casually slip in the fact that they have x kids to support, one of whom has some distressing infirmity, if you want to know what category I place that sort of special pleading in.
Really? It looks an awful lot to me like Israel is treating the Palestinians exactly like the United states treated the Indians during the 19th century. Trust me on this one, most people 150 years later think the Indians were entirely justified in their stated intents to drive the white man back across the sea. The difference is, what happened to the Indians happened in the century before the last. What’s happening to the Palestinians is happening now.
Nephtuli:
Jake Siewert, Clinton press secretary, January 3, 2001:
Bill Clinton, January 8, 2001:
Later, of course, it became necessary for propaganda purposes for Clinton et al to reconstruct history in a more preferable form. Clinton personally has been especially assiduous in lying about what happened. He’s probably described Arafat’s “rejection” of his parameters a hundred times since 2001. Here’s a funny anecdote about this from Clayton Swisher’s book The Truth About Camp David:
The negotiations then, of course, continued directly between Israel and the Palestinians at Taba, ending when Israel withdrew:
I do agree with Nephtuli that it’s well worth reading Dennis Ross’s book The Missing Peace — ideally as a companion to Kenneth Pollack’s book The Threatening Storm. They’re similar works in many, many ways, and can teach you a great deal about how the U.S. foreign policy elite generates its own imaginary world.
Nephtuli:
Jake Siewert, Clinton press secretary, January 3, 2001:
Bill Clinton, January 8, 2001:
Later, of course, it became necessary for propaganda purposes for Clinton et al to reconstruct history in a more preferable form. Clinton personally has been especially assiduous in lying about what happened. He’s probably described Arafat’s “rejection” of his parameters a hundred times since 2001. Here’s a funny anecdote about this from Clayton Swisher’s book The Truth About Camp David:
The negotiations then, of course, continued directly between Israel and the Palestinians at Taba, ending when Israel withdrew:
I do agree with Nephtuli that it’s well worth reading Dennis Ross’s book The Missing Peace — ideally as a companion to Kenneth Pollack’s book The Threatening Storm. They’re similar works in many, many ways, and can teach you a great deal about how the U.S. foreign policy elite generates its own imaginary world.
Nep: Which agreement did Israel violate by building settlements?
The Fourth Geneva Convention.
In brief, if Israel had simply added the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to Israel, expanding Israel’s borders to match those of historical Palestine, building settlements there would have been legal. But the Palestinians living in those territories would either have had to become Israeli citizens, or Israel would have become formally an apartheid state. (Or Israel could, also in contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention, have forcibly removed all Palestinians from those territories.)
By retaining those areas as “Occupied Territories”, not part of Israel proper, Israel is fully entitled not to grant the Palestinians who live in those territories the same rights as citizens of Israel, since they are not. But, again under the Fourth Geneva Convention, it is then illegal for the occupier to build any permanent structures or to allow any permanent transfer of citizens from their own territory to the occuped territories.
Israel had ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention by 1951, making no reservations relevant to this issue.
Nep: Which agreement did Israel violate by building settlements?
The Fourth Geneva Convention.
In brief, if Israel had simply added the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to Israel, expanding Israel’s borders to match those of historical Palestine, building settlements there would have been legal. But the Palestinians living in those territories would either have had to become Israeli citizens, or Israel would have become formally an apartheid state. (Or Israel could, also in contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention, have forcibly removed all Palestinians from those territories.)
By retaining those areas as “Occupied Territories”, not part of Israel proper, Israel is fully entitled not to grant the Palestinians who live in those territories the same rights as citizens of Israel, since they are not. But, again under the Fourth Geneva Convention, it is then illegal for the occupier to build any permanent structures or to allow any permanent transfer of citizens from their own territory to the occuped territories.
Israel had ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention by 1951, making no reservations relevant to this issue.
Nice anecdote, Jes. I guess we know where you got your antisemitism from.
Nice anecdote, Jes. I guess we know where you got your antisemitism from.
Israel this, Palestinians that, blahblahblah – honestly who gives a flying f@ck, we should be more concerned with the ongoing war crimes and the death toll which currently stands at somewhere around 350 to 3
Israel this, Palestinians that, blahblahblah – honestly who gives a flying f@ck, we should be more concerned with the ongoing war crimes and the death toll which currently stands at somewhere around 350 to 3
Chuchundra, that anecdote doesn’t necessarily show anti-Semitism (and neither do Jesurgislac’s other comments). But it also doesn’t show much about even that one Israeli, and nothing at all about Israelis in general or what should have been done. On that day that particular Israeli appeared, to a stranger from a different culture, “smug,” at a time when that stranger apparently expected more of a show of emotion. Proving what, exactly?
I am reminded of Orson Scott Card’s observation that Central American native culture showed terror by a frigid demeanor, leading Europeans to consider them stoic and unfeeling. Perhaps the diplomat in question was “smug.” Or maybe he was screaming on the inside. Or maybe he was so inured to horror that all he had left was satisfaction in seeing others’ horror. Who the he!! knows, and how does it prove anything about the morality of the situation?
Smugness. For pete’s sake.
Chuchundra, that anecdote doesn’t necessarily show anti-Semitism (and neither do Jesurgislac’s other comments). But it also doesn’t show much about even that one Israeli, and nothing at all about Israelis in general or what should have been done. On that day that particular Israeli appeared, to a stranger from a different culture, “smug,” at a time when that stranger apparently expected more of a show of emotion. Proving what, exactly?
I am reminded of Orson Scott Card’s observation that Central American native culture showed terror by a frigid demeanor, leading Europeans to consider them stoic and unfeeling. Perhaps the diplomat in question was “smug.” Or maybe he was screaming on the inside. Or maybe he was so inured to horror that all he had left was satisfaction in seeing others’ horror. Who the he!! knows, and how does it prove anything about the morality of the situation?
Smugness. For pete’s sake.
CraftyTrilobite: Chuchundra, that anecdote doesn’t necessarily show anti-Semitism (and neither do Jesurgislac’s other comments).
Thanks, I appreciate that. (I don’t think I’m anti-Semitic, but if I were, would I know? IME, homophobes are convinced they’re not homophobic, racists are convinced they’re not racist, misogynists are convinced they’re not sexist, so, well. All I feel I can say is: I try to speak to the truth of the situation as I understand it, and if this comes across to most Jews who read what I write as my being anti-Semitic, then they’re probably right – and should let me know that, since I certainly don’t wish to be anti-Semitic.)
But I don’t take seriously anything that appears to equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, to be fair.
Crafty Trilobite: Perhaps the diplomat in question was “smug.” Or maybe he was screaming on the inside. Or maybe he was so inured to horror that all he had left was satisfaction in seeing others’ horror. Who the he!! knows, and how does it prove anything about the morality of the situation?
Absolutely fair criticism. I shared my dad’s anecdote not because by itself it proves anything – as you say, either the Jew or the Arab could have been showing their horror in ways that simply came across to my dad as smugness or as anger – but because it seemed to me to be a first-hand example of the use the Palestinian Jews made of the Holocaust in order to justify the establishment of Israel rather than compromise with the Palestinian Arabs. That certainly happened, and still happens today, as if it could ever have been right to provide a country from someone else’s territory as compensation for what the Nazis had done.
CraftyTrilobite: Chuchundra, that anecdote doesn’t necessarily show anti-Semitism (and neither do Jesurgislac’s other comments).
Thanks, I appreciate that. (I don’t think I’m anti-Semitic, but if I were, would I know? IME, homophobes are convinced they’re not homophobic, racists are convinced they’re not racist, misogynists are convinced they’re not sexist, so, well. All I feel I can say is: I try to speak to the truth of the situation as I understand it, and if this comes across to most Jews who read what I write as my being anti-Semitic, then they’re probably right – and should let me know that, since I certainly don’t wish to be anti-Semitic.)
But I don’t take seriously anything that appears to equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, to be fair.
Crafty Trilobite: Perhaps the diplomat in question was “smug.” Or maybe he was screaming on the inside. Or maybe he was so inured to horror that all he had left was satisfaction in seeing others’ horror. Who the he!! knows, and how does it prove anything about the morality of the situation?
Absolutely fair criticism. I shared my dad’s anecdote not because by itself it proves anything – as you say, either the Jew or the Arab could have been showing their horror in ways that simply came across to my dad as smugness or as anger – but because it seemed to me to be a first-hand example of the use the Palestinian Jews made of the Holocaust in order to justify the establishment of Israel rather than compromise with the Palestinian Arabs. That certainly happened, and still happens today, as if it could ever have been right to provide a country from someone else’s territory as compensation for what the Nazis had done.
Exactly so, Jesurgislac. Note also that the Crafty Trilobite makes no mention of misreading the Arab as well because of cultural differences. But what can you expect from those Arabs, eh?
Bias? Everyone has to decide for themselves. But I’ve already made my decision wrt to CT.
Exactly so, Jesurgislac. Note also that the Crafty Trilobite makes no mention of misreading the Arab as well because of cultural differences. But what can you expect from those Arabs, eh?
Bias? Everyone has to decide for themselves. But I’ve already made my decision wrt to CT.
Aren’t Palestinian Christians and Muslims, (or most Arabs, for that matter) Semitic?
Aren’t Palestinian Christians and Muslims, (or most Arabs, for that matter) Semitic?
Sure, but anti-semite has been commonly used to mean anti-Jewish (and only anti-Jewish) for a long, long time.
Sure, but anti-semite has been commonly used to mean anti-Jewish (and only anti-Jewish) for a long, long time.
What seems to be forgotten is that Israel was given to the Jews by God, thousands of years ago. All they are doing is reclaiming the land God gave them.
What seems to be forgotten is that Israel was given to the Jews by God, thousands of years ago. All they are doing is reclaiming the land God gave them.
What seems to be forgotten is that Israel was given to the Jews by God, thousands of years ago. All they are doing is reclaiming the land God gave them.
The God Claudius claimed the island of Britain for Rome 2000 years ago. But we wouldn’t let the Italians have it back.
What seems to be forgotten is that Israel was given to the Jews by God, thousands of years ago. All they are doing is reclaiming the land God gave them.
The God Claudius claimed the island of Britain for Rome 2000 years ago. But we wouldn’t let the Italians have it back.
What seems to be forgotten is that Israel was given to the Jews by God, thousands of years ago. All they are doing is reclaiming the land God gave them.
If that’s what this “God” fellow wants, then he can damn well come down here and get that land back himself.
What seems to be forgotten is that Israel was given to the Jews by God, thousands of years ago. All they are doing is reclaiming the land God gave them.
If that’s what this “God” fellow wants, then he can damn well come down here and get that land back himself.
Nep: Which agreement did Israel violate by building settlements?
I find your comment intriguing. Surely you are well aware that it has been Israel’s position for over four decades that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the territories and that Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions’ reference to transfer is limited to forceable transfer.
I’m sure you do not accept this position (I have serious qualms with it myself). But the gist of your comment implied that Israel would have been permitted to annex the territories and then lawfully build settlements. Is that true?
Nep: Which agreement did Israel violate by building settlements?
I find your comment intriguing. Surely you are well aware that it has been Israel’s position for over four decades that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the territories and that Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions’ reference to transfer is limited to forceable transfer.
I’m sure you do not accept this position (I have serious qualms with it myself). But the gist of your comment implied that Israel would have been permitted to annex the territories and then lawfully build settlements. Is that true?
Surely you are well aware that it has been Israel’s position for over four decades that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the territories
Of course I’m aware that Israel has taken that position. If you are “well aware” that they have, why did you ask “which agreement did they break” if you already knew? Israel agreed to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention in 1951: it has for four decades broken that agreement.
But the gist of your comment implied that Israel would have been permitted to annex the territories and then lawfully build settlements. Is that true?
To the best of my knowledge and belief (I am absolutely willing to be corrected on this), there is nothing in international law against a country conquering new territory by war and then adding that territory to their own country. There is of course the law for all members of the UN that they may not wage aggressive war against other UN members – but I don’t mean to start a fight about “who started it” re the 1967 war.
The problem would not be so much in law as in diplomatic relations with other countries.
If Israel had done that in 1967, accepting all the Arabs of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank as new citizens of Israel, that would in effect have created the unified state that the Jewish Palestinians had originally and violently rejected without compromise. You tell me why they were unwilling, only 19 years after 1948, to accept a unified state with a large increase in Muslim and Christian citizens of that state… (I have no idea what the population balance would have been in 1967: anyone able to cite figures for then?)
Surely you are well aware that it has been Israel’s position for over four decades that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the territories
Of course I’m aware that Israel has taken that position. If you are “well aware” that they have, why did you ask “which agreement did they break” if you already knew? Israel agreed to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention in 1951: it has for four decades broken that agreement.
But the gist of your comment implied that Israel would have been permitted to annex the territories and then lawfully build settlements. Is that true?
To the best of my knowledge and belief (I am absolutely willing to be corrected on this), there is nothing in international law against a country conquering new territory by war and then adding that territory to their own country. There is of course the law for all members of the UN that they may not wage aggressive war against other UN members – but I don’t mean to start a fight about “who started it” re the 1967 war.
The problem would not be so much in law as in diplomatic relations with other countries.
If Israel had done that in 1967, accepting all the Arabs of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank as new citizens of Israel, that would in effect have created the unified state that the Jewish Palestinians had originally and violently rejected without compromise. You tell me why they were unwilling, only 19 years after 1948, to accept a unified state with a large increase in Muslim and Christian citizens of that state… (I have no idea what the population balance would have been in 1967: anyone able to cite figures for then?)
Of course I’m aware that Israel has taken that position. If you are “well aware” that they have, why did you ask “which agreement did they break” if you already knew? Israel agreed to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention in 1951: it has for four decades broken that agreement.
Because the GCs are hardly clear on this issue. It’s not like Israel signed a treaty prohibiting settlement building.
To the best of my knowledge and belief (I am absolutely willing to be corrected on this), there is nothing in international law against a country conquering new territory by war and then adding that territory to their own country. There is of course the law for all members of the UN that they may not wage aggressive war against other UN members – but I don’t mean to start a fight about “who started it” re the 1967 war.
You believe this is true even if the land annexed is clearly the undisputed sovereign territory of another country (e.g. Israel was permitted to annex the Golan)?
Of course I’m aware that Israel has taken that position. If you are “well aware” that they have, why did you ask “which agreement did they break” if you already knew? Israel agreed to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention in 1951: it has for four decades broken that agreement.
Because the GCs are hardly clear on this issue. It’s not like Israel signed a treaty prohibiting settlement building.
To the best of my knowledge and belief (I am absolutely willing to be corrected on this), there is nothing in international law against a country conquering new territory by war and then adding that territory to their own country. There is of course the law for all members of the UN that they may not wage aggressive war against other UN members – but I don’t mean to start a fight about “who started it” re the 1967 war.
You believe this is true even if the land annexed is clearly the undisputed sovereign territory of another country (e.g. Israel was permitted to annex the Golan)?
Because the GCs are hardly clear on this issue.
But the situation is quite clear, isn’t it? If the West Bank is part of Israel, then Israel has a right to build permanent settlements, but then Israel is an apartheid state, as the Arabs living in the West Bank don’t have Israeli citizenship. If the West Bank is not part of Israel, then Israel has no right to build settlements there.
You believe this is true even if the land annexed is clearly the undisputed sovereign territory of another country
I recommend you re-read my opening sentence: “To the best of my knowledge and belief (I am absolutely willing to be corrected on this)”. Please, if you can cite the international law you believe prohibits one nation from adding to its territory by conquest, I’d appreciate it.
Because the GCs are hardly clear on this issue.
But the situation is quite clear, isn’t it? If the West Bank is part of Israel, then Israel has a right to build permanent settlements, but then Israel is an apartheid state, as the Arabs living in the West Bank don’t have Israeli citizenship. If the West Bank is not part of Israel, then Israel has no right to build settlements there.
You believe this is true even if the land annexed is clearly the undisputed sovereign territory of another country
I recommend you re-read my opening sentence: “To the best of my knowledge and belief (I am absolutely willing to be corrected on this)”. Please, if you can cite the international law you believe prohibits one nation from adding to its territory by conquest, I’d appreciate it.
According to the census data collected by the Ottoman Empire, the Christian population in 1914 was 24% of the modern-day area consisting of Israel/Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Turkey; today it is no more than 5%, [2] largely due to the chronic emigration of Christians and (since the 1970s) their lower birth rates. In British Mandate Palestine, Christians made up as much as 20% of the population, though some put the figure at 13%.
More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Christian
According to the census data collected by the Ottoman Empire, the Christian population in 1914 was 24% of the modern-day area consisting of Israel/Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Turkey; today it is no more than 5%, [2] largely due to the chronic emigration of Christians and (since the 1970s) their lower birth rates. In British Mandate Palestine, Christians made up as much as 20% of the population, though some put the figure at 13%.
More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Christian
But the situation is quite clear, isn’t it? If the West Bank is part of Israel, then Israel has a right to build permanent settlements, but then Israel is an apartheid state, as the Arabs living in the West Bank don’t have Israeli citizenship. If the West Bank is not part of Israel, then Israel has no right to build settlements there.
The “situation” is not the same thing as the GC, though. You may believe Israel is wrong for building settlements, but that is not the same thing as saying that Israel is violating an agreement not to build settlements.
I recommend you re-read my opening sentence: “To the best of my knowledge and belief (I am absolutely willing to be corrected on this)”. Please, if you can cite the international law you believe prohibits one nation from adding to its territory by conquest, I’d appreciate it.
My question was what you believed international law required, not what international law says. To my knowledge, there is no dispute that international law prohibits annexing territory of a sovereign country captured in a war of aggression. Some international law scholars have contended that territory captured from an aggressor can be annexed, but that is the minority view. I can’t recall any specific treaties though, but this book will be most helpful.
Anyway, the status of Israel’s right to conquest really hinges on the status of the territories.
But the situation is quite clear, isn’t it? If the West Bank is part of Israel, then Israel has a right to build permanent settlements, but then Israel is an apartheid state, as the Arabs living in the West Bank don’t have Israeli citizenship. If the West Bank is not part of Israel, then Israel has no right to build settlements there.
The “situation” is not the same thing as the GC, though. You may believe Israel is wrong for building settlements, but that is not the same thing as saying that Israel is violating an agreement not to build settlements.
I recommend you re-read my opening sentence: “To the best of my knowledge and belief (I am absolutely willing to be corrected on this)”. Please, if you can cite the international law you believe prohibits one nation from adding to its territory by conquest, I’d appreciate it.
My question was what you believed international law required, not what international law says. To my knowledge, there is no dispute that international law prohibits annexing territory of a sovereign country captured in a war of aggression. Some international law scholars have contended that territory captured from an aggressor can be annexed, but that is the minority view. I can’t recall any specific treaties though, but this book will be most helpful.
Anyway, the status of Israel’s right to conquest really hinges on the status of the territories.
Sure, but anti-semite has been commonly used to mean anti-Jewish (and only anti-Jewish) for a long, long time
If you tell the same lie over and over it doesn’t suddenly, at some point, burst out and become true.
Lies are lies.
A non-semite could point to a bunch of semites trying to retake land that had been cleansed of semites and claim that those actions were anti-semitic.
To which I would say, go sod off and read orwell.
I’m tired of the lies. It doesn’t matter how long they have been told.
Sure, but anti-semite has been commonly used to mean anti-Jewish (and only anti-Jewish) for a long, long time
If you tell the same lie over and over it doesn’t suddenly, at some point, burst out and become true.
Lies are lies.
A non-semite could point to a bunch of semites trying to retake land that had been cleansed of semites and claim that those actions were anti-semitic.
To which I would say, go sod off and read orwell.
I’m tired of the lies. It doesn’t matter how long they have been told.
“If you tell the same lie over and over it doesn’t suddenly, at some point, burst out and become true.”
And making up stuff that you imagine must be so doesn’t become true when it isn’t, either. Try learning some history and facts before mouthing off.
“anti-semitism”, or more correctly, “antisemitism,” does not, in fact, mean “against Semites,” no matter that you imagine it should. You’re entitled to your opinions, but not to your own facts, and not to your own imaginary etymology.
This is why the “S” doesn’t, in fact, get capitalized. Because it doesn’t, in fact, refer to “Semites.” You [adjective that would violate the posting rules can be imagined here] [noun that would violate the posting rules can be imagined here].
“If you tell the same lie over and over it doesn’t suddenly, at some point, burst out and become true.”
And making up stuff that you imagine must be so doesn’t become true when it isn’t, either. Try learning some history and facts before mouthing off.
“anti-semitism”, or more correctly, “antisemitism,” does not, in fact, mean “against Semites,” no matter that you imagine it should. You’re entitled to your opinions, but not to your own facts, and not to your own imaginary etymology.
This is why the “S” doesn’t, in fact, get capitalized. Because it doesn’t, in fact, refer to “Semites.” You [adjective that would violate the posting rules can be imagined here] [noun that would violate the posting rules can be imagined here].
“anti-semitism”, or more correctly, “antisemitism,” does not, in fact, mean “against Semites
I am so tired of the lies. Liars can lie so much faster than lies can be corrected.
“anti-semitism”, or more correctly, “antisemitism,” does not, in fact, mean “against Semites
I am so tired of the lies. Liars can lie so much faster than lies can be corrected.
“I am so tired of the lies.”
It would be more useful if you’d get tired of non-sequiturs.
“I am so tired of the lies.”
It would be more useful if you’d get tired of non-sequiturs.
Nephtuli: You may believe Israel is wrong for building settlements, but that is not the same thing as saying that Israel is violating an agreement not to build settlements.
That is an argument on much the same moral level as the US government deciding that “torture” meant causing permanent physical damage to someone, and therefore waterboarding did not count as torture.
If you read through GCIV and compare it with Israel’s behavior in the Occupied Territories, Israel is in general violation of that Convention over, and over again.
The settlements specifically are in clear violation of Article 49, which specifies clearly that “The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the territories it occupies.”
To my knowledge, there is no dispute that international law prohibits annexing territory of a sovereign country captured in a war of aggression.
But, as I recall, there is considerable dispute (and justly so) about whether the 1967 war was a war of aggression on the part of Israel.
Some international law scholars have contended that territory captured from an aggressor can be annexed, but that is the minority view.
That may be what I was thinking of. I have certainly read/heard quite a few justifications for annexing the Occupied Territories which take for granted (a) that Israel was not the aggressor in 1967 – which I consider not clearcut either way (b) that the nation which is not the aggressor is entitled to keep what is conquered.
I can’t recall any specific treaties though, but this book will be most helpful.
Thanks very much for that. (Googlebooks is great!) I don’t have time to read this all right now, but have bookmarked it for later.
Anyway, the status of Israel’s right to conquest really hinges on the status of the territories.
My point is that Israel can’t justify itself either way. If the Territories belong to Israel, then all the legal residents ought to be citizens: if the Territories do not belong to Israel, then the settlements are illegal.
Now_what: If you tell the same lie over and over it doesn’t suddenly, at some point, burst out and become true.
Antisemitism is the word for anti-Jewish bigotry. To argue that it is not because “Semite” means all Semitic peoples, including Arabs, is as much an act of folly as arguing that “homophobia” doesn’t mean “anti-gay bigotry” because the Greek elements of the word mean “fear of the same”. You’ll be complaining next that television will come to no good because the word is half Latin and half Greek.
Nephtuli: You may believe Israel is wrong for building settlements, but that is not the same thing as saying that Israel is violating an agreement not to build settlements.
That is an argument on much the same moral level as the US government deciding that “torture” meant causing permanent physical damage to someone, and therefore waterboarding did not count as torture.
If you read through GCIV and compare it with Israel’s behavior in the Occupied Territories, Israel is in general violation of that Convention over, and over again.
The settlements specifically are in clear violation of Article 49, which specifies clearly that “The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the territories it occupies.”
To my knowledge, there is no dispute that international law prohibits annexing territory of a sovereign country captured in a war of aggression.
But, as I recall, there is considerable dispute (and justly so) about whether the 1967 war was a war of aggression on the part of Israel.
Some international law scholars have contended that territory captured from an aggressor can be annexed, but that is the minority view.
That may be what I was thinking of. I have certainly read/heard quite a few justifications for annexing the Occupied Territories which take for granted (a) that Israel was not the aggressor in 1967 – which I consider not clearcut either way (b) that the nation which is not the aggressor is entitled to keep what is conquered.
I can’t recall any specific treaties though, but this book will be most helpful.
Thanks very much for that. (Googlebooks is great!) I don’t have time to read this all right now, but have bookmarked it for later.
Anyway, the status of Israel’s right to conquest really hinges on the status of the territories.
My point is that Israel can’t justify itself either way. If the Territories belong to Israel, then all the legal residents ought to be citizens: if the Territories do not belong to Israel, then the settlements are illegal.
Now_what: If you tell the same lie over and over it doesn’t suddenly, at some point, burst out and become true.
Antisemitism is the word for anti-Jewish bigotry. To argue that it is not because “Semite” means all Semitic peoples, including Arabs, is as much an act of folly as arguing that “homophobia” doesn’t mean “anti-gay bigotry” because the Greek elements of the word mean “fear of the same”. You’ll be complaining next that television will come to no good because the word is half Latin and half Greek.
That is an argument on much the same moral level as the US government deciding that “torture” meant causing permanent physical damage to someone, and therefore waterboarding did not count as torture.
You really think that allowing one’s citizens to move into an occupied territory (or in some cases subsidizing it) is anyway morally analogous to torture?
The settlements specifically are in clear violation of Article 49, which specifies clearly that “The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the territories it occupies.”
“Clear violation?” You think vague terms such as “deport” or “transfer” clearly prohibit voluntary or state subsidized settlement?
My point is that Israel can’t justify itself either way. If the Territories belong to Israel, then all the legal residents ought to be citizens: if the Territories do not belong to Israel, then the settlements are illegal.
I think it very much depends on the status of territories. If they are remnants of the old British Mandate, then it’s hard to claim that settlements are illegal.
That is an argument on much the same moral level as the US government deciding that “torture” meant causing permanent physical damage to someone, and therefore waterboarding did not count as torture.
You really think that allowing one’s citizens to move into an occupied territory (or in some cases subsidizing it) is anyway morally analogous to torture?
The settlements specifically are in clear violation of Article 49, which specifies clearly that “The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the territories it occupies.”
“Clear violation?” You think vague terms such as “deport” or “transfer” clearly prohibit voluntary or state subsidized settlement?
My point is that Israel can’t justify itself either way. If the Territories belong to Israel, then all the legal residents ought to be citizens: if the Territories do not belong to Israel, then the settlements are illegal.
I think it very much depends on the status of territories. If they are remnants of the old British Mandate, then it’s hard to claim that settlements are illegal.
Jonathan,
Actually, the more plausible explanation is just the opposite: political expediency for all parties demanded that everyone keep up the illusion that the peace process was moving along.
Remember the political circumstances at the time. Israel had just scheduled new elections for prime minister for February 2001. Sharon was a well-known opponent of any peace deal with the Palestinians. The Second Intifada had just started (right after Camp David, no less) a few months earlier. Barak was on the ropes and only a peace deal could save him. Clinton was on his way out and had a strong motivation to pretend that any peace deal reached between the sides was a direct consequence of his parameters. And of course it behooved Arafat to keep up the facade that he was negotiating in good faith, as that would allow him to blame Israel if a deal was not reached and the violence continued.
So rather than admit, as Ross put it, that Arafat’s reservations and qualifications gutted the parameters and were effectively a rejection, the parties reported the true, but misleading, fact that both sides had accepted the parameters with reservations and qualifications.
The above narrative is much more likely to be accurate than the one you offered. Martin Indyk reports that “Clinton openly blamed Arafat and told the incoming U.S. president, George W. Bush, that negotiating with Arafat was useless.” So on January 7, 2001 Clinton had high hopes that the sides would reach an agreement, but at some point in the next two weeks decided that negotiating with Arafat is useless? I mean, unless you think Indyk, like Clinton (and I assume Ross) has also been “assiduous in lying” for all these years.
And that’s also why the Erekat quote just seems implausible or out of context. How would pretending that Arafat is not a partner for peace help the peace camp? Wouldn’t the peace camp be better served by constructing a narrative that had a peace deal right around the corner and only needed the right people in power in Israel to make it happen? How would pretending that the Palestinians, under Arafat, will never make peace get them elected? Wouldn’t that just push the Israeli electorate into the hands of the less moderate parties?
Last point about Barak pulling back negotiators: Even Barak, the quintessential opportunist, realized that at some point he had to end negotiations and let the Israeli electorate decide who should lead them. Given Arafat’s essential rejection of the Clinton parameters, it was unlikely anything would have been reached at that point. Without those parameters, it would have been impossible to narrow the gaps sufficiently. In truth, Barak should have pulled out once Arafat said no to Clinton’s ideas, but he was an underdog in an upcoming election and this was his only shot.
Jonathan,
Actually, the more plausible explanation is just the opposite: political expediency for all parties demanded that everyone keep up the illusion that the peace process was moving along.
Remember the political circumstances at the time. Israel had just scheduled new elections for prime minister for February 2001. Sharon was a well-known opponent of any peace deal with the Palestinians. The Second Intifada had just started (right after Camp David, no less) a few months earlier. Barak was on the ropes and only a peace deal could save him. Clinton was on his way out and had a strong motivation to pretend that any peace deal reached between the sides was a direct consequence of his parameters. And of course it behooved Arafat to keep up the facade that he was negotiating in good faith, as that would allow him to blame Israel if a deal was not reached and the violence continued.
So rather than admit, as Ross put it, that Arafat’s reservations and qualifications gutted the parameters and were effectively a rejection, the parties reported the true, but misleading, fact that both sides had accepted the parameters with reservations and qualifications.
The above narrative is much more likely to be accurate than the one you offered. Martin Indyk reports that “Clinton openly blamed Arafat and told the incoming U.S. president, George W. Bush, that negotiating with Arafat was useless.” So on January 7, 2001 Clinton had high hopes that the sides would reach an agreement, but at some point in the next two weeks decided that negotiating with Arafat is useless? I mean, unless you think Indyk, like Clinton (and I assume Ross) has also been “assiduous in lying” for all these years.
And that’s also why the Erekat quote just seems implausible or out of context. How would pretending that Arafat is not a partner for peace help the peace camp? Wouldn’t the peace camp be better served by constructing a narrative that had a peace deal right around the corner and only needed the right people in power in Israel to make it happen? How would pretending that the Palestinians, under Arafat, will never make peace get them elected? Wouldn’t that just push the Israeli electorate into the hands of the less moderate parties?
Last point about Barak pulling back negotiators: Even Barak, the quintessential opportunist, realized that at some point he had to end negotiations and let the Israeli electorate decide who should lead them. Given Arafat’s essential rejection of the Clinton parameters, it was unlikely anything would have been reached at that point. Without those parameters, it would have been impossible to narrow the gaps sufficiently. In truth, Barak should have pulled out once Arafat said no to Clinton’s ideas, but he was an underdog in an upcoming election and this was his only shot.
You really think that allowing one’s citizens to move into an occupied territory (or in some cases subsidizing it) is anyway morally analogous to torture?
You are really determined to misunderstand what I am saying?
You think vague terms such as “deport” or “transfer” clearly prohibit voluntary or state subsidized settlement?
I think that the only reason that the distinction between “deport” and “transfer” has become blurred is because the Israelis chose to regard them as “vague terms” that didn’t prohibit them from their theft of land.
If they are remnants of the old British Mandate, then it’s hard to claim that settlements are illegal.
I notice that you are not responding in any way to my point that either Israel has laid claims to the Occupied Territories and has been for 41 years an apartheid state, or else the settlements are illegal. Trying to claim that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip could still be part of the British Mandate and thus up for grabs to anyone who wants it, actually makes it straightforward armed robbery, doesn’t it – since the Palestinians were in possession first.
You really think that allowing one’s citizens to move into an occupied territory (or in some cases subsidizing it) is anyway morally analogous to torture?
You are really determined to misunderstand what I am saying?
You think vague terms such as “deport” or “transfer” clearly prohibit voluntary or state subsidized settlement?
I think that the only reason that the distinction between “deport” and “transfer” has become blurred is because the Israelis chose to regard them as “vague terms” that didn’t prohibit them from their theft of land.
If they are remnants of the old British Mandate, then it’s hard to claim that settlements are illegal.
I notice that you are not responding in any way to my point that either Israel has laid claims to the Occupied Territories and has been for 41 years an apartheid state, or else the settlements are illegal. Trying to claim that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip could still be part of the British Mandate and thus up for grabs to anyone who wants it, actually makes it straightforward armed robbery, doesn’t it – since the Palestinians were in possession first.
You are really determined to misunderstand what I am saying?
Not at all. It’s one thing to claim that legal formalities are irrelevant with regards to something as morally odious as torture; it’s entirely different to make the same argument regarding settlement construction.
I think that the only reason that the distinction between “deport” and “transfer” has become blurred is because the Israelis chose to regard them as “vague terms” that didn’t prohibit them from their theft of land.
If the terms weren’t vague, why did Egypt feel compelled to include a more specific provision in the Rome Statute authorizing the ICC? Clearly Article 49(6) wasn’t getting the job done.
I notice that you are not responding in any way to my point that either Israel has laid claims to the Occupied Territories and has been for 41 years an apartheid state, or else the settlements are illegal. Trying to claim that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip could still be part of the British Mandate and thus up for grabs to anyone who wants it, actually makes it straightforward armed robbery, doesn’t it – since the Palestinians were in possession first.
You are positing a false choice. Israel has laid claims to the territories (although it no longer makes such claims to Gaza), but it has refused to exercise sovereignty, and has administered the territories under a military occupation government, which is arguably its obligation under international law.
Essentially, as a legal matter, the territories are subject to the dual claims of the parties. The moral issues are another matter, but you brought up the legal issues, not me.
You are really determined to misunderstand what I am saying?
Not at all. It’s one thing to claim that legal formalities are irrelevant with regards to something as morally odious as torture; it’s entirely different to make the same argument regarding settlement construction.
I think that the only reason that the distinction between “deport” and “transfer” has become blurred is because the Israelis chose to regard them as “vague terms” that didn’t prohibit them from their theft of land.
If the terms weren’t vague, why did Egypt feel compelled to include a more specific provision in the Rome Statute authorizing the ICC? Clearly Article 49(6) wasn’t getting the job done.
I notice that you are not responding in any way to my point that either Israel has laid claims to the Occupied Territories and has been for 41 years an apartheid state, or else the settlements are illegal. Trying to claim that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip could still be part of the British Mandate and thus up for grabs to anyone who wants it, actually makes it straightforward armed robbery, doesn’t it – since the Palestinians were in possession first.
You are positing a false choice. Israel has laid claims to the territories (although it no longer makes such claims to Gaza), but it has refused to exercise sovereignty, and has administered the territories under a military occupation government, which is arguably its obligation under international law.
Essentially, as a legal matter, the territories are subject to the dual claims of the parties. The moral issues are another matter, but you brought up the legal issues, not me.
It’s one thing to claim that legal formalities are irrelevant with regards to something as morally odious as torture; it’s entirely different to make the same argument regarding settlement construction.
But you agree it’s the same argument – that legal formalities don’t matter. That was the point I was making. That the argument is that the law doesn’t have to be obeyed, “might makes right”.
You are positing a false choice.
How is it a “false choice”? Either the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are apartheid territories within Israel, or else building settlements is illegal.
Israel has laid claims to the territories (although it no longer makes such claims to Gaza)
Just laid claim to absolute control of Gaza’s borders and sovereign waters, thus preventing Gaza from attaining economic independence. Yes, quite so. In effect, the Gaza Strip has become the largest concentration camp in history.
, but it has refused to exercise sovereignty
Not hardly, no. The Israeli settlements build in the occupied territories are guarded by the IDF, the settlers are subject to Israeli law and taxation, even the roads from settlement to settlement or to Israel proper are subject to Israeli sovereignity. This is not “refusal”.
and has administered the territories under a military occupation government, which is arguably its obligation under international law.
Its obligations under international law of military occupation were to refrain from transferring Israel citizens, to refrain from building permanent settlements, and to protect the Palestinian civilians. There are multiple other obligations under international law of military occupation which Israel violated – treating the Occupied Territories in all respects as if they were part of Israel, except for granting the legal residents Israeli citizenship.
It’s one thing to claim that legal formalities are irrelevant with regards to something as morally odious as torture; it’s entirely different to make the same argument regarding settlement construction.
But you agree it’s the same argument – that legal formalities don’t matter. That was the point I was making. That the argument is that the law doesn’t have to be obeyed, “might makes right”.
You are positing a false choice.
How is it a “false choice”? Either the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are apartheid territories within Israel, or else building settlements is illegal.
Israel has laid claims to the territories (although it no longer makes such claims to Gaza)
Just laid claim to absolute control of Gaza’s borders and sovereign waters, thus preventing Gaza from attaining economic independence. Yes, quite so. In effect, the Gaza Strip has become the largest concentration camp in history.
, but it has refused to exercise sovereignty
Not hardly, no. The Israeli settlements build in the occupied territories are guarded by the IDF, the settlers are subject to Israeli law and taxation, even the roads from settlement to settlement or to Israel proper are subject to Israeli sovereignity. This is not “refusal”.
and has administered the territories under a military occupation government, which is arguably its obligation under international law.
Its obligations under international law of military occupation were to refrain from transferring Israel citizens, to refrain from building permanent settlements, and to protect the Palestinian civilians. There are multiple other obligations under international law of military occupation which Israel violated – treating the Occupied Territories in all respects as if they were part of Israel, except for granting the legal residents Israeli citizenship.
But you agree it’s the same argument – that legal formalities don’t matter. That was the point I was making. That the argument is that the law doesn’t have to be obeyed, “might makes right”.
Obviously law doesn’t always have to be followed. But the fact that laws can be trumped by morality in certain circumstances hardly entails that laws must always be trumped by morality. And that’s why the torture analogy is inapposite. While morality may dictate that the legal definition of torture is irrelevant to whether a country should practice torture, settlement building is hardly on the same level as torture.
How is it a “false choice”? Either the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are apartheid territories within Israel, or else building settlements is illegal.
You can’t respond to an argument that your choice is a false choice by repeating the same false choice. I explained how there is a third possibility earlier: Israel administers the territories under a military government by is permitted to build settlements as a result of their legal claim to the territories and the inapplicability of Article 49(6) to the settlement building.
Just laid claim to absolute control of Gaza’s borders and sovereign waters, thus preventing Gaza from attaining economic independence.
Israel has made no such claims.
Not hardly, no. The Israeli settlements build in the occupied territories are guarded by the IDF, the settlers are subject to Israeli law and taxation, even the roads from settlement to settlement or to Israel proper are subject to Israeli sovereignity. This is not “refusal”.
The fact that the settlers are under Israeli control does not mean they annexed the territories. I am not aware of any legal scholar who believes that Israel annexed the land on which settlements are built.
Its obligations under international law of military occupation were to refrain from transferring Israel citizens, to refrain from building permanent settlements, and to protect the Palestinian civilians. There are multiple other obligations under international law of military occupation which Israel violated – treating the Occupied Territories in all respects as if they were part of Israel, except for granting the legal residents Israeli citizenship.
You are begging the question by asserting, without argument, that Israel is violating international law by building settlements. That’s what our whole argument is about!
But you agree it’s the same argument – that legal formalities don’t matter. That was the point I was making. That the argument is that the law doesn’t have to be obeyed, “might makes right”.
Obviously law doesn’t always have to be followed. But the fact that laws can be trumped by morality in certain circumstances hardly entails that laws must always be trumped by morality. And that’s why the torture analogy is inapposite. While morality may dictate that the legal definition of torture is irrelevant to whether a country should practice torture, settlement building is hardly on the same level as torture.
How is it a “false choice”? Either the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are apartheid territories within Israel, or else building settlements is illegal.
You can’t respond to an argument that your choice is a false choice by repeating the same false choice. I explained how there is a third possibility earlier: Israel administers the territories under a military government by is permitted to build settlements as a result of their legal claim to the territories and the inapplicability of Article 49(6) to the settlement building.
Just laid claim to absolute control of Gaza’s borders and sovereign waters, thus preventing Gaza from attaining economic independence.
Israel has made no such claims.
Not hardly, no. The Israeli settlements build in the occupied territories are guarded by the IDF, the settlers are subject to Israeli law and taxation, even the roads from settlement to settlement or to Israel proper are subject to Israeli sovereignity. This is not “refusal”.
The fact that the settlers are under Israeli control does not mean they annexed the territories. I am not aware of any legal scholar who believes that Israel annexed the land on which settlements are built.
Its obligations under international law of military occupation were to refrain from transferring Israel citizens, to refrain from building permanent settlements, and to protect the Palestinian civilians. There are multiple other obligations under international law of military occupation which Israel violated – treating the Occupied Territories in all respects as if they were part of Israel, except for granting the legal residents Israeli citizenship.
You are begging the question by asserting, without argument, that Israel is violating international law by building settlements. That’s what our whole argument is about!
“You really think that allowing one’s citizens to move into an occupied territory (or in some cases subsidizing it) is anyway morally analogous to torture?”
I’m surprised Jes answered this the way she did. I’ll answer it for myself–of course it is, at least the way the Israelis do it. It has led to a system similar to apartheid, a system which can only be enforced through violence (and some of that has included torture). I think, though, that your question is indicative of how the I/P conflict is often portrayed in the US. Israel does something outrageous, like build settlements on Palestinian land and then doesn’t give the Palestinians the right to live inside pre-1967 Israel. But somehow we aren’t supposed to see this as something as serious as torture or terrorism, when it is.
On the subject of the Zionist willingness to compromise in 1947, according to Simha Flapan and others the acceptance of the UN partition plan was a tactical move by the Zionists–none of them would have been satisfied with the tiny statelet the UN plan gave them. The difference between the Zionists and the Arab leaders was one of pragmatism and competence–a noble willingness to compromise had nothing to do with it, unless we are talking about people like Judah Magnes (and we’re not). Palestinian leaders, as Rashid Khalidi points out, have often botched even what little bad choices they had.
And from the Arab viewpoint, more than half the land was given to the ethnic group with one third of the population, so of course they weren’t willing to compromise. The whole situation for them was an outrage, with Palestinians designated first by the British and then by the UN to be the ones to pay the price for European (and American) antisemitism.
As for the Israeli desire for peace, they desire it on their own terms, much like the Arabs and for that matter, most people. I know one often hears in the US that Israel has always longed for peace, but having read Simha Flapan and Avi Shlaim it’s a little hard to take that seriously, except in the sense I just mentioned. Though again, most people are like this–why sacrifice anything for peace if you don’t have to?
“I mean, unless you think Indyk, like Clinton (and I assume Ross) has also been “assiduous in lying” for all these years.”
Why would that be surprising? There are a number of people now who think Arafat should share the blame with Barak and Clinton for how badly things went in 2000-2001–
New York Review
I don’t think they’d use the term “lying”, possibly, since some of them are part of the foreign policy establishment and are friendly with each other and probably wish to remain that way.
“You really think that allowing one’s citizens to move into an occupied territory (or in some cases subsidizing it) is anyway morally analogous to torture?”
I’m surprised Jes answered this the way she did. I’ll answer it for myself–of course it is, at least the way the Israelis do it. It has led to a system similar to apartheid, a system which can only be enforced through violence (and some of that has included torture). I think, though, that your question is indicative of how the I/P conflict is often portrayed in the US. Israel does something outrageous, like build settlements on Palestinian land and then doesn’t give the Palestinians the right to live inside pre-1967 Israel. But somehow we aren’t supposed to see this as something as serious as torture or terrorism, when it is.
On the subject of the Zionist willingness to compromise in 1947, according to Simha Flapan and others the acceptance of the UN partition plan was a tactical move by the Zionists–none of them would have been satisfied with the tiny statelet the UN plan gave them. The difference between the Zionists and the Arab leaders was one of pragmatism and competence–a noble willingness to compromise had nothing to do with it, unless we are talking about people like Judah Magnes (and we’re not). Palestinian leaders, as Rashid Khalidi points out, have often botched even what little bad choices they had.
And from the Arab viewpoint, more than half the land was given to the ethnic group with one third of the population, so of course they weren’t willing to compromise. The whole situation for them was an outrage, with Palestinians designated first by the British and then by the UN to be the ones to pay the price for European (and American) antisemitism.
As for the Israeli desire for peace, they desire it on their own terms, much like the Arabs and for that matter, most people. I know one often hears in the US that Israel has always longed for peace, but having read Simha Flapan and Avi Shlaim it’s a little hard to take that seriously, except in the sense I just mentioned. Though again, most people are like this–why sacrifice anything for peace if you don’t have to?
“I mean, unless you think Indyk, like Clinton (and I assume Ross) has also been “assiduous in lying” for all these years.”
Why would that be surprising? There are a number of people now who think Arafat should share the blame with Barak and Clinton for how badly things went in 2000-2001–
New York Review
I don’t think they’d use the term “lying”, possibly, since some of them are part of the foreign policy establishment and are friendly with each other and probably wish to remain that way.
Just for the record, when I mention European, in the context of this thread, I guess I meant “white” so I would include the United States, South Africa, Australia, and others.
I thought if I used “white” it would have diverted the thread into other subjects. So, to a certain degree, I view Zionism as an ideology which grew out of European theories and notions of race, ethnicity, and nationalisms of the late 19th and early 20th century, which. By its very nature was Eurocentric/white.
Just for the record, when I mention European, in the context of this thread, I guess I meant “white” so I would include the United States, South Africa, Australia, and others.
I thought if I used “white” it would have diverted the thread into other subjects. So, to a certain degree, I view Zionism as an ideology which grew out of European theories and notions of race, ethnicity, and nationalisms of the late 19th and early 20th century, which. By its very nature was Eurocentric/white.
It has led to a system similar to apartheid, a system which can only be enforced through violence (and some of that has included torture). I think, though, that your question is indicative of how the I/P conflict is often portrayed in the US. Israel does something outrageous, like build settlements on Palestinian land and then doesn’t give the Palestinians the right to live inside pre-1967 Israel. But somehow we aren’t supposed to see this as something as serious as torture or terrorism, when it is.
Like Jesurgislac’s earlier comments, this response is wholly question begging. You’re concluding, without argument, that the situation in territories is one of apartheid, merely because Israeli citizens are treated differently than (what Israeli and international law considers) protected persons. It is hard to fathom how people building homes on generally public land can be equated with murder and torture. It doesn’t appear to be the actual construction of settlements that is problematic in your eyes, but rather treating Israelis who live in the territory one way and Palestinians who live there differently.
But Israel has no obligation to grant the Palestinians citizenship. Unlike the Afrikaners in South Africa who had a legal and moral obligation to grant all citizens equal rights, Israel is not claiming sovereignty over the territories and is not granting one group citizenship while denying it to other groups. So essentially Israel is treating its citizens one way and the citizens of another “country” a different way; how that is apartheid is left to my imagination I guess. If Israel treated its Arab citizens who lived in settlements in the West Bank different than its Jewish citizens, you would have a stronger point.
Further, unlike pre-67 Israel, the territories are disputed and are without a sovereign. No one can lay claims to the sovereign territory that is Israel and, consequently, the Palestinians have no national right to build settlements in Israel (they may have an individual right of return, though), while Israel may have such a right to build in the territories.
On the subject of the Zionist willingness to compromise in 1947, according to Simha Flapan and others the acceptance of the UN partition plan was a tactical move by the Zionists–none of them would have been satisfied with the tiny statelet the UN plan gave them. The difference between the Zionists and the Arab leaders was one of pragmatism and competence–a noble willingness to compromise had nothing to do with it, unless we are talking about people like Judah Magnes (and we’re not). Palestinian leaders, as Rashid Khalidi points out, have often botched even what little bad choices they had.
I never uttered the word “noble.” The fact is that Israel compromised knowing that if the Palestinians accepted the resolution, that Israel would be stuck within its borders and living precariously in a sea of enemies. Yet rather than say no and try to take the territory by force, they accepted the resolution rather than have to fight a war. Whether that acceptance was a result of moral or pragmatic calculations isn’t material.
And from the Arab viewpoint, more than half the land was given to the ethnic group with one third of the population, so of course they weren’t willing to compromise. The whole situation for them was an outrage, with Palestinians designated first by the British and then by the UN to be the ones to pay the price for European (and American) antisemitism.
And from the Jewish perspective they had just lost a third of their people to genocide in the last six years, partly at the behest of the leader of the Arab Higher Committee, and as a direct result of the world’s immigration quotas. The need for a viable state could not possibly be any more compelling, yet they took what they could get and did not try to take the rest by force.
We should be less concerned about the subjective feelings of the parties and more concerned about how the situation played out, which was the Arabs (Palestinians included) absolutely refused to make any compromise at all. The ideology behind the three “nos” didn’t arise in 1967.
As for the Israeli desire for peace, they desire it on their own terms, much like the Arabs and for that matter, most people. I know one often hears in the US that Israel has always longed for peace, but having read Simha Flapan and Avi Shlaim it’s a little hard to take that seriously, except in the sense I just mentioned. Though again, most people are like this–why sacrifice anything for peace if you don’t have to?
And having read Efraim Karsh, Anita Shapira and Shabtai Teveth in addition to the above writers, I probably have a more balanced view of the situation.
Why would that be surprising? There are a number of people now who think Arafat should share the blame with Barak and Clinton for how badly things went in 2000-2001–
What do you mean “now?” Agha and Malley have been peddling this story for almost seven years!
It has led to a system similar to apartheid, a system which can only be enforced through violence (and some of that has included torture). I think, though, that your question is indicative of how the I/P conflict is often portrayed in the US. Israel does something outrageous, like build settlements on Palestinian land and then doesn’t give the Palestinians the right to live inside pre-1967 Israel. But somehow we aren’t supposed to see this as something as serious as torture or terrorism, when it is.
Like Jesurgislac’s earlier comments, this response is wholly question begging. You’re concluding, without argument, that the situation in territories is one of apartheid, merely because Israeli citizens are treated differently than (what Israeli and international law considers) protected persons. It is hard to fathom how people building homes on generally public land can be equated with murder and torture. It doesn’t appear to be the actual construction of settlements that is problematic in your eyes, but rather treating Israelis who live in the territory one way and Palestinians who live there differently.
But Israel has no obligation to grant the Palestinians citizenship. Unlike the Afrikaners in South Africa who had a legal and moral obligation to grant all citizens equal rights, Israel is not claiming sovereignty over the territories and is not granting one group citizenship while denying it to other groups. So essentially Israel is treating its citizens one way and the citizens of another “country” a different way; how that is apartheid is left to my imagination I guess. If Israel treated its Arab citizens who lived in settlements in the West Bank different than its Jewish citizens, you would have a stronger point.
Further, unlike pre-67 Israel, the territories are disputed and are without a sovereign. No one can lay claims to the sovereign territory that is Israel and, consequently, the Palestinians have no national right to build settlements in Israel (they may have an individual right of return, though), while Israel may have such a right to build in the territories.
On the subject of the Zionist willingness to compromise in 1947, according to Simha Flapan and others the acceptance of the UN partition plan was a tactical move by the Zionists–none of them would have been satisfied with the tiny statelet the UN plan gave them. The difference between the Zionists and the Arab leaders was one of pragmatism and competence–a noble willingness to compromise had nothing to do with it, unless we are talking about people like Judah Magnes (and we’re not). Palestinian leaders, as Rashid Khalidi points out, have often botched even what little bad choices they had.
I never uttered the word “noble.” The fact is that Israel compromised knowing that if the Palestinians accepted the resolution, that Israel would be stuck within its borders and living precariously in a sea of enemies. Yet rather than say no and try to take the territory by force, they accepted the resolution rather than have to fight a war. Whether that acceptance was a result of moral or pragmatic calculations isn’t material.
And from the Arab viewpoint, more than half the land was given to the ethnic group with one third of the population, so of course they weren’t willing to compromise. The whole situation for them was an outrage, with Palestinians designated first by the British and then by the UN to be the ones to pay the price for European (and American) antisemitism.
And from the Jewish perspective they had just lost a third of their people to genocide in the last six years, partly at the behest of the leader of the Arab Higher Committee, and as a direct result of the world’s immigration quotas. The need for a viable state could not possibly be any more compelling, yet they took what they could get and did not try to take the rest by force.
We should be less concerned about the subjective feelings of the parties and more concerned about how the situation played out, which was the Arabs (Palestinians included) absolutely refused to make any compromise at all. The ideology behind the three “nos” didn’t arise in 1967.
As for the Israeli desire for peace, they desire it on their own terms, much like the Arabs and for that matter, most people. I know one often hears in the US that Israel has always longed for peace, but having read Simha Flapan and Avi Shlaim it’s a little hard to take that seriously, except in the sense I just mentioned. Though again, most people are like this–why sacrifice anything for peace if you don’t have to?
And having read Efraim Karsh, Anita Shapira and Shabtai Teveth in addition to the above writers, I probably have a more balanced view of the situation.
Why would that be surprising? There are a number of people now who think Arafat should share the blame with Barak and Clinton for how badly things went in 2000-2001–
What do you mean “now?” Agha and Malley have been peddling this story for almost seven years!
Chuchundra: “I guess we know where you got your antisemitism from.”
And now_what: “If you tell the same lie over and over it doesn’t suddenly, at some point, burst out and become true.
Lies are lies.”
and: “I am so tired of the lies. Liars can lie so much faster than lies can be corrected.”
These violate the posting rules. Please stop.
Chuchundra: “I guess we know where you got your antisemitism from.”
And now_what: “If you tell the same lie over and over it doesn’t suddenly, at some point, burst out and become true.
Lies are lies.”
and: “I am so tired of the lies. Liars can lie so much faster than lies can be corrected.”
These violate the posting rules. Please stop.
Nephtuli: Obviously law doesn’t always have to be followed. But the fact that laws can be trumped by morality in certain circumstances hardly entails that laws must always be trumped by morality.
Good point.
And that’s why the torture analogy is inapposite. While morality may dictate that the legal definition of torture is irrelevant to whether a country should practice torture, settlement building is hardly on the same level as torture.
Well, quite. Settlement building is on the same moral level as armed robbery. Armed robbery is not on the same level of evil as torture. But that isn’t any moral justification for armed robbery, nor does it make armed robbery less illegal. (I think Donald Johnson makes good points, though, but I was trying to restrict the discussion, however artificially, simply to the building of the settlements/settler owner roads.)
I am not aware of any legal scholar who believes that Israel annexed the land on which settlements are built.
Perhaps so. I can’t say what you may or may not be “aware of”. But I am not aware of any possible definition of “annexation” that could exclude the building of the settlements and the settler-owner roads and of course the Wall itself.
You are begging the question by asserting, without argument, that Israel is violating international law by building settlements
Well, yes. Israel is violating international law by building settlements, unless the Occupied Territories are now part of Israel, in which case Israel is an apartheid state. The argument we are having is whether Israel is morally justified in building settlements illegally.
It is hard to fathom how people building homes on generally public land
Now, now. That’s hardly a fair description of what Israelis do when they take land in the Occupied Territories. The land, if public land – in fact, it is often arable land in use by local Palestinian communities – is only free for use by the citizens of the country to which it belongs. And we are back where we started. Are you asserting by this statement that you believe the Occupied Territories to be part of Israel?
which was the Arabs (Palestinians included) absolutely refused to make any compromise at all.
Neither did the Jewish Palestinians, as you yourself acknowledge.
Nephtuli: Obviously law doesn’t always have to be followed. But the fact that laws can be trumped by morality in certain circumstances hardly entails that laws must always be trumped by morality.
Good point.
And that’s why the torture analogy is inapposite. While morality may dictate that the legal definition of torture is irrelevant to whether a country should practice torture, settlement building is hardly on the same level as torture.
Well, quite. Settlement building is on the same moral level as armed robbery. Armed robbery is not on the same level of evil as torture. But that isn’t any moral justification for armed robbery, nor does it make armed robbery less illegal. (I think Donald Johnson makes good points, though, but I was trying to restrict the discussion, however artificially, simply to the building of the settlements/settler owner roads.)
I am not aware of any legal scholar who believes that Israel annexed the land on which settlements are built.
Perhaps so. I can’t say what you may or may not be “aware of”. But I am not aware of any possible definition of “annexation” that could exclude the building of the settlements and the settler-owner roads and of course the Wall itself.
You are begging the question by asserting, without argument, that Israel is violating international law by building settlements
Well, yes. Israel is violating international law by building settlements, unless the Occupied Territories are now part of Israel, in which case Israel is an apartheid state. The argument we are having is whether Israel is morally justified in building settlements illegally.
It is hard to fathom how people building homes on generally public land
Now, now. That’s hardly a fair description of what Israelis do when they take land in the Occupied Territories. The land, if public land – in fact, it is often arable land in use by local Palestinian communities – is only free for use by the citizens of the country to which it belongs. And we are back where we started. Are you asserting by this statement that you believe the Occupied Territories to be part of Israel?
which was the Arabs (Palestinians included) absolutely refused to make any compromise at all.
Neither did the Jewish Palestinians, as you yourself acknowledge.
Well, yes. Israel is violating international law by building settlements, unless the Occupied Territories are now part of Israel, in which case Israel is an apartheid state. The argument we are having is whether Israel is morally justified in building settlements illegally.
Absolutely not, and I have consistently limited my argument with you to questions about legality, not morality. Remember, this whole subthread began when you asserted that Israel is violating its agreements by building settlements. Insofar as Article 49(6) does not prohibit the majority of the settlements in the West Bank, I disagree with you about the legality of settlements. Perhaps this confusion explains why we have been talking past each other for the last few posts.
Again, you continue to offer only a false choice between annexation (with legal settlements) and occupation (with illegal settlements). I’ve offered a third possibility a number of times, which you’ve consistently ignored.
The land, if public land – in fact, it is often arable land in use by local Palestinian communities – is only free for use by the citizens of the country to which it belongs.
Again you are making assertions without providing any support for your claim. International law does not recognize a country called “Palestine” right now, which means no country is exercising sovereignty over the West Bank or Gaza presently. Insofar as Israel has claims to the territories, they do not need to exercise sovereignty to build settlements.
Neither did the Jewish Palestinians, as you yourself acknowledge.
All I’ve acknowledged is that we have wildly different definitions for the word “compromise.”
Well, yes. Israel is violating international law by building settlements, unless the Occupied Territories are now part of Israel, in which case Israel is an apartheid state. The argument we are having is whether Israel is morally justified in building settlements illegally.
Absolutely not, and I have consistently limited my argument with you to questions about legality, not morality. Remember, this whole subthread began when you asserted that Israel is violating its agreements by building settlements. Insofar as Article 49(6) does not prohibit the majority of the settlements in the West Bank, I disagree with you about the legality of settlements. Perhaps this confusion explains why we have been talking past each other for the last few posts.
Again, you continue to offer only a false choice between annexation (with legal settlements) and occupation (with illegal settlements). I’ve offered a third possibility a number of times, which you’ve consistently ignored.
The land, if public land – in fact, it is often arable land in use by local Palestinian communities – is only free for use by the citizens of the country to which it belongs.
Again you are making assertions without providing any support for your claim. International law does not recognize a country called “Palestine” right now, which means no country is exercising sovereignty over the West Bank or Gaza presently. Insofar as Israel has claims to the territories, they do not need to exercise sovereignty to build settlements.
Neither did the Jewish Palestinians, as you yourself acknowledge.
All I’ve acknowledged is that we have wildly different definitions for the word “compromise.”
Fascinating thread and I want to make two short observations.
The first is that the dialogue between Nephtuli and Jes, for as long as it has been and as strong some of the disagreements, has been exceptionally civil and respectful. (I am wondering if someone is posting under Jes’ name).
Secondly, without an expert in international law chiming in, I question if the basic question on the legality of the settlements will be answered to either’s satisfaction.
A key question might be, based upon Nephtuli’s last comment, is who does practice sovereignty over the West Bank or Gaza as recognized by the international community? My understanding is that it is the Palestinians and this is recognized by the Israelis. I don’t know if International law requires there to be a country called “Palestine” for that question to be answered.
Fascinating thread and I want to make two short observations.
The first is that the dialogue between Nephtuli and Jes, for as long as it has been and as strong some of the disagreements, has been exceptionally civil and respectful. (I am wondering if someone is posting under Jes’ name).
Secondly, without an expert in international law chiming in, I question if the basic question on the legality of the settlements will be answered to either’s satisfaction.
A key question might be, based upon Nephtuli’s last comment, is who does practice sovereignty over the West Bank or Gaza as recognized by the international community? My understanding is that it is the Palestinians and this is recognized by the Israelis. I don’t know if International law requires there to be a country called “Palestine” for that question to be answered.
“Agha and Malley have been peddling this story for almost seven years!”
Along with Charles Enderlin and Clayton Swisher and Deborah Sontag and others. Even Shlomo Ben -Ami puts some of the blame on his side, and doesn’t think the Camp David offer was a good one, though it was portrayed as one at the time. It’s hardly surprising that Israeli officials would portray the failure in 2000-2001 as entirely the fault of the Palestinians and even less surprising when one looks at the racist rants Barak wrote about it later (along with Benny Morris). It’s also not a big shock that Clinton went along with the Israeli view and that much of the mainstream press in the US in turn went along with Clinton, but there’ve always been dissenters from this storyline. I’ll have to read Aaron Miller’s recent book to see how he describes it, but according to Agha and Malley he is very critical of how the US saw things through an Israeli perspective, and Kurtzer and Lasensky apparently make similar points.
“Agha and Malley have been peddling this story for almost seven years!”
Along with Charles Enderlin and Clayton Swisher and Deborah Sontag and others. Even Shlomo Ben -Ami puts some of the blame on his side, and doesn’t think the Camp David offer was a good one, though it was portrayed as one at the time. It’s hardly surprising that Israeli officials would portray the failure in 2000-2001 as entirely the fault of the Palestinians and even less surprising when one looks at the racist rants Barak wrote about it later (along with Benny Morris). It’s also not a big shock that Clinton went along with the Israeli view and that much of the mainstream press in the US in turn went along with Clinton, but there’ve always been dissenters from this storyline. I’ll have to read Aaron Miller’s recent book to see how he describes it, but according to Agha and Malley he is very critical of how the US saw things through an Israeli perspective, and Kurtzer and Lasensky apparently make similar points.
Also–
“And having read Efraim Karsh, Anita Shapira and Shabtai Teveth in addition to the above writers, I probably have a more balanced view of the situation.”
Efraim Karsh? Good lord. Look, I’ve read some really strange people too, and there’s probably something to be learned from reading anyone–you at least get their viewpoint.
And anyway, what matters is whether what they say is true. Did the Israelis intend to expand in 1947, despite accepting the partition plan? Did they ignore peace offers from Sadat in the early 70’s? Did they drive large numbers of Palestinian civilians out of Israel and not let them back in, often shooting them in the 1949-1953 period according to Benny Morris? People used to tell a different story about that last point (and some still do).
Also–
“And having read Efraim Karsh, Anita Shapira and Shabtai Teveth in addition to the above writers, I probably have a more balanced view of the situation.”
Efraim Karsh? Good lord. Look, I’ve read some really strange people too, and there’s probably something to be learned from reading anyone–you at least get their viewpoint.
And anyway, what matters is whether what they say is true. Did the Israelis intend to expand in 1947, despite accepting the partition plan? Did they ignore peace offers from Sadat in the early 70’s? Did they drive large numbers of Palestinian civilians out of Israel and not let them back in, often shooting them in the 1949-1953 period according to Benny Morris? People used to tell a different story about that last point (and some still do).
All I’ve acknowledged is that we have wildly different definitions for the word “compromise.”
No, we have the same definition. You admitted that the Jewish Palestinians refused to compromise on the issue of a Jewish State. As someone else noted, you jump forward when you say the Palestinians Arabs refused to compromise on how much territory they ought to allow to be cut out of Palestine in order to create a Jewish State.
That argument (“how much” versus “none at all”)did not come out of nowhere: what caused the argument was the Jewish Palestinians refusing to compromise on having a Jewish state carved out of Palestine.
Insofar as Article 49(6) does not prohibit the majority of the settlements in the West Bank
Article 49(6) prohibits all of the settlements in the West Bank that are limited to/built by Israelis-only, since those settlements represent a transfer of Israel’s population to a territory under Israeli military occupation.
Again, you continue to offer only a false choice between annexation (with legal settlements) and occupation (with illegal settlements).
Yes, those are the only two choices.
I’ve offered a third possibility a number of times, which you’ve consistently ignored.
Have you? I didn’t notice you offering any third possibility, unless you mean that the Israelis who have emigrated to the Occupied Territories are now legally Palestinian citizens, which is pretty clearly not the case.
International law does not recognize a country called “Palestine” right now, which means no country is exercising sovereignty over the West Bank or Gaza presently.
So again, you equate the Israeli theft of land from the Palestinans to a mere “might makes right” – you assert that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are open to the best-armed thug who can take what they want?
All I’ve acknowledged is that we have wildly different definitions for the word “compromise.”
No, we have the same definition. You admitted that the Jewish Palestinians refused to compromise on the issue of a Jewish State. As someone else noted, you jump forward when you say the Palestinians Arabs refused to compromise on how much territory they ought to allow to be cut out of Palestine in order to create a Jewish State.
That argument (“how much” versus “none at all”)did not come out of nowhere: what caused the argument was the Jewish Palestinians refusing to compromise on having a Jewish state carved out of Palestine.
Insofar as Article 49(6) does not prohibit the majority of the settlements in the West Bank
Article 49(6) prohibits all of the settlements in the West Bank that are limited to/built by Israelis-only, since those settlements represent a transfer of Israel’s population to a territory under Israeli military occupation.
Again, you continue to offer only a false choice between annexation (with legal settlements) and occupation (with illegal settlements).
Yes, those are the only two choices.
I’ve offered a third possibility a number of times, which you’ve consistently ignored.
Have you? I didn’t notice you offering any third possibility, unless you mean that the Israelis who have emigrated to the Occupied Territories are now legally Palestinian citizens, which is pretty clearly not the case.
International law does not recognize a country called “Palestine” right now, which means no country is exercising sovereignty over the West Bank or Gaza presently.
So again, you equate the Israeli theft of land from the Palestinans to a mere “might makes right” – you assert that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are open to the best-armed thug who can take what they want?
International law does not recognize a country called “Palestine” right now, which means no country is exercising sovereignty over the West Bank or Gaza presently.
This argument as a justification for Israelis seizing whatever land they like in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, obviously equally justifies Palestinian armed attacks on the settlements to get the land back…
International law does not recognize a country called “Palestine” right now, which means no country is exercising sovereignty over the West Bank or Gaza presently.
This argument as a justification for Israelis seizing whatever land they like in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, obviously equally justifies Palestinian armed attacks on the settlements to get the land back…
“That argument (“how much” versus “none at all”)did not come out of nowhere: what caused the argument was the Jewish Palestinians refusing to compromise on having a Jewish state carved out of Palestine.”
I’ve worked so hard to not get sucked into commenting on any substance on this thread, but I’m possibly sucked in after all if I point out that, regardless of whatever proposition is beind discussed as regards any issue, what is and isn’t a compromise is logically entirely a subjective choice of where you choose to stand on the elements of the propositions; there simply is never an objective claim to be made. There is no such thing, and can’t be. Objective claims would require there being no dispute in the first place.
For instance, there’s a round of Gouda. One person says it’s theirs, and only getting it entirely would be just. Another person takes any other stance on the cheese; it’s entirely theirs, it’s half-theirs, it belongs to a third party, it belongs to a hundred other parties to be split evenly, it belongs to a collective, it belongs to no one, it’s not actually cheese, there is no such thing as property rights, there are no other parties entitled to be negotiated with, might makes right, it should be settled by chance, it should be settled by entrails-reading, it belongs to God: whatever position is taken will then define what’s a half-way compromise or not.
There simply isn’t such a thing, logically, as an objective claim to what a “fair” compromise is, and any such claim must logically fail. It’s always going to be a matter of subjectivity. Period. Whatever the argument or issue or position.
I hope I’ve still managed to stay out of substance on this point, because I have no patience with arguments over substance on I/P any more, save in very narrow circumstances.
“That argument (“how much” versus “none at all”)did not come out of nowhere: what caused the argument was the Jewish Palestinians refusing to compromise on having a Jewish state carved out of Palestine.”
I’ve worked so hard to not get sucked into commenting on any substance on this thread, but I’m possibly sucked in after all if I point out that, regardless of whatever proposition is beind discussed as regards any issue, what is and isn’t a compromise is logically entirely a subjective choice of where you choose to stand on the elements of the propositions; there simply is never an objective claim to be made. There is no such thing, and can’t be. Objective claims would require there being no dispute in the first place.
For instance, there’s a round of Gouda. One person says it’s theirs, and only getting it entirely would be just. Another person takes any other stance on the cheese; it’s entirely theirs, it’s half-theirs, it belongs to a third party, it belongs to a hundred other parties to be split evenly, it belongs to a collective, it belongs to no one, it’s not actually cheese, there is no such thing as property rights, there are no other parties entitled to be negotiated with, might makes right, it should be settled by chance, it should be settled by entrails-reading, it belongs to God: whatever position is taken will then define what’s a half-way compromise or not.
There simply isn’t such a thing, logically, as an objective claim to what a “fair” compromise is, and any such claim must logically fail. It’s always going to be a matter of subjectivity. Period. Whatever the argument or issue or position.
I hope I’ve still managed to stay out of substance on this point, because I have no patience with arguments over substance on I/P any more, save in very narrow circumstances.
A key question might be, based upon Nephtuli’s last comment, is who does practice sovereignty over the West Bank or Gaza as recognized by the international community? My understanding is that it is the Palestinians and this is recognized by the Israelis. I don’t know if International law requires there to be a country called “Palestine” for that question to be answered.
From a legal perspective, I don’t think it’s possible for sovereignty to be exercised in a non-state context. As Palestine is not a state, and Israel has pointedly refused to exercise sovereignty, no one is the sovereign of either territory.
Donald,
I offered a different narrative above, one that I personally find more compelling. With regards to the mainstream press, I think we can both agree that very few reporters or pundits have even the basic idea what this conflict is truly about. People like Ross and Clinton who were VERY involved at a VERY high level in this process adamantly believe that Arafat had no intention of making final and irreversible decisions and it makes more sense to believe them over lower level officials (Malley), Palestinian “confidantes” (Agha), and journalists.
And anyway, what matters is whether what they say is true. Did the Israelis intend to expand in 1947, despite accepting the partition plan? Did they ignore peace offers from Sadat in the early 70’s? Did they drive large numbers of Palestinian civilians out of Israel and not let them back in, often shooting them in the 1949-1953 period according to Benny Morris? People used to tell a different story about that last point (and some still do).
These are difficult and necessary questions and it is important for any democracy that they be asked. There are different views, which, with the possible exception of Morris, often coincides with the author’s political views. I’m not really sure what you dislike so much about Karsh, however.
(my personal answers are no, yes, maybe).
A key question might be, based upon Nephtuli’s last comment, is who does practice sovereignty over the West Bank or Gaza as recognized by the international community? My understanding is that it is the Palestinians and this is recognized by the Israelis. I don’t know if International law requires there to be a country called “Palestine” for that question to be answered.
From a legal perspective, I don’t think it’s possible for sovereignty to be exercised in a non-state context. As Palestine is not a state, and Israel has pointedly refused to exercise sovereignty, no one is the sovereign of either territory.
Donald,
I offered a different narrative above, one that I personally find more compelling. With regards to the mainstream press, I think we can both agree that very few reporters or pundits have even the basic idea what this conflict is truly about. People like Ross and Clinton who were VERY involved at a VERY high level in this process adamantly believe that Arafat had no intention of making final and irreversible decisions and it makes more sense to believe them over lower level officials (Malley), Palestinian “confidantes” (Agha), and journalists.
And anyway, what matters is whether what they say is true. Did the Israelis intend to expand in 1947, despite accepting the partition plan? Did they ignore peace offers from Sadat in the early 70’s? Did they drive large numbers of Palestinian civilians out of Israel and not let them back in, often shooting them in the 1949-1953 period according to Benny Morris? People used to tell a different story about that last point (and some still do).
These are difficult and necessary questions and it is important for any democracy that they be asked. There are different views, which, with the possible exception of Morris, often coincides with the author’s political views. I’m not really sure what you dislike so much about Karsh, however.
(my personal answers are no, yes, maybe).
No, we have the same definition. You admitted that the Jewish Palestinians refused to compromise on the issue of a Jewish State. As someone else noted, you jump forward when you say the Palestinians Arabs refused to compromise on how much territory they ought to allow to be cut out of Palestine in order to create a Jewish State.
The Jews were not willing to compromise on having a Jewish state, just as the Palestinians were not willing to compromise on having a Palestinian state. That is fine and everyone has red lines. The difference is the Palestinians were not willing to compromise on anything at all, as evidenced by the fact they not only violently rejected UNGA 181, but refused to countenance to any division of the territory. The Jews were willing to compromise by splitting the land. That’s why I believe we must have different definitions of “compromise” because it’s bizarre to claim the Jews weren’t willing to compromise at all if we are using the same word.
Article 49(6) prohibits all of the settlements in the West Bank that are limited to/built by Israelis-only, since those settlements represent a transfer of Israel’s population to a territory under Israeli military occupation.
Again you’ve stated a legal conclusion without making any argument. You can provide support for your position by citing precedents (the ICJ decision on the security fence is one example), definitions of the word “transfer” or a structural/teleological argument based on the structure or purpose of the convention. But merely restating Article 49(6) is not an argument.
Have you? I didn’t notice you offering any third possibility, unless you mean that the Israelis who have emigrated to the Occupied Territories are now legally Palestinian citizens, which is pretty clearly not the case.
Please re-read my earlier comments.
So again, you equate the Israeli theft of land from the Palestinans to a mere “might makes right” – you assert that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are open to the best-armed thug who can take what they want?
Absolutely not. Under the Mandate, Israel has legal rights to settle the land.
This argument as a justification for Israelis seizing whatever land they like in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, obviously equally justifies Palestinian armed attacks on the settlements to get the land back…
On what basis?
No, we have the same definition. You admitted that the Jewish Palestinians refused to compromise on the issue of a Jewish State. As someone else noted, you jump forward when you say the Palestinians Arabs refused to compromise on how much territory they ought to allow to be cut out of Palestine in order to create a Jewish State.
The Jews were not willing to compromise on having a Jewish state, just as the Palestinians were not willing to compromise on having a Palestinian state. That is fine and everyone has red lines. The difference is the Palestinians were not willing to compromise on anything at all, as evidenced by the fact they not only violently rejected UNGA 181, but refused to countenance to any division of the territory. The Jews were willing to compromise by splitting the land. That’s why I believe we must have different definitions of “compromise” because it’s bizarre to claim the Jews weren’t willing to compromise at all if we are using the same word.
Article 49(6) prohibits all of the settlements in the West Bank that are limited to/built by Israelis-only, since those settlements represent a transfer of Israel’s population to a territory under Israeli military occupation.
Again you’ve stated a legal conclusion without making any argument. You can provide support for your position by citing precedents (the ICJ decision on the security fence is one example), definitions of the word “transfer” or a structural/teleological argument based on the structure or purpose of the convention. But merely restating Article 49(6) is not an argument.
Have you? I didn’t notice you offering any third possibility, unless you mean that the Israelis who have emigrated to the Occupied Territories are now legally Palestinian citizens, which is pretty clearly not the case.
Please re-read my earlier comments.
So again, you equate the Israeli theft of land from the Palestinans to a mere “might makes right” – you assert that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are open to the best-armed thug who can take what they want?
Absolutely not. Under the Mandate, Israel has legal rights to settle the land.
This argument as a justification for Israelis seizing whatever land they like in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, obviously equally justifies Palestinian armed attacks on the settlements to get the land back…
On what basis?
No, we have the same definition. You admitted that the Jewish Palestinians refused to compromise on the issue of a Jewish State. As someone else noted, you jump forward when you say the Palestinians Arabs refused to compromise on how much territory they ought to allow to be cut out of Palestine in order to create a Jewish State.
The Jews were not willing to compromise on having a Jewish state, just as the Palestinians were not willing to compromise on having a Palestinian state. That is fine and everyone has red lines. The difference is the Palestinians were not willing to compromise on anything at all, as evidenced by the fact they not only violently rejected UNGA 181, but refused to countenance to any division of the territory. The Jews were willing to compromise by splitting the land. That’s why I believe we must have different definitions of “compromise” because it’s bizarre to claim the Jews weren’t willing to compromise at all if we are using the same word.
Article 49(6) prohibits all of the settlements in the West Bank that are limited to/built by Israelis-only, since those settlements represent a transfer of Israel’s population to a territory under Israeli military occupation.
Again you’ve stated a legal conclusion without making any argument. You can provide support for your position by citing precedents (the ICJ decision on the security fence is one example), definitions of the word “transfer” or a structural/teleological argument based on the structure or purpose of the convention. But merely restating Article 49(6) is not an argument.
Have you? I didn’t notice you offering any third possibility, unless you mean that the Israelis who have emigrated to the Occupied Territories are now legally Palestinian citizens, which is pretty clearly not the case.
Please re-read my earlier comments.
So again, you equate the Israeli theft of land from the Palestinans to a mere “might makes right” – you assert that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are open to the best-armed thug who can take what they want?
Absolutely not. Under the Mandate, Israel has legal rights to settle the land.
This argument as a justification for Israelis seizing whatever land they like in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, obviously equally justifies Palestinian armed attacks on the settlements to get the land back…
On what basis?
No, we have the same definition. You admitted that the Jewish Palestinians refused to compromise on the issue of a Jewish State. As someone else noted, you jump forward when you say the Palestinians Arabs refused to compromise on how much territory they ought to allow to be cut out of Palestine in order to create a Jewish State.
The Jews were not willing to compromise on having a Jewish state, just as the Palestinians were not willing to compromise on having a Palestinian state. That is fine and everyone has red lines. The difference is the Palestinians were not willing to compromise on anything at all, as evidenced by the fact they not only violently rejected UNGA 181, but refused to countenance to any division of the territory. The Jews were willing to compromise by splitting the land. That’s why I believe we must have different definitions of “compromise” because it’s bizarre to claim the Jews weren’t willing to compromise at all if we are using the same word.
Article 49(6) prohibits all of the settlements in the West Bank that are limited to/built by Israelis-only, since those settlements represent a transfer of Israel’s population to a territory under Israeli military occupation.
Again you’ve stated a legal conclusion without making any argument. You can provide support for your position by citing precedents (the ICJ decision on the security fence is one example), definitions of the word “transfer” or a structural/teleological argument based on the structure or purpose of the convention. But merely restating Article 49(6) is not an argument.
Have you? I didn’t notice you offering any third possibility, unless you mean that the Israelis who have emigrated to the Occupied Territories are now legally Palestinian citizens, which is pretty clearly not the case.
Please re-read my earlier comments.
So again, you equate the Israeli theft of land from the Palestinans to a mere “might makes right” – you assert that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are open to the best-armed thug who can take what they want?
Absolutely not. Under the Mandate, Israel has legal rights to settle the land.
This argument as a justification for Israelis seizing whatever land they like in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, obviously equally justifies Palestinian armed attacks on the settlements to get the land back…
On what basis?
Sorry about the double comment. Please delete.
Sorry about the double comment. Please delete.
A key question might be, based upon Nephtuli’s last comment, is who does practice sovereignty over the West Bank or Gaza as recognized by the international community?
I think we can answer this with a thought experiment. Imagine you wish to land a large aircraft in Gaza. You don’t seek clearance to land or even enter the airspace over Gaza. Question: what is the nationality of the pilots in the fighter jets that are going to shoot you down?
They are Israeli pilots flying Israeli jets under orders from the Israeli Air Force. Israel controls who goes in and goes out of Gaza. Israel claims the right to exercise this level of control. That suggests to me that Israel exercises sovereignty over the occupied territories.
A key question might be, based upon Nephtuli’s last comment, is who does practice sovereignty over the West Bank or Gaza as recognized by the international community?
I think we can answer this with a thought experiment. Imagine you wish to land a large aircraft in Gaza. You don’t seek clearance to land or even enter the airspace over Gaza. Question: what is the nationality of the pilots in the fighter jets that are going to shoot you down?
They are Israeli pilots flying Israeli jets under orders from the Israeli Air Force. Israel controls who goes in and goes out of Gaza. Israel claims the right to exercise this level of control. That suggests to me that Israel exercises sovereignty over the occupied territories.
They are Israeli pilots flying Israeli jets under orders from the Israeli Air Force. Israel controls who goes in and goes out of Gaza. Israel claims the right to exercise this level of control. That suggests to me that Israel exercises sovereignty over the occupied territories.
As a legal matter, you are clearly incorrect. The US has the same ability in Iraq, but no one would consider them the sovereign power in Iraq.
They are Israeli pilots flying Israeli jets under orders from the Israeli Air Force. Israel controls who goes in and goes out of Gaza. Israel claims the right to exercise this level of control. That suggests to me that Israel exercises sovereignty over the occupied territories.
As a legal matter, you are clearly incorrect. The US has the same ability in Iraq, but no one would consider them the sovereign power in Iraq.
Here is the Deborah Sontag NYT article about the 2000-2001 Israeli/Palestinian peace accords that I mentioned above.
Here is the Deborah Sontag NYT article about the 2000-2001 Israeli/Palestinian peace accords that I mentioned above.
As a legal matter, you are clearly incorrect. The US has the same ability in Iraq, but no one would consider them the sovereign power in Iraq.
The US has an agreement with the government of Iraq whereby the government of Iraq has delegated that authority to the US. No such situation exists in Gaza. Does it?
Now, in the past, the US did not have any such agreement with the government of Iraq, but at the time, the US clearly was acting as the sovereign power in Iraq.
As a legal matter, you are clearly incorrect. The US has the same ability in Iraq, but no one would consider them the sovereign power in Iraq.
The US has an agreement with the government of Iraq whereby the government of Iraq has delegated that authority to the US. No such situation exists in Gaza. Does it?
Now, in the past, the US did not have any such agreement with the government of Iraq, but at the time, the US clearly was acting as the sovereign power in Iraq.
“I think we can answer this with a thought experiment. Imagine you wish to land a large aircraft in Gaza.”
I don’t think we can, since we can make up thought experiments to generate any result we desire.
One could just as arbitrarily chose “suppose [until today] you wished to commit a murder in Gaza. Question: what is the nationality of the police that are going to try to arrest you or shoot you down?”
Note, I don’t believe this example is more valid thatn yours. My point is what I said: one can make up arbitrary “thought experiments” to get any result one likes, so, again, there’s no objective result from making up such thought experiments.
It’d be nice if people would quit trying to prove that their opinions are objectively true. Just or not, they’re opinions. Everyone is entitled to one, but not to claim that it’s objective truth.
“I think we can answer this with a thought experiment. Imagine you wish to land a large aircraft in Gaza.”
I don’t think we can, since we can make up thought experiments to generate any result we desire.
One could just as arbitrarily chose “suppose [until today] you wished to commit a murder in Gaza. Question: what is the nationality of the police that are going to try to arrest you or shoot you down?”
Note, I don’t believe this example is more valid thatn yours. My point is what I said: one can make up arbitrary “thought experiments” to get any result one likes, so, again, there’s no objective result from making up such thought experiments.
It’d be nice if people would quit trying to prove that their opinions are objectively true. Just or not, they’re opinions. Everyone is entitled to one, but not to claim that it’s objective truth.
Now, in the past, the US did not have any such agreement with the government of Iraq, but at the time, the US clearly was acting as the sovereign power in Iraq.
That’s not how sovereignty, as a legal concept, is understood. In fact, the UN Security Council and General Assembly have stated numerous times that Israel’s settlements in the territories have “no legal status” (i.e., not the acts of a sovereign power).
Now, in the past, the US did not have any such agreement with the government of Iraq, but at the time, the US clearly was acting as the sovereign power in Iraq.
That’s not how sovereignty, as a legal concept, is understood. In fact, the UN Security Council and General Assembly have stated numerous times that Israel’s settlements in the territories have “no legal status” (i.e., not the acts of a sovereign power).
Now, in the past, the US did not have any such agreement with the government of Iraq, but at the time, the US clearly was acting as the sovereign power in Iraq.
That’s not how sovereignty, as a legal concept, is understood. In fact, the UN Security Council and General Assembly have stated numerous times that Israel’s settlements in the territories have “no legal status” (i.e., not the acts of a sovereign power).
Now, in the past, the US did not have any such agreement with the government of Iraq, but at the time, the US clearly was acting as the sovereign power in Iraq.
That’s not how sovereignty, as a legal concept, is understood. In fact, the UN Security Council and General Assembly have stated numerous times that Israel’s settlements in the territories have “no legal status” (i.e., not the acts of a sovereign power).
It’s been objectively true that Hamas ruled inside Gaza, but that Israel, with the help of the international community, has put Gaza under siege, making the lives of civilians there miserable in hopes of weakening or overthrowing Hamas. So you could say Gaza wasn’t under occupation because Israeli troops weren’t stationed there and the settlements were gone, or you could say it was under occupation because Israel along with Egypt (whose government seems to be quietly working with Israel against Hamas) had the place under siege.
Legally, I don’t know what you’d call this situation (before all hell broke loose).
On a slightly different topic, the NYT seems to have a memory hole problem, which is not unusual for them. Steven Lee Myers reported that Hamas broke the ceasefire with its rockets last month, but if you go way back to November 5 the NYT reports Israel launching an attack on Gaza militants (for good or bad reasons is a separate question) on November 4. So it seems objectively true for the NYT that only Palestinians can violate a ceasefire, at least once it becomes a big issue and the journalistic law that Palestinians attack and Israelis retaliate dictates how reality is to be described.
Link
It’s been objectively true that Hamas ruled inside Gaza, but that Israel, with the help of the international community, has put Gaza under siege, making the lives of civilians there miserable in hopes of weakening or overthrowing Hamas. So you could say Gaza wasn’t under occupation because Israeli troops weren’t stationed there and the settlements were gone, or you could say it was under occupation because Israel along with Egypt (whose government seems to be quietly working with Israel against Hamas) had the place under siege.
Legally, I don’t know what you’d call this situation (before all hell broke loose).
On a slightly different topic, the NYT seems to have a memory hole problem, which is not unusual for them. Steven Lee Myers reported that Hamas broke the ceasefire with its rockets last month, but if you go way back to November 5 the NYT reports Israel launching an attack on Gaza militants (for good or bad reasons is a separate question) on November 4. So it seems objectively true for the NYT that only Palestinians can violate a ceasefire, at least once it becomes a big issue and the journalistic law that Palestinians attack and Israelis retaliate dictates how reality is to be described.
Link
I don’t think we can, since we can make up thought experiments to generate any result we desire.
By that reasoning, we can’t productively argue about anything since we can always find details to quibble over and assumptions to question in any dispute, no matter how trivial. This mode of thinking doesn’t strike me as particularly useful in an online discussion.
Note, I don’t believe this example is more valid thatn yours.
On the contrary, I think your question is also useful, although the form in which you deployed it obscures its utility. Within the occupied territories, there are both Palestinian and Israeli officers that provide security. The Israeli officers can go where they please when accompanied by supporting Israeli military elements; the Palestinian officers cannot. Thus, Palestinian terrorists may be killed by the Israeli military anywhere in the occupied territories, but there exist portions of the territories in which Israeli settlers who have committed crimes need not fear Palestinian security forces because those forces have no control and no authority over large portions of the occupied territories. Seen in this light, your question is perfectly valid.
It’d be nice if people would quit trying to prove that their opinions are objectively true. Just or not, they’re opinions. Everyone is entitled to one, but not to claim that it’s objective truth.
This strikes me as ridiculous. I’ve never encountered an objective truth of any import that someone wasn’t willing to argue about. That suggests to me that this “objective truth” distinction you’re trying to draw is…not useful in this context.
In any event, I make no claims to an absolute irrefutable truth. Questions of sovereignty are complex after all. I do think however that the example I provided can help people approach the problem in a different way than they might have before. You might not find it useful, but that’s no reason to complain about its subjectivity.
As a legal matter, you are clearly incorrect. The US has the same ability in Iraq, but no one would consider them the sovereign power in Iraq.
Nephtuli, I have two questions for you:
1. Who do you think was the sovereign power in Iraq during the summer of 2003, well after the invasion?
2. The Iraqi government currently has a formal agreement by which it delegates control of its airspace to American forces while retaining ultimate authority. Are you aware of any similar agreement between Israel and any governing apparatus in the occupied territories?
I don’t think we can, since we can make up thought experiments to generate any result we desire.
By that reasoning, we can’t productively argue about anything since we can always find details to quibble over and assumptions to question in any dispute, no matter how trivial. This mode of thinking doesn’t strike me as particularly useful in an online discussion.
Note, I don’t believe this example is more valid thatn yours.
On the contrary, I think your question is also useful, although the form in which you deployed it obscures its utility. Within the occupied territories, there are both Palestinian and Israeli officers that provide security. The Israeli officers can go where they please when accompanied by supporting Israeli military elements; the Palestinian officers cannot. Thus, Palestinian terrorists may be killed by the Israeli military anywhere in the occupied territories, but there exist portions of the territories in which Israeli settlers who have committed crimes need not fear Palestinian security forces because those forces have no control and no authority over large portions of the occupied territories. Seen in this light, your question is perfectly valid.
It’d be nice if people would quit trying to prove that their opinions are objectively true. Just or not, they’re opinions. Everyone is entitled to one, but not to claim that it’s objective truth.
This strikes me as ridiculous. I’ve never encountered an objective truth of any import that someone wasn’t willing to argue about. That suggests to me that this “objective truth” distinction you’re trying to draw is…not useful in this context.
In any event, I make no claims to an absolute irrefutable truth. Questions of sovereignty are complex after all. I do think however that the example I provided can help people approach the problem in a different way than they might have before. You might not find it useful, but that’s no reason to complain about its subjectivity.
As a legal matter, you are clearly incorrect. The US has the same ability in Iraq, but no one would consider them the sovereign power in Iraq.
Nephtuli, I have two questions for you:
1. Who do you think was the sovereign power in Iraq during the summer of 2003, well after the invasion?
2. The Iraqi government currently has a formal agreement by which it delegates control of its airspace to American forces while retaining ultimate authority. Are you aware of any similar agreement between Israel and any governing apparatus in the occupied territories?
“By that reasoning, we can’t productively argue about anything”
Nonsense. We can productively argue about facts, things related to facts, and we can both argue for our opinions and about our opinions.
I’m simply suggesting that we should try to avoid confusing our opinions with objective facts.
“I’ve never encountered an objective truth of any import that someone wasn’t willing to argue about.”
That’s nice.
“By that reasoning, we can’t productively argue about anything”
Nonsense. We can productively argue about facts, things related to facts, and we can both argue for our opinions and about our opinions.
I’m simply suggesting that we should try to avoid confusing our opinions with objective facts.
“I’ve never encountered an objective truth of any import that someone wasn’t willing to argue about.”
That’s nice.
Let me add my voice to the other lurkers on this thread in commending most of the commentators – with one conspicuous exception – for the civility with which they have discussed this contentious topic, and their willingness to address others’ arguments in a reasonable manner.
I have learned much from you all, and I don’t think I was among the most ignorant of Americans when I started reading it. So thanks.
(And no, neither side has fully convinced me of the righteousness of its position. Yet.)
Let me add my voice to the other lurkers on this thread in commending most of the commentators – with one conspicuous exception – for the civility with which they have discussed this contentious topic, and their willingness to address others’ arguments in a reasonable manner.
I have learned much from you all, and I don’t think I was among the most ignorant of Americans when I started reading it. So thanks.
(And no, neither side has fully convinced me of the righteousness of its position. Yet.)
Nephtuli: The Jews were not willing to compromise on having a Jewish state, just as the Palestinians were not willing to compromise on having a Palestinian state.
Or, to rephrase that: The Jewish Palestinians, a minority group were not willing to compromise on having a Jewish state from which the majority of Palestinians would be excluded. The majority of Palestinians were not willing to compromise on having a unified state not physically divided up and awarded by race and religion.
And, sixty-plus years after the event, it looks very much as if the only long-term peaceful solution is the solution that the Jewish Palestinians forced out of the discussion by refusing to compromise, back in the 1940s: the unified state.
But merely restating Article 49(6) is not an argument.
Until you can provide any argument against Article 49 applying, I will continue to cite it. So far, I think all you have is that “transfer of citizens” ought not to apply when the government supports its citizens, financially and militarily, to take over parts of the Occupied Territories, and, as I pointed out and you could not disagree, I don’t see how that is more than a verbal quibble on the same level as the US government arguing that it’s not torture when it’s only waterboarding. (You tried to sidetrack the discussion with an argument that the settlements are not morally as bad as torture, but did not actually argue the point.)
Absolutely not. Under the Mandate, Israel has legal rights to settle the land.
Well, I think that harking back to a Mandate which has not existed for sixty years and claiming it overrides GCIV, smacks of desperation, but I’ll note that the Mandate allowing Jews to settle in Palestine applies only if they can do so without “prejudicing the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” – which clearly does not apply to the settlements and settler-only roads built in the West Bank, which divide the territory up so that Palestinians can no longer travel through the West Bank freely, nor farm their land.
Further, if the Israelis are really claiming that the British Mandate gives them the right to settle in Palestine, then in all fairness it’s not the IDF they should be summoning to protect them from Palestinians, it’s the British army. The IDF clearly has absolutely no right to use armed force in a part of world you are now claiming is really under British control.
Nephtuli: The Jews were not willing to compromise on having a Jewish state, just as the Palestinians were not willing to compromise on having a Palestinian state.
Or, to rephrase that: The Jewish Palestinians, a minority group were not willing to compromise on having a Jewish state from which the majority of Palestinians would be excluded. The majority of Palestinians were not willing to compromise on having a unified state not physically divided up and awarded by race and religion.
And, sixty-plus years after the event, it looks very much as if the only long-term peaceful solution is the solution that the Jewish Palestinians forced out of the discussion by refusing to compromise, back in the 1940s: the unified state.
But merely restating Article 49(6) is not an argument.
Until you can provide any argument against Article 49 applying, I will continue to cite it. So far, I think all you have is that “transfer of citizens” ought not to apply when the government supports its citizens, financially and militarily, to take over parts of the Occupied Territories, and, as I pointed out and you could not disagree, I don’t see how that is more than a verbal quibble on the same level as the US government arguing that it’s not torture when it’s only waterboarding. (You tried to sidetrack the discussion with an argument that the settlements are not morally as bad as torture, but did not actually argue the point.)
Absolutely not. Under the Mandate, Israel has legal rights to settle the land.
Well, I think that harking back to a Mandate which has not existed for sixty years and claiming it overrides GCIV, smacks of desperation, but I’ll note that the Mandate allowing Jews to settle in Palestine applies only if they can do so without “prejudicing the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” – which clearly does not apply to the settlements and settler-only roads built in the West Bank, which divide the territory up so that Palestinians can no longer travel through the West Bank freely, nor farm their land.
Further, if the Israelis are really claiming that the British Mandate gives them the right to settle in Palestine, then in all fairness it’s not the IDF they should be summoning to protect them from Palestinians, it’s the British army. The IDF clearly has absolutely no right to use armed force in a part of world you are now claiming is really under British control.