by JanieM
Since lj closed comments on the “Epitome” thread, I thought we should have a place to continue the discussion about the other big topic.
And I don’t mean Intellectual Property.
506 thoughts on “IP Thread”
Comments are closed.
"This was the voice of moderation until 13 Sept, 2025"
Speaking (as I was on the other thread) of snark, I recently snarked at Doc Science that I wasn’t a complete halfwit, but I may have been optimistic because it took me about 3 full minutes to work out that Janie’s IP stood for Israel and Palestine! It just goes to show how multi-faceted that thread was, and how easy it was to compartmentalise the bits one was primarily interested in.
Speaking (as I was on the other thread) of snark, I recently snarked at Doc Science that I wasn’t a complete halfwit, but I may have been optimistic because it took me about 3 full minutes to work out that Janie’s IP stood for Israel and Palestine! It just goes to show how multi-faceted that thread was, and how easy it was to compartmentalise the bits one was primarily interested in.
I thought it meant, in my case, 2605:6000:8b16:dc00:b548:e445:2909:5893. 🙂
I thought it meant, in my case, 2605:6000:8b16:dc00:b548:e445:2909:5893. 🙂
I imagine people are a bit hesitant to comment (I know I am). So maybe start off with some book recommendations?
I imagine people are a bit hesitant to comment (I know I am). So maybe start off with some book recommendations?
really CharlesWT? I’d have thought sure that they’d have to pry your IPv4 address from your cold, dead hands.
really CharlesWT? I’d have thought sure that they’d have to pry your IPv4 address from your cold, dead hands.
Sheesh. I just thought that since the Israel-Palestine discussion was still going at the end of the other thread, it would be nice to give it a thread of its own. I for one was learning something from it.
Sheesh. I just thought that since the Israel-Palestine discussion was still going at the end of the other thread, it would be nice to give it a thread of its own. I for one was learning something from it.
FWIW, as someone who was fed a lot of dramatic detail in the 70s (by right-wing Zionist friends of parents) about how the Arab governments and radio stations etc encouraged Palestinians to flee their homes before a brutal Israeli takeover, I was around to see even right-wing historians in Israel admit this was pretty much all lies, in the 90s. I believe, but cannot quote sources, that Donald’s analysis is essentially correct.
FWIW, as someone who was fed a lot of dramatic detail in the 70s (by right-wing Zionist friends of parents) about how the Arab governments and radio stations etc encouraged Palestinians to flee their homes before a brutal Israeli takeover, I was around to see even right-wing historians in Israel admit this was pretty much all lies, in the 90s. I believe, but cannot quote sources, that Donald’s analysis is essentially correct.
Weirdly, given that I use the term a lot, I was puzzled by what IP meant for a few seconds.
More later, probably. I would have to catch up on the other thread.
Weirdly, given that I use the term a lot, I was puzzled by what IP meant for a few seconds.
More later, probably. I would have to catch up on the other thread.
really CharlesWT? I’d have thought sure that they’d have to pry your IPv4 address from your cold, dead hands.
No great giveaway. A reboot of the modem changes it.
really CharlesWT? I’d have thought sure that they’d have to pry your IPv4 address from your cold, dead hands.
No great giveaway. A reboot of the modem changes it.
What I notice most about the Israel-Palestine conflict is how much it has changed since I was in college (and first noticed it).
Then, Israel (as a country) was OK with living within its recognized borders, and only wished that the Palestinians would do the same. There were doubtless some Israelis who wanted the whole of the West Bank (and probably Gaza) as well, but they were too marginal to even get noticed. And the Palestinians had never had an election.
Whereas today, the Greater Israel view is the national view. I’m not sure it is actually the majority view. But since the Settler Movement (whatever its real name, if any, is) is integral to the government coalition, their view is the government view. (And I feel like Likud has come around to the view as well.) And the Palestinians have had elections (complete with power changing hands peacefully); it’s not what you’d call a solid democracy, but they have at least had a bit of experience with the forms.
Which means that, today, neither the Israelis not the Palestinians are willing to accept anything that would possibly be considered a settlement. Or even an armistice. There simply is no room for agreement when both sides’ only acceptable solution is the disappearance of the other.
What I notice most about the Israel-Palestine conflict is how much it has changed since I was in college (and first noticed it).
Then, Israel (as a country) was OK with living within its recognized borders, and only wished that the Palestinians would do the same. There were doubtless some Israelis who wanted the whole of the West Bank (and probably Gaza) as well, but they were too marginal to even get noticed. And the Palestinians had never had an election.
Whereas today, the Greater Israel view is the national view. I’m not sure it is actually the majority view. But since the Settler Movement (whatever its real name, if any, is) is integral to the government coalition, their view is the government view. (And I feel like Likud has come around to the view as well.) And the Palestinians have had elections (complete with power changing hands peacefully); it’s not what you’d call a solid democracy, but they have at least had a bit of experience with the forms.
Which means that, today, neither the Israelis not the Palestinians are willing to accept anything that would possibly be considered a settlement. Or even an armistice. There simply is no room for agreement when both sides’ only acceptable solution is the disappearance of the other.
But coming to an already inhabited land with the intent of taking it over and after having the imperialist power grant you that right is, well, not something that would make Zionism popular.
So pro-Nazi sentiments were set of understandable, and the consequences for Jewish attitudes towards Arabs are the fault of the Zionists?
Well, Zionist money was certainly popular. As Benny Morris has said, some of the loudest anti-Zionist agitators by day were also some of the most enthusiastic land-sellers by night.
Me: “I don’t think this is accurate. The invasion started the day Israel declared independence, more than a month after Deir Yassin, an act, by the way, condemned at the time by mainstream Israeli organization, including Haganah.”
Donald: It’s a fairly standard claim that about half of the Palestinian refugees were generated or whatever the word is before the official birth of Israel and the other Arab countries invaded p, which, by the way, in practice mostly meant invading the portions that were supposed to go to the Arab state. Transjordan invaded specifically to take that territory. Merton Benvenisti gives a refugee figure of 380,000 on page 124 of “ Sacred Landscapes”.
That’s largely non-responsive. The invasion was not, as you seemed to claim, in response to Deir Yassin.
And are you seriously claiming that the invading armies intended only to take territory from which Arabs were expelled, and leave the Jews in peace elsewhere? That’s ridiculous.
I minimize the Arab armies because I see people commonly cite the Arab armies and then cite the relative populations of the Arab countries vs Israel, giving a drastically misleading impression of the situation.
I fail to see the relevance of this. Nor is it misleading to note that the Arab countries’ military resources were greater than the Zionists’. That they used those resources badly and misjudged the situation out of contempt for Jews is not to their credit, no matter what you say.
in addition may I say, at the risk of inflaming the thread, that you seem to minimize and justify just about everything on the Palestinian side here, including even outright anti-semitic violence, which was far from uncommon in the decades before WWII.
But coming to an already inhabited land with the intent of taking it over and after having the imperialist power grant you that right is, well, not something that would make Zionism popular.
So pro-Nazi sentiments were set of understandable, and the consequences for Jewish attitudes towards Arabs are the fault of the Zionists?
Well, Zionist money was certainly popular. As Benny Morris has said, some of the loudest anti-Zionist agitators by day were also some of the most enthusiastic land-sellers by night.
Me: “I don’t think this is accurate. The invasion started the day Israel declared independence, more than a month after Deir Yassin, an act, by the way, condemned at the time by mainstream Israeli organization, including Haganah.”
Donald: It’s a fairly standard claim that about half of the Palestinian refugees were generated or whatever the word is before the official birth of Israel and the other Arab countries invaded p, which, by the way, in practice mostly meant invading the portions that were supposed to go to the Arab state. Transjordan invaded specifically to take that territory. Merton Benvenisti gives a refugee figure of 380,000 on page 124 of “ Sacred Landscapes”.
That’s largely non-responsive. The invasion was not, as you seemed to claim, in response to Deir Yassin.
And are you seriously claiming that the invading armies intended only to take territory from which Arabs were expelled, and leave the Jews in peace elsewhere? That’s ridiculous.
I minimize the Arab armies because I see people commonly cite the Arab armies and then cite the relative populations of the Arab countries vs Israel, giving a drastically misleading impression of the situation.
I fail to see the relevance of this. Nor is it misleading to note that the Arab countries’ military resources were greater than the Zionists’. That they used those resources badly and misjudged the situation out of contempt for Jews is not to their credit, no matter what you say.
in addition may I say, at the risk of inflaming the thread, that you seem to minimize and justify just about everything on the Palestinian side here, including even outright anti-semitic violence, which was far from uncommon in the decades before WWII.
“that you seem to minimize and justify just about everything on the Palestinian side here”
Nope. At every point from the 1920’s until the “ stabbing intifada” of a couple years ago I condemn people who murder unarmed civilians, especially children. There is no justification for this. On the far left one frequently sees the phrase “ by any means necessary” used to justify terrorism. I utterly disagree from both moral and practical reasons. Moral, obviously. The practical part comes in when you ask what sort of endgame you imagine. How could anyone think they are going to win that way given the disparity in power and what sort of “ victory” do you get from glorious freedom fighters who murder children? Palestinians IMO should get behind the BDS movement and press for equal rights. They need to take the moral high ground. Of course, as a comfortable Westerner whose country arms their oppressors I am in a poor position to tell them this. Especially when the NYT published four opinion pieces justifying the shooting of demonstrators.
I acknowledged that both sides commit atrocities and both are wrong. What I won’t grant is the common Western version of Zionist innocence poisoned by irrational hatred on the Arab side. There were bigots on both sides and the open desire of the mainstream Zionists to take over an already inhabited land poisoned the atmosphere right from the start. No one in history ever said it was okay for outsiders to come in and take over. It happens all the time, but by force.
My ideal solution would be a 1ss with equal rights for all. The should ask for that anyway, even if they get a 2ss instead. Don’t let the Zionist side set the tone or the limits of what is or isn’t fair and pay no attention at all to Americans who think they are honest brokers.
Arab armies. Sigh. I really don’t care that Israel kicked their butts. You seem to think I have some interest in defending the Arab governments. They came in partly because their populations demanded it but they were also there for ulterior motives. King Abdullah wanted the land granted to the Arab state for himself. He was a frenemy of the Zionists. Jordan has always played that role. The others were there partly to stop him. As for annihilation, at times they did have a chance to commit atrocities, but they don’t in general seem to have been any more bloodthirsty in practice than the Israeli side. What I object to is the standard storyline that poor little Israel finally got its own state and outnumbered 100 to 1 by the surrounding Arab states won a miraculous victory against the ravening hordes. In reality there was a low level on again and off again terrorist battle/ civil war between Arabs and Jews and Brits starting from the late 30’s which picked up again in late 47. Palestinians were being expelled in large numbers by April and May of 48 and once the Mandate ended the Arab armies came in The deliberate expulsion and decision to keep the refugees out in the second half of the war had nothing to do with the Arab armies. It was demographic.
As for bias, the root cause of the conflict is a combination of Western antisemitism and Western racism against Arabs. Palestinians are the scapegoats who get blamed because Western countries refused to take in enough Jewish refugees. With some Western liberals it really did work that way. It is why for decades people believed the story that the Palestinians all left of their own free will.
Book suggestions—
Sandy Tolan’s The Lemon Tree
Merton Benvenisti. “The Sacred Landscape”
John Judis has one about Truman and the birth of Israel. Forgot the name.
Tom Segev’s One Palestine Complete is about the Mandate period.
Benny Morris is a good historian but racist, it turns out, based on a 2004 interview with Ari Shavit.
Rashid Khalidi has written various books— I forget their names.
“that you seem to minimize and justify just about everything on the Palestinian side here”
Nope. At every point from the 1920’s until the “ stabbing intifada” of a couple years ago I condemn people who murder unarmed civilians, especially children. There is no justification for this. On the far left one frequently sees the phrase “ by any means necessary” used to justify terrorism. I utterly disagree from both moral and practical reasons. Moral, obviously. The practical part comes in when you ask what sort of endgame you imagine. How could anyone think they are going to win that way given the disparity in power and what sort of “ victory” do you get from glorious freedom fighters who murder children? Palestinians IMO should get behind the BDS movement and press for equal rights. They need to take the moral high ground. Of course, as a comfortable Westerner whose country arms their oppressors I am in a poor position to tell them this. Especially when the NYT published four opinion pieces justifying the shooting of demonstrators.
I acknowledged that both sides commit atrocities and both are wrong. What I won’t grant is the common Western version of Zionist innocence poisoned by irrational hatred on the Arab side. There were bigots on both sides and the open desire of the mainstream Zionists to take over an already inhabited land poisoned the atmosphere right from the start. No one in history ever said it was okay for outsiders to come in and take over. It happens all the time, but by force.
My ideal solution would be a 1ss with equal rights for all. The should ask for that anyway, even if they get a 2ss instead. Don’t let the Zionist side set the tone or the limits of what is or isn’t fair and pay no attention at all to Americans who think they are honest brokers.
Arab armies. Sigh. I really don’t care that Israel kicked their butts. You seem to think I have some interest in defending the Arab governments. They came in partly because their populations demanded it but they were also there for ulterior motives. King Abdullah wanted the land granted to the Arab state for himself. He was a frenemy of the Zionists. Jordan has always played that role. The others were there partly to stop him. As for annihilation, at times they did have a chance to commit atrocities, but they don’t in general seem to have been any more bloodthirsty in practice than the Israeli side. What I object to is the standard storyline that poor little Israel finally got its own state and outnumbered 100 to 1 by the surrounding Arab states won a miraculous victory against the ravening hordes. In reality there was a low level on again and off again terrorist battle/ civil war between Arabs and Jews and Brits starting from the late 30’s which picked up again in late 47. Palestinians were being expelled in large numbers by April and May of 48 and once the Mandate ended the Arab armies came in The deliberate expulsion and decision to keep the refugees out in the second half of the war had nothing to do with the Arab armies. It was demographic.
As for bias, the root cause of the conflict is a combination of Western antisemitism and Western racism against Arabs. Palestinians are the scapegoats who get blamed because Western countries refused to take in enough Jewish refugees. With some Western liberals it really did work that way. It is why for decades people believed the story that the Palestinians all left of their own free will.
Book suggestions—
Sandy Tolan’s The Lemon Tree
Merton Benvenisti. “The Sacred Landscape”
John Judis has one about Truman and the birth of Israel. Forgot the name.
Tom Segev’s One Palestine Complete is about the Mandate period.
Benny Morris is a good historian but racist, it turns out, based on a 2004 interview with Ari Shavit.
Rashid Khalidi has written various books— I forget their names.
Forgot Avi Shlaim’s “ The Iron Wall”
Forgot Avi Shlaim’s “ The Iron Wall”
“Well, Zionist money was certainly popular. As Benny Morris has said, some of the loudest anti-Zionist agitators by day were also some of the most enthusiastic land-sellers by night.”
I am shocked, shocked, I tell you, at the revelation that some in the Palestinian elite were assholes, something that is pointed out in most books one reads on the subject. If you are trying to imply that most of Israel was purchased, no, it wasn’t. The number I have seen is that Zionists had purchased about seven percent. There were about four hundred villages depopulated so apparently the Zionist money hadn’t reached those places.
Many ordinary innocent people ( or as innocent as any of us) have been hurt on both sides. The Palestinians as the weaker side have lost more and in the West to add insult to injury they are constantly condescended to and lectured by the citizens of the countries that should have taken in the Jewish refugees. No other people get accused of fanaticism for claiming the right to live in their own homeland.
“Well, Zionist money was certainly popular. As Benny Morris has said, some of the loudest anti-Zionist agitators by day were also some of the most enthusiastic land-sellers by night.”
I am shocked, shocked, I tell you, at the revelation that some in the Palestinian elite were assholes, something that is pointed out in most books one reads on the subject. If you are trying to imply that most of Israel was purchased, no, it wasn’t. The number I have seen is that Zionists had purchased about seven percent. There were about four hundred villages depopulated so apparently the Zionist money hadn’t reached those places.
Many ordinary innocent people ( or as innocent as any of us) have been hurt on both sides. The Palestinians as the weaker side have lost more and in the West to add insult to injury they are constantly condescended to and lectured by the citizens of the countries that should have taken in the Jewish refugees. No other people get accused of fanaticism for claiming the right to live in their own homeland.
A quick synopsis of the 1948 war is found on the wikki here. Part 3.1 provides a concise assessment of the relative military strengths of both sides.
What struck me was the incongruity of the rather low levels of war casualties as opposed to the tragedy that was about to unfold and envelop the entire region, a tragedy that continues to this day.
That was was also another phase of a gradually building civil war….wars that are, as we should all know too well, particularly brutal (cf. Syria today) is also to be noted.
The debate rages, but the central fact remains: A people essentially, and recently (consider our own history of conquest here…but it took place oh so “long ago”), established an ethno-religious nation state by expropriation and military force. That those so dispossessed harbor hatred against Israel should be rather obvious.
The Likud led careening path into an even more virulent and extreme right wing ethno-nationalism is further cause for concern. They are laying the groundwork for an apartheid state. The consolidation such an outcome is doubly tragic, for it would not endure.
A quick synopsis of the 1948 war is found on the wikki here. Part 3.1 provides a concise assessment of the relative military strengths of both sides.
What struck me was the incongruity of the rather low levels of war casualties as opposed to the tragedy that was about to unfold and envelop the entire region, a tragedy that continues to this day.
That was was also another phase of a gradually building civil war….wars that are, as we should all know too well, particularly brutal (cf. Syria today) is also to be noted.
The debate rages, but the central fact remains: A people essentially, and recently (consider our own history of conquest here…but it took place oh so “long ago”), established an ethno-religious nation state by expropriation and military force. That those so dispossessed harbor hatred against Israel should be rather obvious.
The Likud led careening path into an even more virulent and extreme right wing ethno-nationalism is further cause for concern. They are laying the groundwork for an apartheid state. The consolidation such an outcome is doubly tragic, for it would not endure.
An Israeli settler being interviewed in a Doonesbury comic: “We didn’t move here all the way from Miami to be Arabs.”
An Israeli settler being interviewed in a Doonesbury comic: “We didn’t move here all the way from Miami to be Arabs.”
They [Likud] are laying the groundwork for an apartheid state.
I only wish I could believe that was true. But my most optimistic expectation is that they will go for ethnic cleansing via complete eviction of Palestinians from the West Bank. (My pessimistic expectation is that they will try for ethnic cleansing via genocide.)
They [Likud] are laying the groundwork for an apartheid state.
I only wish I could believe that was true. But my most optimistic expectation is that they will go for ethnic cleansing via complete eviction of Palestinians from the West Bank. (My pessimistic expectation is that they will try for ethnic cleansing via genocide.)
If I misread you, I apologize.
My impression was that you are simply unable to criticize Palestinian violence, or pro-Nazi sentiment, or any Palestinian misbehavior, without providing a justification. Read your comments, trying to take my POV, and tell me if I am as wrong as all that.
And bear in mind that the Zionists at the time of the declaration of the State of Israel were three years removed from the Holocaust, and that anti-semitic sentiment was widespread among Arabs. There were realistic fears that surely contributed to atrocities. If we’re justifying, let’s justify.
Arab armies. Sigh.
Far from being an argument, a sigh is just a sigh. (Sorry, couldn’t resist)
What I object to is the standard storyline that poor little Israel finally got its own state and outnumbered 100 to 1 by the surrounding Arab states won a miraculous victory against the ravening hordes.
It’s not clear what you object to in this storyline. It seems more or less accurate to me, allowing for a bit of hyperbole. Were the forces available to the Arab countries – not just the ones sent to the fight – truly inferior in arms and numbers to the Zionists?
If you win a victory against an opponent who has the ability to overwhelm you, but loses because of ineptitude, internal political strife, underestimating your abilities, and so on, does it not count as a great and unexpected victory?
I’m well aware, incidentally, that only a small part of the land was purchased, and will go further and say that even wrt to that land there was a conflict of culture about what that meant, and what owners were entitled to. The tenant farmers generally anticipated that when their land was sold it just meant that they paid rent to a different landowner, not that someone would evict them.
If I misread you, I apologize.
My impression was that you are simply unable to criticize Palestinian violence, or pro-Nazi sentiment, or any Palestinian misbehavior, without providing a justification. Read your comments, trying to take my POV, and tell me if I am as wrong as all that.
And bear in mind that the Zionists at the time of the declaration of the State of Israel were three years removed from the Holocaust, and that anti-semitic sentiment was widespread among Arabs. There were realistic fears that surely contributed to atrocities. If we’re justifying, let’s justify.
Arab armies. Sigh.
Far from being an argument, a sigh is just a sigh. (Sorry, couldn’t resist)
What I object to is the standard storyline that poor little Israel finally got its own state and outnumbered 100 to 1 by the surrounding Arab states won a miraculous victory against the ravening hordes.
It’s not clear what you object to in this storyline. It seems more or less accurate to me, allowing for a bit of hyperbole. Were the forces available to the Arab countries – not just the ones sent to the fight – truly inferior in arms and numbers to the Zionists?
If you win a victory against an opponent who has the ability to overwhelm you, but loses because of ineptitude, internal political strife, underestimating your abilities, and so on, does it not count as a great and unexpected victory?
I’m well aware, incidentally, that only a small part of the land was purchased, and will go further and say that even wrt to that land there was a conflict of culture about what that meant, and what owners were entitled to. The tenant farmers generally anticipated that when their land was sold it just meant that they paid rent to a different landowner, not that someone would evict them.
bobbyp,
The Likud led careening path into an even more virulent and extreme right wing ethno-nationalism is further cause for concern. They are laying the groundwork for an apartheid state. The consolidation such an outcome is doubly tragic, for it would not endure.
I agree totally. I consider current Israeli policy immoral and self-destructive. I see no acceptable outcome. Netanyahu will go down in history as an inhumane, vain, and very foolish leader.
I have lots of Israeli relatives. My father was an ardent Zionist, and it is only by chance that I am American rather than Israeli. Current policies greatly anger and sadden me.
bobbyp,
The Likud led careening path into an even more virulent and extreme right wing ethno-nationalism is further cause for concern. They are laying the groundwork for an apartheid state. The consolidation such an outcome is doubly tragic, for it would not endure.
I agree totally. I consider current Israeli policy immoral and self-destructive. I see no acceptable outcome. Netanyahu will go down in history as an inhumane, vain, and very foolish leader.
I have lots of Israeli relatives. My father was an ardent Zionist, and it is only by chance that I am American rather than Israeli. Current policies greatly anger and sadden me.
John Judis has one about Truman and the birth of Israel. Forgot the name.
Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict
John Judis has one about Truman and the birth of Israel. Forgot the name.
Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict
“There simply is no room for agreement when both sides’ only acceptable solution is the disappearance of the other.”
Right, and that pretty much why I have to sit out the conflict. In the 80s maybe there could have been some resolution (probably if there had been no right of return to Israel, only to what would have been Palestine). After the second Intifada that became much less likely as the peace side of Israeli politics lost a lot of ground. This empowered the current dynamic which appears to be something like “if they don’t want peace we might as well win the slow war”. That isn’t a just solution, but I don’t see a workable just solution so unjust solutions of one sort or another are very likely. I’m not sure what to say beyond that. Unjust solutions prevailed in Tibet, and now it is firmly China’s. I suspect that unjust solutions will prevail in Israel. So the question I suppose is can we minimize the injustice? What kinds of unjust solutions can we ‘live with’. What kinds of unjust solutions do we think that we can’t allow a sovereign nation to enact without some sort of response?
A lot of the problem is that everyone has burned all sorts of good will. The EU isn’t a good faith actor. The US isn’t a good faith actor. I’m unaware of any Arab good faith actors. Israel isn’t a good faith actor. It seems like without some sort of major change somewhere, that things are going to continue to be awful.
The major current Western BDS movement is pretty clearly anti-realistic though. A one state ‘democracy’ with a full ‘right of return’ would instantly make Israel a Palestinian majority state. What do they think the high probability good outcome would be for that? A super repressive Egypt? A somewhat worse Turkey? Saudia Arabia with all the Jews kicked out? And those are the semi-positive outcomes.
Seems to me that a Lebanon or Syria are likely outcomes with an expansive civil war.
And I’m not even sure what a reasonably good realistic change that might lead to a good two state solution would be either.
“There simply is no room for agreement when both sides’ only acceptable solution is the disappearance of the other.”
Right, and that pretty much why I have to sit out the conflict. In the 80s maybe there could have been some resolution (probably if there had been no right of return to Israel, only to what would have been Palestine). After the second Intifada that became much less likely as the peace side of Israeli politics lost a lot of ground. This empowered the current dynamic which appears to be something like “if they don’t want peace we might as well win the slow war”. That isn’t a just solution, but I don’t see a workable just solution so unjust solutions of one sort or another are very likely. I’m not sure what to say beyond that. Unjust solutions prevailed in Tibet, and now it is firmly China’s. I suspect that unjust solutions will prevail in Israel. So the question I suppose is can we minimize the injustice? What kinds of unjust solutions can we ‘live with’. What kinds of unjust solutions do we think that we can’t allow a sovereign nation to enact without some sort of response?
A lot of the problem is that everyone has burned all sorts of good will. The EU isn’t a good faith actor. The US isn’t a good faith actor. I’m unaware of any Arab good faith actors. Israel isn’t a good faith actor. It seems like without some sort of major change somewhere, that things are going to continue to be awful.
The major current Western BDS movement is pretty clearly anti-realistic though. A one state ‘democracy’ with a full ‘right of return’ would instantly make Israel a Palestinian majority state. What do they think the high probability good outcome would be for that? A super repressive Egypt? A somewhat worse Turkey? Saudia Arabia with all the Jews kicked out? And those are the semi-positive outcomes.
Seems to me that a Lebanon or Syria are likely outcomes with an expansive civil war.
And I’m not even sure what a reasonably good realistic change that might lead to a good two state solution would be either.
“A one state ‘democracy’ with a full ‘right of return’ would instantly make Israel a Palestinian majority state. What do they think the high probability good outcome would be for that? ”
I don’t see BDS working unless most Palestinians commit to wanting a democratic state with equal rights for all. It would still be an uphill battle, since Westerners reject it out of hand. But actually, the BDS movement is flexible on 1ss vs 2ss.
Also, in my opinion anyway, a workable stable 2ss would have porous borders and there would probably be many thousands of Palestinians and Israelis crossing the borders and maybe even living in each other’s countries. They are on top of each other and both sides obviously have an attachment to the land. They have to get to the point where they like and respect each other. I think there are a minority of Israeli activists who work with Palestinians who model this sort of thing. Only a minority now. But anyway, I think a workable 2ss requires almost as much daydreaming about peace and harmony and people singing around campfires as a 1ss.
The 2ss as a divorce I suspect would not work. If the Palestinians feel bitter about a deal forced down their throats, it fails.
With global warming, maybe the whole place becomes uninhabitable in a few decades. So there’s that.
Byomtov—Don’t worry about it. I think the Palestinian side should have been more welcoming of Jewish refugees in the 30’s, with the advent of the Nazis, but positions had hardened years before. Judis talks about this. Though Westerners are the very last people who could lecture Palestinians about their failure to be welcoming to Jewish refugees.
“A one state ‘democracy’ with a full ‘right of return’ would instantly make Israel a Palestinian majority state. What do they think the high probability good outcome would be for that? ”
I don’t see BDS working unless most Palestinians commit to wanting a democratic state with equal rights for all. It would still be an uphill battle, since Westerners reject it out of hand. But actually, the BDS movement is flexible on 1ss vs 2ss.
Also, in my opinion anyway, a workable stable 2ss would have porous borders and there would probably be many thousands of Palestinians and Israelis crossing the borders and maybe even living in each other’s countries. They are on top of each other and both sides obviously have an attachment to the land. They have to get to the point where they like and respect each other. I think there are a minority of Israeli activists who work with Palestinians who model this sort of thing. Only a minority now. But anyway, I think a workable 2ss requires almost as much daydreaming about peace and harmony and people singing around campfires as a 1ss.
The 2ss as a divorce I suspect would not work. If the Palestinians feel bitter about a deal forced down their throats, it fails.
With global warming, maybe the whole place becomes uninhabitable in a few decades. So there’s that.
Byomtov—Don’t worry about it. I think the Palestinian side should have been more welcoming of Jewish refugees in the 30’s, with the advent of the Nazis, but positions had hardened years before. Judis talks about this. Though Westerners are the very last people who could lecture Palestinians about their failure to be welcoming to Jewish refugees.
Byomtov— Forgot to reply on the Arab armies thing. So one more time. The standard narrative which I used to believe had Israel the completely innocent victim finally given statehood and then the massive Arab hordes swoop in, while the Arabs already living there are ordered out by their leaders and they left, hoping to come back on the heels of the Arab armies and pillage their neighbors. The victory was supposed to be against overwhelming odds and the morality is black and white. Didn’t happen that way. The armies were tiny and the most formidable one, that of King Abdullah, was there to grab the land allocated to the Arab state. According to Shlaim, Abdullah’s army made no attempt to enter the land allocated to the Jewish state by the UN. Israel in turn was also interested in increasing its land— it went from about 55 percent allocated by the UN to 78 percent. Abdullah took the West Bank and Egypt got Gaza.
And it’s not a miracle if the bigger army wins. Which is what happened.
I don’t have any particular sympathy for the rulers of the various Arab countries. The point is that the romanticized version of the story was meant to paper over the expulsions. Countries usually tell mythical stories about their history.
Byomtov— Forgot to reply on the Arab armies thing. So one more time. The standard narrative which I used to believe had Israel the completely innocent victim finally given statehood and then the massive Arab hordes swoop in, while the Arabs already living there are ordered out by their leaders and they left, hoping to come back on the heels of the Arab armies and pillage their neighbors. The victory was supposed to be against overwhelming odds and the morality is black and white. Didn’t happen that way. The armies were tiny and the most formidable one, that of King Abdullah, was there to grab the land allocated to the Arab state. According to Shlaim, Abdullah’s army made no attempt to enter the land allocated to the Jewish state by the UN. Israel in turn was also interested in increasing its land— it went from about 55 percent allocated by the UN to 78 percent. Abdullah took the West Bank and Egypt got Gaza.
And it’s not a miracle if the bigger army wins. Which is what happened.
I don’t have any particular sympathy for the rulers of the various Arab countries. The point is that the romanticized version of the story was meant to paper over the expulsions. Countries usually tell mythical stories about their history.
Also with this talk of relocations, it should be noted that at exactly the same time in Europe, the winners of WWII engaged in massive relocations to try to homogenize the countries in order to promote peace. They did it more successfully and therefore had more peace?
Kevin Drum link
Also with this talk of relocations, it should be noted that at exactly the same time in Europe, the winners of WWII engaged in massive relocations to try to homogenize the countries in order to promote peace. They did it more successfully and therefore had more peace?
Kevin Drum link
Donald,
We have to agree to disagree about the armies.
1. Jordan was not the only Arab country involved.
2. You continue to minimize the threat from the Arab countries (“The armies were tiny”) by talking only about the forces they sent. I don’t think “the bigger army won” is a totally accurate summary.
According to the the Wiki article cited by bobbyp,
In 1948, Iraq’s army had 21,000 men in 12 brigades and the Iraqi Air Force had 100 planes,…
In 1948, Egypt’s army was able to put a maximum of around 40,000 men into the field
Syria had 12,000 soldiers at the beginning of the 1948 War
Lebanon’s army was the smallest of the Arab armies, consisting of only 3,500 soldiers.
The Israelis had about 40,000 fighters.
The point is that the romanticized version of the story was meant to paper over the expulsions. Countries usually tell mythical stories about their history.
National origination myths have lots of purposes. Why do you pick the worst possible motive for Israel and claim that it was the entire objective, and do your best to paper over, as you put it, Arab behavior.
Donald,
We have to agree to disagree about the armies.
1. Jordan was not the only Arab country involved.
2. You continue to minimize the threat from the Arab countries (“The armies were tiny”) by talking only about the forces they sent. I don’t think “the bigger army won” is a totally accurate summary.
According to the the Wiki article cited by bobbyp,
In 1948, Iraq’s army had 21,000 men in 12 brigades and the Iraqi Air Force had 100 planes,…
In 1948, Egypt’s army was able to put a maximum of around 40,000 men into the field
Syria had 12,000 soldiers at the beginning of the 1948 War
Lebanon’s army was the smallest of the Arab armies, consisting of only 3,500 soldiers.
The Israelis had about 40,000 fighters.
The point is that the romanticized version of the story was meant to paper over the expulsions. Countries usually tell mythical stories about their history.
National origination myths have lots of purposes. Why do you pick the worst possible motive for Israel and claim that it was the entire objective, and do your best to paper over, as you put it, Arab behavior.
For me, who is not as versed in the IP conflict, I get the impression that the assassination of Rabin was a (the?) cusp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin
It seems that this was the moment in time when the possibilities disappeared.
For me, who is not as versed in the IP conflict, I get the impression that the assassination of Rabin was a (the?) cusp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin
It seems that this was the moment in time when the possibilities disappeared.
“Why do you pick the worst possible motive for Israel and claim that it was the entire objective, and do your best to paper over, as you put it, Arab behavior.”
I don’t. They were opportunists. Nobody had clean motives. And the actual forces sent were tiny. I could copy Schlaim’s numbers from his book— the point was that at every point the Israeli side had more men in the field than all the Arab forces present, so the dramatic victory against overwhelming numbers didn’t happen. People still repeat the melodramatic version and also claim that the refugee problem was simply Arabs leaving voluntarily. I have had both things told to me in real life in the past year. You want to say that the Arabs could have sent more. They didn’t. Hell, they didn’t even cooperate. Transjordan stood by and let Israel beat Egypt. Again, how exactly am I praising the Arab countries here? They look stupid and cynical. I am pointing out that the heroic narrative about Israel’s founding is mythical.
And yes, Sebastian, the Europeans engaged in massive ethnic cleansing followed by totalitarian rule. India and Pakistan had enormous violence, massive refugee flows and several wars since. Benny Morris thinks that Israel should have completely expelled all the Arabs and justifies it explicitly as following the American model with the Native Americans. So there are lots of inspiring examples.
Possibly the whole modern obsession with nationalism and ethnic purity and even self determination was a bad idea— it seems to place the rights of abstract collectives over the rights of individuals and so people can justify anything. And yes, this applies to people on both sides in the IP conflict who justify atrocities for the sake of the cause.
“Why do you pick the worst possible motive for Israel and claim that it was the entire objective, and do your best to paper over, as you put it, Arab behavior.”
I don’t. They were opportunists. Nobody had clean motives. And the actual forces sent were tiny. I could copy Schlaim’s numbers from his book— the point was that at every point the Israeli side had more men in the field than all the Arab forces present, so the dramatic victory against overwhelming numbers didn’t happen. People still repeat the melodramatic version and also claim that the refugee problem was simply Arabs leaving voluntarily. I have had both things told to me in real life in the past year. You want to say that the Arabs could have sent more. They didn’t. Hell, they didn’t even cooperate. Transjordan stood by and let Israel beat Egypt. Again, how exactly am I praising the Arab countries here? They look stupid and cynical. I am pointing out that the heroic narrative about Israel’s founding is mythical.
And yes, Sebastian, the Europeans engaged in massive ethnic cleansing followed by totalitarian rule. India and Pakistan had enormous violence, massive refugee flows and several wars since. Benny Morris thinks that Israel should have completely expelled all the Arabs and justifies it explicitly as following the American model with the Native Americans. So there are lots of inspiring examples.
Possibly the whole modern obsession with nationalism and ethnic purity and even self determination was a bad idea— it seems to place the rights of abstract collectives over the rights of individuals and so people can justify anything. And yes, this applies to people on both sides in the IP conflict who justify atrocities for the sake of the cause.
I don’t.
You do.
the romanticized version of the story was meant to paper over the expulsions.
That’s it, according to you. No other purpose.
I agree Arab countries had no right to expel Jews. Nobody in the conflict looks good. The increase in Arab anti-semitism occurred with the advent of Zionism. Obviously the actions of people on each side contributed to the actions of the other. When a group of people declare their intent to create a state for their own people in an already inhabited land, you guarantee hostility.
Zionists wanted to declare a state in Syria or Egypt?
From wikipedia:
The Egyptian Prime Minister Mahmoud an-Nukrashi Pasha told the British ambassador: “All Jews were potential Zionists [and] … anyhow all Zionists were Communists.”[168] On 24 November 1947, the head of the Egyptian delegation to the United Nations General Assembly, Muhammad Hussein Heykal Pasha, said, “the lives of 1,000,000 Jews in Moslem countries would be jeopardized by the establishment of a Jewish state.”
On “The Death of Klinghoffer”, I didn’t see it or “Munich” either, though I read the script of the latter, but I think artists try to humanize both sides by taking some famous atrocity and humanizing the Palestinian terrorists. Which irritates me, because in an utterly predictable fashion all the freaking controversy is about whether the work is too sympathetic to terrorists
That’s all that irritates you? Glorifying the murder of a wheelchair bound old man is no big deal?
I don’t.
You do.
the romanticized version of the story was meant to paper over the expulsions.
That’s it, according to you. No other purpose.
I agree Arab countries had no right to expel Jews. Nobody in the conflict looks good. The increase in Arab anti-semitism occurred with the advent of Zionism. Obviously the actions of people on each side contributed to the actions of the other. When a group of people declare their intent to create a state for their own people in an already inhabited land, you guarantee hostility.
Zionists wanted to declare a state in Syria or Egypt?
From wikipedia:
The Egyptian Prime Minister Mahmoud an-Nukrashi Pasha told the British ambassador: “All Jews were potential Zionists [and] … anyhow all Zionists were Communists.”[168] On 24 November 1947, the head of the Egyptian delegation to the United Nations General Assembly, Muhammad Hussein Heykal Pasha, said, “the lives of 1,000,000 Jews in Moslem countries would be jeopardized by the establishment of a Jewish state.”
On “The Death of Klinghoffer”, I didn’t see it or “Munich” either, though I read the script of the latter, but I think artists try to humanize both sides by taking some famous atrocity and humanizing the Palestinian terrorists. Which irritates me, because in an utterly predictable fashion all the freaking controversy is about whether the work is too sympathetic to terrorists
That’s all that irritates you? Glorifying the murder of a wheelchair bound old man is no big deal?
With the continuing divisions and violence with IP and India/Pakistan (another IP!), it amazes me that Northern Ireland seems to have settled down. Not perfect, but LOTS better than one had any right to expect.
Why? My guess is the EU and (too?) rapid economic progress in Éire. Hard to recruit new IRA members when there’s piles of money to be made.
I’d say, snarkily, that it was that the conflict in Northern Ireland didn’t have the “IP” initials, but “IRA vs. Protestants” did, so that’s not it.
With the continuing divisions and violence with IP and India/Pakistan (another IP!), it amazes me that Northern Ireland seems to have settled down. Not perfect, but LOTS better than one had any right to expect.
Why? My guess is the EU and (too?) rapid economic progress in Éire. Hard to recruit new IRA members when there’s piles of money to be made.
I’d say, snarkily, that it was that the conflict in Northern Ireland didn’t have the “IP” initials, but “IRA vs. Protestants” did, so that’s not it.
Why do you pick the worst possible motive for Israel and claim that it was the entire objective, and do your best to paper over, as you put it, Arab behavior.
byomtov,
For starters, being an old crank Leftist, I tend to sympathize with Donald’s POV. That said, the above strikes me as an example of how these discussions tend to break down.
For most Americans, the foundational myth of the state of Israel gets no further than Paul Newman in Exodus. Pointing out that such myths contain a good deal of fabrication and/or exaggeration would seem to be a reasonable thing to bring into the conversation, no?
Perhaps we need to inject some examples of Israeli brutality, murder, torture, and yes ‘terrorism’ so we can all wave the bloody shirt and ask rhetorically, “That’s all that irritates you?” I do not find that to be conducive.
But it’s hard.
As to a permanent solution? I can offer nothing, and I fear the final outcome will be unbearably tragic.
Similarly, I am of the perhaps benighted opinion that the mother of all collective action problems, global warming, will make vast regions of the globe uninhabitable, and the billions to the south will start to move to the north…mass migration of a virtually unstoppable kind. It will not be pretty.
We had our chances, and we blew it.
Why do you pick the worst possible motive for Israel and claim that it was the entire objective, and do your best to paper over, as you put it, Arab behavior.
byomtov,
For starters, being an old crank Leftist, I tend to sympathize with Donald’s POV. That said, the above strikes me as an example of how these discussions tend to break down.
For most Americans, the foundational myth of the state of Israel gets no further than Paul Newman in Exodus. Pointing out that such myths contain a good deal of fabrication and/or exaggeration would seem to be a reasonable thing to bring into the conversation, no?
Perhaps we need to inject some examples of Israeli brutality, murder, torture, and yes ‘terrorism’ so we can all wave the bloody shirt and ask rhetorically, “That’s all that irritates you?” I do not find that to be conducive.
But it’s hard.
As to a permanent solution? I can offer nothing, and I fear the final outcome will be unbearably tragic.
Similarly, I am of the perhaps benighted opinion that the mother of all collective action problems, global warming, will make vast regions of the globe uninhabitable, and the billions to the south will start to move to the north…mass migration of a virtually unstoppable kind. It will not be pretty.
We had our chances, and we blew it.
With the continuing divisions and violence with IP and India/Pakistan (another IP!), it amazes me that Northern Ireland seems to have settled down. Not perfect, but LOTS better than one had any right to expect.
Why? My guess is the EU and (too?) rapid economic progress in Éire.
Which raises an interesting question: what impact will Brexit have on Northern Ireland? The economies of the North and of the rest of Ireland are closely intertwined. The only way there isn’t a disaster is if the UK stays in a free trade and free movement of people union with the EU. Which totally negates the motivation** for Brexit.
** That’s the motivation of the British voters who supported it. The motivation of the Russian financial supporters is, of course, another story.
With the continuing divisions and violence with IP and India/Pakistan (another IP!), it amazes me that Northern Ireland seems to have settled down. Not perfect, but LOTS better than one had any right to expect.
Why? My guess is the EU and (too?) rapid economic progress in Éire.
Which raises an interesting question: what impact will Brexit have on Northern Ireland? The economies of the North and of the rest of Ireland are closely intertwined. The only way there isn’t a disaster is if the UK stays in a free trade and free movement of people union with the EU. Which totally negates the motivation** for Brexit.
** That’s the motivation of the British voters who supported it. The motivation of the Russian financial supporters is, of course, another story.
bobbyp,
the above strikes me as an example of how these discussions tend to break down.
It is not clear to me what you are referring to by “the above.”
For most Americans, the foundational myth of the state of Israel gets no further than Paul Newman in Exodus. Pointing out that such myths contain a good deal of fabrication and/or exaggeration would seem to be a reasonable thing to bring into the conversation, no?
Yes. It would be.
As Donald says, countries have their origination myths, which of course glorify the founders and omit a lot of unpleasantness. I don’t think Roland and Oliver were quite that heroic.
What I object to in his comment is the specific accusation that Israel’s origination story was dreamed up only to conceal the expulsion of Arabs. I doubt that’s so, which is not to say that the expulsions were largely unpublicized.
Further, what I object to in the Klinghoffer discussion is the complaint about the reaction to the portrayal of the hijackers. Is it a terrible thing to criticize a sympathetic portrayal of murderers? Does such a portrayal not irritate just a bit?
So my criticisms are of fairly specific matters, and I continue, by the way, to think that the size of the Arab armies put into the field in 1948, which Donald wants to stick to, is not the sole measure of the balance of power in the war.
In Cuba they consider the Bay of Pigs a great victory over the US. Should we discount that because the invading force was inadequate?
bobbyp,
the above strikes me as an example of how these discussions tend to break down.
It is not clear to me what you are referring to by “the above.”
For most Americans, the foundational myth of the state of Israel gets no further than Paul Newman in Exodus. Pointing out that such myths contain a good deal of fabrication and/or exaggeration would seem to be a reasonable thing to bring into the conversation, no?
Yes. It would be.
As Donald says, countries have their origination myths, which of course glorify the founders and omit a lot of unpleasantness. I don’t think Roland and Oliver were quite that heroic.
What I object to in his comment is the specific accusation that Israel’s origination story was dreamed up only to conceal the expulsion of Arabs. I doubt that’s so, which is not to say that the expulsions were largely unpublicized.
Further, what I object to in the Klinghoffer discussion is the complaint about the reaction to the portrayal of the hijackers. Is it a terrible thing to criticize a sympathetic portrayal of murderers? Does such a portrayal not irritate just a bit?
So my criticisms are of fairly specific matters, and I continue, by the way, to think that the size of the Arab armies put into the field in 1948, which Donald wants to stick to, is not the sole measure of the balance of power in the war.
In Cuba they consider the Bay of Pigs a great victory over the US. Should we discount that because the invading force was inadequate?
which is not to say that the expulsions were largely unpublicized.
which is not to say that the expulsions were not largely unpublicized, or misrepresented.
which is not to say that the expulsions were largely unpublicized.
which is not to say that the expulsions were not largely unpublicized, or misrepresented.
Pointing out that such myths contain a good deal of fabrication and/or exaggeration would seem to be a reasonable thing to bring into the conversation, no?
I think one of the problems with taking on prevailing wisdom (or whatever you want to call it) is that you end up emphasizing those things you believe are true and that are at odds with the prevailing wisdom. You don’t really bother with the things that are already baked into the prevailing wisdom on whatever subject is at hand.
In the case of this thread, I’m guessing Donald doesn’t bother going on much about the Palestinians doing bad things because they’re widely considered to be a bunch of crazed terrorists already.
It’s a reactive discussion in a non-neutral context.
Pointing out that such myths contain a good deal of fabrication and/or exaggeration would seem to be a reasonable thing to bring into the conversation, no?
I think one of the problems with taking on prevailing wisdom (or whatever you want to call it) is that you end up emphasizing those things you believe are true and that are at odds with the prevailing wisdom. You don’t really bother with the things that are already baked into the prevailing wisdom on whatever subject is at hand.
In the case of this thread, I’m guessing Donald doesn’t bother going on much about the Palestinians doing bad things because they’re widely considered to be a bunch of crazed terrorists already.
It’s a reactive discussion in a non-neutral context.
Sort of, yes.
I don’t know what they say about it exactly, but presumably you could cook up a heroic myth of brave Cuban fighters repulsing the phenomenal might of a capitalist aggressor committed to Cuba’s eradication. Or something.
But no, that wouldn’t really be accurate.
I mean, I’m sure the Cuban defenders were brave enough, and a perfectly serviceable fighting force. And it’s true they won a victory against a superpower with the potential to field hundreds of thousands of troops armed with billions of dollars in state of the art equipment.
The problem with that narrative is that there is no universe in which that potential military might would ever actually be brought to bear on Cuba. As much as some segments of US leadership would have have liked to see end of Castro, there was an equal amount of apathy, political disunities and geopolitical constraints (*cough* USSR *cough*) to consider. All of which are real factors, and concretely prevented the US from ever even really considering bringing anything like it’s potential military might to bear.
So there are *reasons* the force fielded in the invasion was inadequate to the task, and however plucky and brave the Cuban defenders were, those *exogenous* reasons were really the more important factors in the victory.
I don’t see how it’s any different with Israel.
There’s this idea — and I think it’s still very much in circulation, and used as an ongoing excuse for Israeli abuses and intransigence — that the ’48 war was about how the entire Arab world united in their irrational hatred of the newborn Israel, and amassed their combined international might to murder it and push the body into the sea. They were stopped only by an inferior, but fiercer, force of underdog Israeli heroes who managed to not only defend their infant state, but thoroughly humiliate the aggressors. Something, something.
That myth falls apart not only because of things like prior expulsions and terrorism on the Israeli side, but also *because* of the ulterior motives and disunity of the Arab coalition. You keep vaguely accusing Donald of valorizing them somehow, but I think their flaws are exactly his point.
Antisemitism was certainly one motive for the war on that side, and perhaps one that sold well with their various publics, but if that had actually been the primary aim of the war, if the entire Arab population really was unified and genocidally committed to eliminating Israel, why did those hypothetical Arab hordes never actually materialize? Even if the military leaders initially, contemptuously, underestimated Israeli defenses, surely they could have come back with reinforcements drawn from their vast and motivated populations to finish the job?
The fact is, that was never going to happen. The entire hypothetical military force or population of the Arab nations isn’t relevant, because it was never actually on the table. The intra-Arab rivalries and distrust, the ulterior land-grab motives, economic limitations, competing military commitments, etc. all amounted to *real* constraints under which the war was fought.
I don’t think Donald’s principle point is about the purpose of the foundational myth. It’s the fact that the foundational myth is, indeed, a myth. And in virtually every detail.
Sort of, yes.
I don’t know what they say about it exactly, but presumably you could cook up a heroic myth of brave Cuban fighters repulsing the phenomenal might of a capitalist aggressor committed to Cuba’s eradication. Or something.
But no, that wouldn’t really be accurate.
I mean, I’m sure the Cuban defenders were brave enough, and a perfectly serviceable fighting force. And it’s true they won a victory against a superpower with the potential to field hundreds of thousands of troops armed with billions of dollars in state of the art equipment.
The problem with that narrative is that there is no universe in which that potential military might would ever actually be brought to bear on Cuba. As much as some segments of US leadership would have have liked to see end of Castro, there was an equal amount of apathy, political disunities and geopolitical constraints (*cough* USSR *cough*) to consider. All of which are real factors, and concretely prevented the US from ever even really considering bringing anything like it’s potential military might to bear.
So there are *reasons* the force fielded in the invasion was inadequate to the task, and however plucky and brave the Cuban defenders were, those *exogenous* reasons were really the more important factors in the victory.
I don’t see how it’s any different with Israel.
There’s this idea — and I think it’s still very much in circulation, and used as an ongoing excuse for Israeli abuses and intransigence — that the ’48 war was about how the entire Arab world united in their irrational hatred of the newborn Israel, and amassed their combined international might to murder it and push the body into the sea. They were stopped only by an inferior, but fiercer, force of underdog Israeli heroes who managed to not only defend their infant state, but thoroughly humiliate the aggressors. Something, something.
That myth falls apart not only because of things like prior expulsions and terrorism on the Israeli side, but also *because* of the ulterior motives and disunity of the Arab coalition. You keep vaguely accusing Donald of valorizing them somehow, but I think their flaws are exactly his point.
Antisemitism was certainly one motive for the war on that side, and perhaps one that sold well with their various publics, but if that had actually been the primary aim of the war, if the entire Arab population really was unified and genocidally committed to eliminating Israel, why did those hypothetical Arab hordes never actually materialize? Even if the military leaders initially, contemptuously, underestimated Israeli defenses, surely they could have come back with reinforcements drawn from their vast and motivated populations to finish the job?
The fact is, that was never going to happen. The entire hypothetical military force or population of the Arab nations isn’t relevant, because it was never actually on the table. The intra-Arab rivalries and distrust, the ulterior land-grab motives, economic limitations, competing military commitments, etc. all amounted to *real* constraints under which the war was fought.
I don’t think Donald’s principle point is about the purpose of the foundational myth. It’s the fact that the foundational myth is, indeed, a myth. And in virtually every detail.
and I continue…to think that the size of the Arab armies put into the field in 1948….is not the sole measure of the balance of power in the war.
It strikes me that this is exactly on point…Donald’s point. Or, to put it a bit differently:
The entire hypothetical military force or population of the Arab nations isn’t relevant, because it was never actually on the table. The intra-Arab rivalries and distrust, the ulterior land-grab motives, economic limitations, competing military commitments, etc. all amounted to *real* constraints under which the war was fought.
Indeed yes.
and I continue…to think that the size of the Arab armies put into the field in 1948….is not the sole measure of the balance of power in the war.
It strikes me that this is exactly on point…Donald’s point. Or, to put it a bit differently:
The entire hypothetical military force or population of the Arab nations isn’t relevant, because it was never actually on the table. The intra-Arab rivalries and distrust, the ulterior land-grab motives, economic limitations, competing military commitments, etc. all amounted to *real* constraints under which the war was fought.
Indeed yes.
I feel like I’ve lost the thread of the discussion. What is the proposition “the Arab forces actually arrayed for battle weren’t as massive as the founding myth suggests” supposed to add to the discussion? If I grant that it is true what happens? Does it mean that the surrounding countries did not declare war and invade? Does it mean that they did not get support from a bunch of other nearby countries? Does it mean that Israelis were really safe all along and didn’t really need to fight back? What is going round and round on it getting us?
I feel like I’ve lost the thread of the discussion. What is the proposition “the Arab forces actually arrayed for battle weren’t as massive as the founding myth suggests” supposed to add to the discussion? If I grant that it is true what happens? Does it mean that the surrounding countries did not declare war and invade? Does it mean that they did not get support from a bunch of other nearby countries? Does it mean that Israelis were really safe all along and didn’t really need to fight back? What is going round and round on it getting us?
I feel like I’ve lost the thread of the discussion. What is the proposition “the Arab forces actually arrayed for battle weren’t as massive as the founding myth suggests” supposed to add to the discussion?
My guess is that it wasn’t supposed to be that important, but it took on a life of its own because that how teh internets work.
I feel like I’ve lost the thread of the discussion. What is the proposition “the Arab forces actually arrayed for battle weren’t as massive as the founding myth suggests” supposed to add to the discussion?
My guess is that it wasn’t supposed to be that important, but it took on a life of its own because that how teh internets work.
I’m thinking (though someone can correct me) that the initial impetus is that if the foundational story of Israel is pointed out to be false, support of Israel might be reevaluated. However, as hsh points out, this then takes on a life of its own.
I’m thinking (though someone can correct me) that the initial impetus is that if the foundational story of Israel is pointed out to be false, support of Israel might be reevaluated. However, as hsh points out, this then takes on a life of its own.
I suspect that Donald’s point may be that the exaggeration of the forces arrayed against Israel was meant (by those who consciously perpetrated it) to add to a sense of the Jews having been victims of ongoing existential persecution, even after the holocaust, and therefore bolster public sympathy for the legitimacy of the state even among people who would otherwise question the dispossession of the Palestinians. I’m on a phone, so can’t easily write much or scroll back and forth to check if this makes sense. But if it does, it could also explain byomtov’s reflexive resistance to the very idea: the (not entirely mythical) image of plucky little Israel fighting for its life against overwhelming odds is one way decent and humane people salve their consciences about the palestinians. FWIW, I do not exempt myself from this.
I suspect that Donald’s point may be that the exaggeration of the forces arrayed against Israel was meant (by those who consciously perpetrated it) to add to a sense of the Jews having been victims of ongoing existential persecution, even after the holocaust, and therefore bolster public sympathy for the legitimacy of the state even among people who would otherwise question the dispossession of the Palestinians. I’m on a phone, so can’t easily write much or scroll back and forth to check if this makes sense. But if it does, it could also explain byomtov’s reflexive resistance to the very idea: the (not entirely mythical) image of plucky little Israel fighting for its life against overwhelming odds is one way decent and humane people salve their consciences about the palestinians. FWIW, I do not exempt myself from this.
What is going round and round on it getting us?
What is discussing this topic in the first place getting us?
What is saying “yer doin’ it rong” getting us?
(And now I’m doing to what he did to other commenters. That’s the internet for you.)
What, in general, is discussing things on the internet “getting us”? …
Donald brought up IP a week ago on the Epitome thread, and he, byomtov, Hartmut, and other people have been discussing it ever since. You, Seb, showed up today, contributed a couple of comments, and then suggested that the other people weren’t talking about the right things.
Sigh.
For the record, I thought the exchange about the founding myth was quite interesting, both for its straight content and for the way people were using it to feel around for why other people were framing the topic the way they were. I think useful things can be learned that way…esp. when the conversation is contentious but respectful, as this one has been.
What is going round and round on it getting us?
What is discussing this topic in the first place getting us?
What is saying “yer doin’ it rong” getting us?
(And now I’m doing to what he did to other commenters. That’s the internet for you.)
What, in general, is discussing things on the internet “getting us”? …
Donald brought up IP a week ago on the Epitome thread, and he, byomtov, Hartmut, and other people have been discussing it ever since. You, Seb, showed up today, contributed a couple of comments, and then suggested that the other people weren’t talking about the right things.
Sigh.
For the record, I thought the exchange about the founding myth was quite interesting, both for its straight content and for the way people were using it to feel around for why other people were framing the topic the way they were. I think useful things can be learned that way…esp. when the conversation is contentious but respectful, as this one has been.
Cross-posted with GftNC. Also, My comment was missing Sebastian’s name, as in: “I’m doing to Sebastian what he did….”
Oh, for an editing function.
Cross-posted with GftNC. Also, My comment was missing Sebastian’s name, as in: “I’m doing to Sebastian what he did….”
Oh, for an editing function.
No, I read the last 200 or so comments on that thread, so it seemed fine for quite a while. Believe me, I’m all about getting sucked into minutia from time to time (cough probably all the time). But the last 3 or 4 iterations of the exchange seem to have gotten heated as if either side thought that resolving would get anywhere. From my point of view, it doesn’t look like resolving that particular point does anything to the overall analysis, so I was wondering if it was really worth coming to blows over, or if it was just a historical clarification with no supposed impact on the current situation. Not in a “shut it down” kind of way. More of a “what are the stakes to this particular point” kind of way.
Anyway, thank you for pointing out that I didn’t communicate that very well. (That isn’t sarcasm).
No, I read the last 200 or so comments on that thread, so it seemed fine for quite a while. Believe me, I’m all about getting sucked into minutia from time to time (cough probably all the time). But the last 3 or 4 iterations of the exchange seem to have gotten heated as if either side thought that resolving would get anywhere. From my point of view, it doesn’t look like resolving that particular point does anything to the overall analysis, so I was wondering if it was really worth coming to blows over, or if it was just a historical clarification with no supposed impact on the current situation. Not in a “shut it down” kind of way. More of a “what are the stakes to this particular point” kind of way.
Anyway, thank you for pointing out that I didn’t communicate that very well. (That isn’t sarcasm).
Something knocking around in my so-called mind is whether the is any factual dispute between Donald and Bernard with regard to the size force the Israelis were directly facing or the size force they could potentially have faced. I’m guessing not, and it’s mostly about how to characterize the situation.
Something knocking around in my so-called mind is whether the is any factual dispute between Donald and Bernard with regard to the size force the Israelis were directly facing or the size force they could potentially have faced. I’m guessing not, and it’s mostly about how to characterize the situation.
GftNC, you write “But if it does, it could also explain byomtov’s reflexive resistance to the very idea: the (not entirely mythical) image of plucky little Israel fighting for its life against overwhelming odds is one way decent and humane people salve their consciences about the palestinians.”
I guess this is the application I don’t understand. If it is downgraded to medium-strength Israel fights for its life against pretty bad but not shockingly impossible odds, does that change anything? It doesn’t for me, but heaven knows I’m not the most typical person in the world.
Also the Israel-centrism thing is always jarring. At around the same time, 7,000,000 or so Germans in Poland were forced out of their homes to tidy up the European map because the Allies didn’t think they could live with the Polish in peace. About 3 million Germans were forced out of their homes in Czechoslovakia because the Allies didn’t think that they could live together in peace. About 500,000 were forced out of Hungary for the same reason. There was a fight over the Lisbon treaty as recently as 2009 where The Czech republic insisted on getting an exemption clearly avoiding a right of return for those people displaced in the WWII aftermath.
In 1948 about 700,000 Palestinians fled/left/were pushed out. The proportion of each of those categories is in question, but the overall numbers are not. In 1967 there was about 300,000 more.
Europe and the US are awfully high and mighty about population transfers that they were doing at almost exactly the same time as Israel. They are awfully high and mighty about the right of return and reparations of 1 million Palestinians, when they ignore the right of return for 7 million Polish refugees forced from their homes, and 3 million Czech refugees, and half a million Hungarians refugees.
What does that mean for the situation? I don’t know. The parallel is there, but I’m reluctant to draw conclusions from it.
GftNC, you write “But if it does, it could also explain byomtov’s reflexive resistance to the very idea: the (not entirely mythical) image of plucky little Israel fighting for its life against overwhelming odds is one way decent and humane people salve their consciences about the palestinians.”
I guess this is the application I don’t understand. If it is downgraded to medium-strength Israel fights for its life against pretty bad but not shockingly impossible odds, does that change anything? It doesn’t for me, but heaven knows I’m not the most typical person in the world.
Also the Israel-centrism thing is always jarring. At around the same time, 7,000,000 or so Germans in Poland were forced out of their homes to tidy up the European map because the Allies didn’t think they could live with the Polish in peace. About 3 million Germans were forced out of their homes in Czechoslovakia because the Allies didn’t think that they could live together in peace. About 500,000 were forced out of Hungary for the same reason. There was a fight over the Lisbon treaty as recently as 2009 where The Czech republic insisted on getting an exemption clearly avoiding a right of return for those people displaced in the WWII aftermath.
In 1948 about 700,000 Palestinians fled/left/were pushed out. The proportion of each of those categories is in question, but the overall numbers are not. In 1967 there was about 300,000 more.
Europe and the US are awfully high and mighty about population transfers that they were doing at almost exactly the same time as Israel. They are awfully high and mighty about the right of return and reparations of 1 million Palestinians, when they ignore the right of return for 7 million Polish refugees forced from their homes, and 3 million Czech refugees, and half a million Hungarians refugees.
What does that mean for the situation? I don’t know. The parallel is there, but I’m reluctant to draw conclusions from it.
Hmmmm, it bugs me that I don’t want to draw conclusions, so I’m going to extend the thought in a way that will almost certainly mean that I had better not ever be famous for anything because it will be easy to misquote. So please extend interpretative charity.
I’m reluctant to draw conclusions from a parallel with say Poland, because the reflexive conclusion would be something like “if they can’t live together in the long term, maybe population transfers a la Germany are a lesser evil. Rip off the band-aid and try to move on.”
But they are SUCH a great evil that I’m not content with the reflexive conclusion.
It feels to me a lot like the ticking time bomb torture scenarios. It assumes too much knowledge about uncertain futures. It sweeps too much under ‘they’ it projects too much about future states of mind, about unborn people, and about our understanding of human dynamics.
But on the other hand it feels that unlike the ticking time bomb hypothetical, this isn’t hypothetical at all. The Palestinians really are suffering right now. There really doesn’t seem any way to get from here to a peaceful anything without one side getting rid of the other in some way (either through lots more killing or through separation). And I really don’t even see what the next steps would look like.
Argh.
Hmmmm, it bugs me that I don’t want to draw conclusions, so I’m going to extend the thought in a way that will almost certainly mean that I had better not ever be famous for anything because it will be easy to misquote. So please extend interpretative charity.
I’m reluctant to draw conclusions from a parallel with say Poland, because the reflexive conclusion would be something like “if they can’t live together in the long term, maybe population transfers a la Germany are a lesser evil. Rip off the band-aid and try to move on.”
But they are SUCH a great evil that I’m not content with the reflexive conclusion.
It feels to me a lot like the ticking time bomb torture scenarios. It assumes too much knowledge about uncertain futures. It sweeps too much under ‘they’ it projects too much about future states of mind, about unborn people, and about our understanding of human dynamics.
But on the other hand it feels that unlike the ticking time bomb hypothetical, this isn’t hypothetical at all. The Palestinians really are suffering right now. There really doesn’t seem any way to get from here to a peaceful anything without one side getting rid of the other in some way (either through lots more killing or through separation). And I really don’t even see what the next steps would look like.
Argh.
It seems to me that drawing a parallel with post war population transfers is problematic because of the state Europe was in immediately in the post war. The Middle East was not in a state of total devastation. I don’t mean to dismiss what you say out of hand, but saying ‘forced out of their homes’ is quite different when the landscape is like
http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/cou/pol/w2p-dev.html
as opposed to Palestine. I have to consider more about what that exactly means, but I think that ‘population transfers’ don’t really get us a parallel.
In addition, it is hard not to imagine that the German population would not be ‘punished’ in some fashion, given that the nation that they were a part of had just waged a systematic war of elimination.
It seems to me that drawing a parallel with post war population transfers is problematic because of the state Europe was in immediately in the post war. The Middle East was not in a state of total devastation. I don’t mean to dismiss what you say out of hand, but saying ‘forced out of their homes’ is quite different when the landscape is like
http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/cou/pol/w2p-dev.html
as opposed to Palestine. I have to consider more about what that exactly means, but I think that ‘population transfers’ don’t really get us a parallel.
In addition, it is hard not to imagine that the German population would not be ‘punished’ in some fashion, given that the nation that they were a part of had just waged a systematic war of elimination.
“In addition, it is hard not to imagine that the German population would not be ‘punished’ in some fashion, given that the nation that they were a part of had just waged a systematic war of elimination.”
I don’t think you’re really understanding the context. This wasn’t just German people in Germany. This was families in Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. This wasn’t just devastated towns, it was forcibly uprooted towns transplanted into Germany. They were no more to blame for what Germany did than the Palestinians were to blame for what Jordan and Egypt did.
“In addition, it is hard not to imagine that the German population would not be ‘punished’ in some fashion, given that the nation that they were a part of had just waged a systematic war of elimination.”
I don’t think you’re really understanding the context. This wasn’t just German people in Germany. This was families in Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. This wasn’t just devastated towns, it was forcibly uprooted towns transplanted into Germany. They were no more to blame for what Germany did than the Palestinians were to blame for what Jordan and Egypt did.
hsh,
Something knocking around in my so-called mind is whether the is any factual dispute between Donald and Bernard with regard to the size force the Israelis were directly facing or the size force they could potentially have faced. I’m guessing not, and it’s mostly about how to characterize the situation.
I think this is accurate.
jack lecou,
The entire hypothetical military force or population of the Arab nations isn’t relevant, because it was never actually on the table. The intra-Arab rivalries and distrust, the ulterior land-grab motives, economic limitations, competing military commitments, etc. all amounted to *real* constraints under which the war was fought.
Bear in mind that the Israelis did not necessarily know that the various issues mentioned would limit the size and effectiveness of the Arab forces, and from a military POV it is surely unwise to assume that that would happen. From their POV, they were under a much stronger threat, complete with eliminationist rhetoric.
Perhaps it would have been more accurate for the Israelis to say that the Arabs were such total bunglers – schlemiels we might say – that we beat them despite our vastly fewer (population) numbers. Or not. Regardless, the military victory of a newly established country over those who wished to destroy it seems significant to me, whatever the details.
“They wanted to kill us all, but we fought them off despite their (hypothetical) greater numbers,” is not a total falsehood.
Sebastian,
Argh.
I agree completely. The news from Israel angers and depresses me. The rise of the ultra-orthodox right is, IMO, a disaster.
hsh,
Something knocking around in my so-called mind is whether the is any factual dispute between Donald and Bernard with regard to the size force the Israelis were directly facing or the size force they could potentially have faced. I’m guessing not, and it’s mostly about how to characterize the situation.
I think this is accurate.
jack lecou,
The entire hypothetical military force or population of the Arab nations isn’t relevant, because it was never actually on the table. The intra-Arab rivalries and distrust, the ulterior land-grab motives, economic limitations, competing military commitments, etc. all amounted to *real* constraints under which the war was fought.
Bear in mind that the Israelis did not necessarily know that the various issues mentioned would limit the size and effectiveness of the Arab forces, and from a military POV it is surely unwise to assume that that would happen. From their POV, they were under a much stronger threat, complete with eliminationist rhetoric.
Perhaps it would have been more accurate for the Israelis to say that the Arabs were such total bunglers – schlemiels we might say – that we beat them despite our vastly fewer (population) numbers. Or not. Regardless, the military victory of a newly established country over those who wished to destroy it seems significant to me, whatever the details.
“They wanted to kill us all, but we fought them off despite their (hypothetical) greater numbers,” is not a total falsehood.
Sebastian,
Argh.
I agree completely. The news from Israel angers and depresses me. The rise of the ultra-orthodox right is, IMO, a disaster.
The rise of the ultra-orthodox right is, IMO, a disaster.
For pretty much any country, and regardless of the religion involved, the rise of religious fundamentalists to be a significant political factor is, IMHO, a recipe for disaster. Israel is currently one such, but not the only one.
The rise of the ultra-orthodox right is, IMO, a disaster.
For pretty much any country, and regardless of the religion involved, the rise of religious fundamentalists to be a significant political factor is, IMHO, a recipe for disaster. Israel is currently one such, but not the only one.
Jordan wasn’t trying to destroy Israel. They just weren’t. They were after the West Bank, which was assigned to what was supposed to be the Palestinian state
Others above correctly deduced my point regarding why the myths of 1948 are important to expose.. I am sort of tired repeating it. There was a standard narrative about what happened which was obviously designed to be a morality play depicting a totally innocent Israel fighting against overwhelming odds. The reality was different. It is normal for countries and partisans to promulgate heroic myths and to cover up sordid details. It happened here and I personally know people who repeat the myths as though they were true.
“That’s all that irritates you? Glorifying the murder of a wheelchair bound old man is no big deal?”
On “The Death of Klinghoffer”, I never saw it or read the script. I did read the script for “ Munich” and I followed the controversies about both, which seemed identical. I doubt the play glorified the murder of Klinghoffer. What I suspect it did was portray the terrorists as complex people motivated by oppression or maybe personal loss or whatever, but I was too disgusted to hunt down the script. I have already said what I think about terrorism and the “ by any means necessary” crap that some on the far left espouse, but I guess you have forgotten that already.
If the play actually glorified murdering an old man in a wheelchair, then yes, that would be disgraceful. But I doubt it did that. I might be wrong. What irritated me, as you ought to know since I explained it already, is that here you have liberal or leftist playwrights apparently trying to convey the complexities of the conflict and what do they do? They take two famous despicable murders ( or mass murder in the case of Munich) committed by Palestinian terrorists and frame the issue around that. They humanize the Palestinians by showing them at their very worst. And predictably, all the discussion around the two works of art revolves around whether they glorified terrorism or were too sympathetic to terrorism or whether we should be equating good people with evil people. And in Munich, the Israeli assassins are humanized, full of doubts. In real,life they murdered a waiter by mistake and according to Asad AbuKhalil who runs the Angry Arab website, one of their victims had nothing to do with terrorist actions, but was just a writer or propagandist for the Palestinian side. One could do a movie which was the mirror image, showing Palestinians being murdered by Israelis or one could do a movie where atrocities on both sides are depicted and we could see how the perpetrators came to that point and how the family members of the victims were effected. But no, they chose Munich and Klinghoffer’s murder to show the Palestinian side. I am guessing that many Palestinians would rather not be humanized any further by Western literary types.
Jordan wasn’t trying to destroy Israel. They just weren’t. They were after the West Bank, which was assigned to what was supposed to be the Palestinian state
Others above correctly deduced my point regarding why the myths of 1948 are important to expose.. I am sort of tired repeating it. There was a standard narrative about what happened which was obviously designed to be a morality play depicting a totally innocent Israel fighting against overwhelming odds. The reality was different. It is normal for countries and partisans to promulgate heroic myths and to cover up sordid details. It happened here and I personally know people who repeat the myths as though they were true.
“That’s all that irritates you? Glorifying the murder of a wheelchair bound old man is no big deal?”
On “The Death of Klinghoffer”, I never saw it or read the script. I did read the script for “ Munich” and I followed the controversies about both, which seemed identical. I doubt the play glorified the murder of Klinghoffer. What I suspect it did was portray the terrorists as complex people motivated by oppression or maybe personal loss or whatever, but I was too disgusted to hunt down the script. I have already said what I think about terrorism and the “ by any means necessary” crap that some on the far left espouse, but I guess you have forgotten that already.
If the play actually glorified murdering an old man in a wheelchair, then yes, that would be disgraceful. But I doubt it did that. I might be wrong. What irritated me, as you ought to know since I explained it already, is that here you have liberal or leftist playwrights apparently trying to convey the complexities of the conflict and what do they do? They take two famous despicable murders ( or mass murder in the case of Munich) committed by Palestinian terrorists and frame the issue around that. They humanize the Palestinians by showing them at their very worst. And predictably, all the discussion around the two works of art revolves around whether they glorified terrorism or were too sympathetic to terrorism or whether we should be equating good people with evil people. And in Munich, the Israeli assassins are humanized, full of doubts. In real,life they murdered a waiter by mistake and according to Asad AbuKhalil who runs the Angry Arab website, one of their victims had nothing to do with terrorist actions, but was just a writer or propagandist for the Palestinian side. One could do a movie which was the mirror image, showing Palestinians being murdered by Israelis or one could do a movie where atrocities on both sides are depicted and we could see how the perpetrators came to that point and how the family members of the victims were effected. But no, they chose Munich and Klinghoffer’s murder to show the Palestinian side. I am guessing that many Palestinians would rather not be humanized any further by Western literary types.
“Jordan wasn’t trying to destroy Israel. They just weren’t. They were after the West Bank, which was assigned to what was supposed to be the Palestinian state”
That statement seems overly narrow. You can’t really say “Jordan wasn’t trying to destroy Israel” and then leave open what their simultaneous allies Egypt, Syria and Iraq were doing. The alliance asserted that they had the right to Arab rule throughout the entire area.
“Jordan wasn’t trying to destroy Israel. They just weren’t. They were after the West Bank, which was assigned to what was supposed to be the Palestinian state”
That statement seems overly narrow. You can’t really say “Jordan wasn’t trying to destroy Israel” and then leave open what their simultaneous allies Egypt, Syria and Iraq were doing. The alliance asserted that they had the right to Arab rule throughout the entire area.
I don’t think you’re really understanding the context.
Well, I’ve never lived in a post war landscape and I don’t think you have either. GIven that one of the key flashpoints of the war was Kalingrad (Königsberg) and the Danzig corridor, there was a lot more going on there than ‘forcing families from their homes’.
Furthermore, the Nazi philosophy of Lebensraum, which specifically postulated finding ‘space’ for the expanding German populace creates a situation where you don’t simply say, ok, stop it, but making it clear that earlier steps in establishing this be nullified and rejected.
Again, I don’t reject your parallel, but, like all historical parallels, you need to make sure you acknowledge all of the surrounding circumstances.
I don’t think you’re really understanding the context.
Well, I’ve never lived in a post war landscape and I don’t think you have either. GIven that one of the key flashpoints of the war was Kalingrad (Königsberg) and the Danzig corridor, there was a lot more going on there than ‘forcing families from their homes’.
Furthermore, the Nazi philosophy of Lebensraum, which specifically postulated finding ‘space’ for the expanding German populace creates a situation where you don’t simply say, ok, stop it, but making it clear that earlier steps in establishing this be nullified and rejected.
Again, I don’t reject your parallel, but, like all historical parallels, you need to make sure you acknowledge all of the surrounding circumstances.
Sorry, and I should have included the annexation of the Sudetenland/Munich agreement in the above.
Sorry, and I should have included the annexation of the Sudetenland/Munich agreement in the above.
Avi Shlaim, “The Iron Wall”, page 38.—
“Throughout the war King Abdullah continued to pursue limited objectives and made no attempt to encroach on Jewish state territory. Ben Gurion, for his part, showed no similar restraint and in the first two rounds of fighting at least, acted according to the old adage a la guerre comme a la guerre. During the long second truce, however, he had time to reflect on the advantages of adhering to the original agreement to divide western Oalestine between Israel and Transjordan, an agreement that Abdullah showed every signof wanting to restore.
Page 39 has more, but I will just type this—
Throughout the war between Israel and Egypt, the Arab Legion remained neutral.
He spends a couple of paragraphs pointing out that the special arrangement Abdullah had made with Golda Meir was something he stuck to and was crucial in allowing Israel to have such a complete victory, but it has been largely ignored in standard Zionist historiography because it doesn’t fit neatly with the version where little Israel fights off the entire Arab world. The Arab Legion was the toughest of the Arab armies.
I am looking for my 2002 copy of a book by Morris and others on the 48 war. Lost on some bookshelf somewhere. Don’t have his last book—I was so disgusted by his interview with Shavit it sort of spoiled him for me, though he is still supposed to be a good historian.
Avi Shlaim, “The Iron Wall”, page 38.—
“Throughout the war King Abdullah continued to pursue limited objectives and made no attempt to encroach on Jewish state territory. Ben Gurion, for his part, showed no similar restraint and in the first two rounds of fighting at least, acted according to the old adage a la guerre comme a la guerre. During the long second truce, however, he had time to reflect on the advantages of adhering to the original agreement to divide western Oalestine between Israel and Transjordan, an agreement that Abdullah showed every signof wanting to restore.
Page 39 has more, but I will just type this—
Throughout the war between Israel and Egypt, the Arab Legion remained neutral.
He spends a couple of paragraphs pointing out that the special arrangement Abdullah had made with Golda Meir was something he stuck to and was crucial in allowing Israel to have such a complete victory, but it has been largely ignored in standard Zionist historiography because it doesn’t fit neatly with the version where little Israel fights off the entire Arab world. The Arab Legion was the toughest of the Arab armies.
I am looking for my 2002 copy of a book by Morris and others on the 48 war. Lost on some bookshelf somewhere. Don’t have his last book—I was so disgusted by his interview with Shavit it sort of spoiled him for me, though he is still supposed to be a good historian.
BTW, I came back wanting to take up byomtov’s offer to drop the discussion of the Arab armies. But it is the internet. Arguments continue until everyone is sick of them.
On the current situation, I think David Shulman’s pieces in the New York Review of Books are very good. He is the sort of person that makes one feel unreasonably optimistic just because it shows there are some decent people working for a just solution. Not enough, of course.
BTW, I came back wanting to take up byomtov’s offer to drop the discussion of the Arab armies. But it is the internet. Arguments continue until everyone is sick of them.
On the current situation, I think David Shulman’s pieces in the New York Review of Books are very good. He is the sort of person that makes one feel unreasonably optimistic just because it shows there are some decent people working for a just solution. Not enough, of course.
Shulman’s most recent piece—
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/06/28/jews-human-rights-last-tzaddiks/
I admire people like him. He is actually doing something in a difficult situation and he seems so darn balanced.
Shulman’s most recent piece—
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/06/28/jews-human-rights-last-tzaddiks/
I admire people like him. He is actually doing something in a difficult situation and he seems so darn balanced.
The superiority of the Jordanian army continued thru the 1967 war. (And, for all I know, may continue to this day.) As the war ended, the Israeli forces were 1 day from Damascus, 2 days from Cairo, but 3 days from Amman — much closer physically to Amman, but a much tougher road.
The superiority of the Jordanian army continued thru the 1967 war. (And, for all I know, may continue to this day.) As the war ended, the Israeli forces were 1 day from Damascus, 2 days from Cairo, but 3 days from Amman — much closer physically to Amman, but a much tougher road.
That statement seems overly narrow. You can’t really say “Jordan wasn’t trying to destroy Israel” and then leave open what their simultaneous allies Egypt, Syria and Iraq were doing.
The point of ongoing historical scholarship is the attempt to ascertain “what really happened”, and what were (those others) “really doing” as opposed to “really spouting ridiculous propaganda”.
If Jordan was, in fact, “not really trying to destroy Israel” then this is an important point. Why is it so hard to give it some degree of historical weight?
Post-war relocations: The Germans were relocated to Germany, the Czechs were relocated Czechoslovakia, the Poles…etc. Do you not see a pattern here?
The assumption is this: The Palestinians should have been relocated to some mythical Arab nation state (and the emerging Arab states should have gratefully absorbed them as “arabs”)…not PALESTINE….because there was no ARAB PALESTINE. This was a major conceit of the western powers.
That statement seems overly narrow. You can’t really say “Jordan wasn’t trying to destroy Israel” and then leave open what their simultaneous allies Egypt, Syria and Iraq were doing.
The point of ongoing historical scholarship is the attempt to ascertain “what really happened”, and what were (those others) “really doing” as opposed to “really spouting ridiculous propaganda”.
If Jordan was, in fact, “not really trying to destroy Israel” then this is an important point. Why is it so hard to give it some degree of historical weight?
Post-war relocations: The Germans were relocated to Germany, the Czechs were relocated Czechoslovakia, the Poles…etc. Do you not see a pattern here?
The assumption is this: The Palestinians should have been relocated to some mythical Arab nation state (and the emerging Arab states should have gratefully absorbed them as “arabs”)…not PALESTINE….because there was no ARAB PALESTINE. This was a major conceit of the western powers.
Basically, the Israelis were more than pleased to have the great powers draw some hitherto nonexistent lines on a map and call the area so enclosed “Israel”, and the Palestinians were not.
Basically, the Israelis were more than pleased to have the great powers draw some hitherto nonexistent lines on a map and call the area so enclosed “Israel”, and the Palestinians were not.
If the play actually glorified murdering an old man in a wheelchair, then yes, that would be disgraceful. But I doubt it did that. I might be wrong.
Is it only refraining from glorification that is required?
in Munich, the Israeli assassins are humanized, full of doubts. In real,life they murdered a waiter by mistake and according to Asad AbuKhalil who runs the Angry Arab website, one of their victims had nothing to do with terrorist actions, but was just a writer or propagandist for the Palestinian side.
What exactly do you criticize in the Israeli response to the Munich massacres? Is it the assassination of the perpetrators or the alleged mistakes? If the former, what would you propose as an alternative, an extradition request?
If the play actually glorified murdering an old man in a wheelchair, then yes, that would be disgraceful. But I doubt it did that. I might be wrong.
Is it only refraining from glorification that is required?
in Munich, the Israeli assassins are humanized, full of doubts. In real,life they murdered a waiter by mistake and according to Asad AbuKhalil who runs the Angry Arab website, one of their victims had nothing to do with terrorist actions, but was just a writer or propagandist for the Palestinian side.
What exactly do you criticize in the Israeli response to the Munich massacres? Is it the assassination of the perpetrators or the alleged mistakes? If the former, what would you propose as an alternative, an extradition request?
“Is it only refraining from glorification that is required?”
I am not sure how well it would work as a play, but a play on this subject should make it clear that the terrorism of both sides is abhorrent. You already know this.
“What exactly do you criticize in the Israeli response to the Munich massacres? Is it the assassination of the perpetrators or the alleged mistakes? If the former, what would you propose as an alternative, an extradition request?”
The innocent waiter who was killed was in Norway. Alleged mistakes? It took me literally five seconds of googling to find the Wikipedia article on that. So yeah, they should have tried extraditing him. Since they didn’t, the Israelis responsible are guilty of murder and should have been extradited. The Wikipedia article says the Norwegians caught some and they were convicted, but released by 1975. Heartwarming. Asad AbuKhalil also says some of the others killed weren’t terrorists either, just activists and writers. He also says Israel was busy bombing and killing and assassinating Palestinians both before and after Munich, many of them innocent. I can’t prove it, but I bet he is largely correct. I will provide a link to a later period when Israel was engaged in terrorism.
So what recourse should Palestinians have when Israeli terrorists and war criminals kill them? Or does this whole justice thing only go one way?
“Is it only refraining from glorification that is required?”
I am not sure how well it would work as a play, but a play on this subject should make it clear that the terrorism of both sides is abhorrent. You already know this.
“What exactly do you criticize in the Israeli response to the Munich massacres? Is it the assassination of the perpetrators or the alleged mistakes? If the former, what would you propose as an alternative, an extradition request?”
The innocent waiter who was killed was in Norway. Alleged mistakes? It took me literally five seconds of googling to find the Wikipedia article on that. So yeah, they should have tried extraditing him. Since they didn’t, the Israelis responsible are guilty of murder and should have been extradited. The Wikipedia article says the Norwegians caught some and they were convicted, but released by 1975. Heartwarming. Asad AbuKhalil also says some of the others killed weren’t terrorists either, just activists and writers. He also says Israel was busy bombing and killing and assassinating Palestinians both before and after Munich, many of them innocent. I can’t prove it, but I bet he is largely correct. I will provide a link to a later period when Israel was engaged in terrorism.
So what recourse should Palestinians have when Israeli terrorists and war criminals kill them? Or does this whole justice thing only go one way?
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/10/02/A-165-pound-bomb-ripped-through-an-empty-schoolhouse-in/7481370843200/
Google “ Front for the liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners” and you will find various articles from the early 80’s about this shadowy group that was planting bombs that killed in total hundreds of people. The PLO said it was Israel. They were right.
Ronan Bergman ( sp?) just wrote a book which revealed this was a group run by the Israelis. The NYT and other American media gave the book a stellar review, but framed it in such a way you wouldn’t realize the Israelis were killing hundreds of civilians. They focused on the cases where an Israeli with a conscience put a stop to particular operations. I plan on reading the book soon. The NYT Sunday Magazine carried an article by the author framing it that way — you know the drill, compassionate Israelis doing their best not to be sucked down into the moral pit with their enemies. But as Rémi Brulin pointed out, you just have to do some googling to see
they were deep in the pit.
Anyway, yeah, justice. Whaddaya gonna do, extradite them?
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/10/02/A-165-pound-bomb-ripped-through-an-empty-schoolhouse-in/7481370843200/
Google “ Front for the liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners” and you will find various articles from the early 80’s about this shadowy group that was planting bombs that killed in total hundreds of people. The PLO said it was Israel. They were right.
Ronan Bergman ( sp?) just wrote a book which revealed this was a group run by the Israelis. The NYT and other American media gave the book a stellar review, but framed it in such a way you wouldn’t realize the Israelis were killing hundreds of civilians. They focused on the cases where an Israeli with a conscience put a stop to particular operations. I plan on reading the book soon. The NYT Sunday Magazine carried an article by the author framing it that way — you know the drill, compassionate Israelis doing their best not to be sucked down into the moral pit with their enemies. But as Rémi Brulin pointed out, you just have to do some googling to see
they were deep in the pit.
Anyway, yeah, justice. Whaddaya gonna do, extradite them?
Another link from that era.
https://www.nytimes.com/1983/02/06/world/18-die-in-bombing-at-plo-s-center-in-western-beirut.html
Another link from that era.
https://www.nytimes.com/1983/02/06/world/18-die-in-bombing-at-plo-s-center-in-western-beirut.html
GftNC, you write “But if it does, it could also explain byomtov’s reflexive resistance to the very idea: the (not entirely mythical) image of plucky little Israel fighting for its life against overwhelming odds is one way decent and humane people salve their consciences about the palestinians.”
I guess this is the application I don’t understand. If it is downgraded to medium-strength Israel fights for its life against pretty bad but not shockingly impossible odds, does that change anything? It doesn’t for me, but heaven knows I’m not the most typical person in the world.
Sebastian, I’m sorry I didn’t get to this last night (my time), I am defying my own normal rhythms and having early nights at the moment. The moment may indeed have passed, but in case it hasn’t: my point was not to do with an objective or practical reality, it was to do with an emotional “reality”. I am extremely keen to stay in the fact-based, reality-based world, but one cannot ignore that emotions play an enormous part in all this, and that cleaving (even if emotionally rather than rationally) to the foundational myths surrounding the formation of the state of Israel enables people (usually but certainly not always jews, often who have had family members lost either in the holocaust or in subsequent wars or terrorist actions) to absolve the Israelis of some of their guilt for egregious actions at the time and since. As I tried to make clear above, I do not absolve myself from this tendency.
It’s absolutely clear from the outside that Donald it not an anti-semite taking any opportunity to revile the Israelis while glorifying and excusing the actions of the Palestinians, and that byomtov is not an “Israel right or wrong” apologist. In fact, as others have noted, their underlying views are probably extremely similar. But the emotions attaching to the whole subject make it easy for them to ignore what the other has said in the past which makes this plain.
GftNC, you write “But if it does, it could also explain byomtov’s reflexive resistance to the very idea: the (not entirely mythical) image of plucky little Israel fighting for its life against overwhelming odds is one way decent and humane people salve their consciences about the palestinians.”
I guess this is the application I don’t understand. If it is downgraded to medium-strength Israel fights for its life against pretty bad but not shockingly impossible odds, does that change anything? It doesn’t for me, but heaven knows I’m not the most typical person in the world.
Sebastian, I’m sorry I didn’t get to this last night (my time), I am defying my own normal rhythms and having early nights at the moment. The moment may indeed have passed, but in case it hasn’t: my point was not to do with an objective or practical reality, it was to do with an emotional “reality”. I am extremely keen to stay in the fact-based, reality-based world, but one cannot ignore that emotions play an enormous part in all this, and that cleaving (even if emotionally rather than rationally) to the foundational myths surrounding the formation of the state of Israel enables people (usually but certainly not always jews, often who have had family members lost either in the holocaust or in subsequent wars or terrorist actions) to absolve the Israelis of some of their guilt for egregious actions at the time and since. As I tried to make clear above, I do not absolve myself from this tendency.
It’s absolutely clear from the outside that Donald it not an anti-semite taking any opportunity to revile the Israelis while glorifying and excusing the actions of the Palestinians, and that byomtov is not an “Israel right or wrong” apologist. In fact, as others have noted, their underlying views are probably extremely similar. But the emotions attaching to the whole subject make it easy for them to ignore what the other has said in the past which makes this plain.
“yomtov is not an “Israel right or wrong” apologist. In fact, as others have noted, their underlying views are probably extremely similar.”
From the peanut gallery, I think this isn’t quite right.i think they agree on the facts. The motivations, before and because of those facts, are clearly evaluated differently.
Not peanut gallery, we talk in this country about not refighting the Northern conquest while constantly bickering about the remnant reminders of that war, and there is little remaining vestige of the economic punishments much less violence.
All to say nothing gets resolved in the IP question as long as any action is justified by the historical injuries.
The facts today: Arabs dont recognize Israel’s right to exist,Israel doesn’t recognize the right of Palestinians to a state, Palestinians believe that Israel is their territory. Without the US there would no longer be an Israel because the Arabs wouldn’t hesitate to destroy them, and kill most of them. Israel occasionally goes too far to look strong.
The thread that unravels all that is universal recognition of Israel by Arab states. Until they dont have to worry about their neighbors stated intention to destroy them they are who I support.
“yomtov is not an “Israel right or wrong” apologist. In fact, as others have noted, their underlying views are probably extremely similar.”
From the peanut gallery, I think this isn’t quite right.i think they agree on the facts. The motivations, before and because of those facts, are clearly evaluated differently.
Not peanut gallery, we talk in this country about not refighting the Northern conquest while constantly bickering about the remnant reminders of that war, and there is little remaining vestige of the economic punishments much less violence.
All to say nothing gets resolved in the IP question as long as any action is justified by the historical injuries.
The facts today: Arabs dont recognize Israel’s right to exist,Israel doesn’t recognize the right of Palestinians to a state, Palestinians believe that Israel is their territory. Without the US there would no longer be an Israel because the Arabs wouldn’t hesitate to destroy them, and kill most of them. Israel occasionally goes too far to look strong.
The thread that unravels all that is universal recognition of Israel by Arab states. Until they dont have to worry about their neighbors stated intention to destroy them they are who I support.
Northern conquest
???
Northern conquest
???
“northern conquest”
clearly, that refers to Tim Horton’s, extending Canadian dominion ever southward.
I, for one, welcome our new donut overlords.
“northern conquest”
clearly, that refers to Tim Horton’s, extending Canadian dominion ever southward.
I, for one, welcome our new donut overlords.
I come from the land of the ice and snow
From the midnight sun
Where the hot springs flow
(hammer of the gods)
I come from the land of the ice and snow
From the midnight sun
Where the hot springs flow
(hammer of the gods)
Northern conquest
My American history education must be seriously lacking. Because the only events I recall that resembled such a thing were various invasions of Mexico. Which I’m pretty certain wasn’t what Marty was talking about.
Northern conquest
My American history education must be seriously lacking. Because the only events I recall that resembled such a thing were various invasions of Mexico. Which I’m pretty certain wasn’t what Marty was talking about.
One could equally say something like:
Not that this is what I what I am saying, because I don’t think it’s *that* much more fair, neutral or useful way for an outsider to pick a side than yours. But that is the point.
(I would note that the latter version does at least have the advantage of narrowing the scope of agreement and actionability to the actual parties involved, rather than holding the fate of Palestinian civilians hostage to the unaccountable domestic concerns of politicians in Cairo, Amman or Damascus.)
—-
* This “stated” of yours also seems pretty weaselly to me. For one, it is extremely amenable to goal post moving.
I mean, if the governments of the nations you’re referring to all released statements tomorrow saying “we renounce our intentions to destroy Israel, honest” would that really do the job? It seems pretty empty.
Why wouldn’t you then want to insist on a demonstrable lack of interest? Or a lack of ability? (But then, that would be the other thing: because aren’t both of those already de-facto the case?)
On the other hand, if by “stated intentions” you mean a renunciation of the apparent wishes of large fractions of the actual populace of those countries (which is, along with some combination of mutual diplomatic posturing and a sense of historical injustice, the reason that opposition to an Israeli state is a stated position of those states in the first place), how do you expect those minds to change without the impetus of some outside event?
This whole thing reminds me of the time I made the mistake of keeping some sewing pins in one of those little magnetic paperclip jars. I stuck my finger in a little too deeply once to retrieve a pin, and found I really didn’t want to pull it out anymore. Eventual extrication was…difficult.
One of the first things I discovered was that demanding that the pins unilaterally cease being pointy didn’t seem to alter the situation much. The only way it would have been a helpful thing to insist on was if I really didn’t want the situation to actually change…
One could equally say something like:
Not that this is what I what I am saying, because I don’t think it’s *that* much more fair, neutral or useful way for an outsider to pick a side than yours. But that is the point.
(I would note that the latter version does at least have the advantage of narrowing the scope of agreement and actionability to the actual parties involved, rather than holding the fate of Palestinian civilians hostage to the unaccountable domestic concerns of politicians in Cairo, Amman or Damascus.)
—-
* This “stated” of yours also seems pretty weaselly to me. For one, it is extremely amenable to goal post moving.
I mean, if the governments of the nations you’re referring to all released statements tomorrow saying “we renounce our intentions to destroy Israel, honest” would that really do the job? It seems pretty empty.
Why wouldn’t you then want to insist on a demonstrable lack of interest? Or a lack of ability? (But then, that would be the other thing: because aren’t both of those already de-facto the case?)
On the other hand, if by “stated intentions” you mean a renunciation of the apparent wishes of large fractions of the actual populace of those countries (which is, along with some combination of mutual diplomatic posturing and a sense of historical injustice, the reason that opposition to an Israeli state is a stated position of those states in the first place), how do you expect those minds to change without the impetus of some outside event?
This whole thing reminds me of the time I made the mistake of keeping some sewing pins in one of those little magnetic paperclip jars. I stuck my finger in a little too deeply once to retrieve a pin, and found I really didn’t want to pull it out anymore. Eventual extrication was…difficult.
One of the first things I discovered was that demanding that the pins unilaterally cease being pointy didn’t seem to alter the situation much. The only way it would have been a helpful thing to insist on was if I really didn’t want the situation to actually change…
i have almost nothing to contribute to the IP issue other than to say that it seems to me that both sides have arguments that have merit.
all of that said, i want to say that, in 15+ years of hanging out on political blogs, this is the most respectful and even-handed discussion of the IP issue that i’ve seen.
well done.
i have almost nothing to contribute to the IP issue other than to say that it seems to me that both sides have arguments that have merit.
all of that said, i want to say that, in 15+ years of hanging out on political blogs, this is the most respectful and even-handed discussion of the IP issue that i’ve seen.
well done.
Not peanut gallery, we talk in this country about not refighting the Northern conquest while constantly bickering about the remnant reminders of that war…
Calling it the Northern conquest being a case in point.
Plus, there’s one of those Weasely We instances. Such a “we” certainly doesn’t include me; I never talk about “the Northern conquest,” because as far as I know there wasn’t one (except Tim Horton’s, of course, but even Tim is on the retreat, with quite a few franchises closing in Maine in the last few years).
Not peanut gallery, we talk in this country about not refighting the Northern conquest while constantly bickering about the remnant reminders of that war…
Calling it the Northern conquest being a case in point.
Plus, there’s one of those Weasely We instances. Such a “we” certainly doesn’t include me; I never talk about “the Northern conquest,” because as far as I know there wasn’t one (except Tim Horton’s, of course, but even Tim is on the retreat, with quite a few franchises closing in Maine in the last few years).
trolls gotta troll. fish don’t have to bite.
trolls gotta troll. fish don’t have to bite.
Donald,
I think your 11:47 and 12:04 are “whataboutery.”
As to other comments, there is no doubt that I have strong emotional ties to Israel, and that surely influences my thinking. Nonetheless, I try to make as objective a case as I can on various issues, because I do feel some of the criticism is unfair.
Whatever the strength of the armies in 1948, it is clear that there were threats of annihilation from Arab countries at the time, and threats against Jewish communities in those countries as well as the declarations of intentions to sweep the Jews into sea. The Nazi Amin al-Husseini was a prominent leader of Palestinian Arabs.
If you want to explore reasons for atrocities – without justifying them – you might consider those facts.
I also invite you to comment on what might have happened in a different world, where the British simply permitted Jewish immigration into Palestine, and had a reasonable, announced, plan to establish a single democratic state there.
Finally, let me say this, going back to my motivations. I find European criticism of Israel galling. The Europeans made this mess, in any number of ways. It was European anti-semitism that led to the conclusion that Jews needed a homeland, and it was European and American reluctance to take in Jewish refugees both before and after WWII – a sort of Western nimbyism – that built the pressure to create Israel. It was two-faced British policy early in the 20th century that helped get things started.
So I’m not keen on hearing about how terrible Zionism is, especially from Europeans. Tell me what should have been done.
Donald,
I think your 11:47 and 12:04 are “whataboutery.”
As to other comments, there is no doubt that I have strong emotional ties to Israel, and that surely influences my thinking. Nonetheless, I try to make as objective a case as I can on various issues, because I do feel some of the criticism is unfair.
Whatever the strength of the armies in 1948, it is clear that there were threats of annihilation from Arab countries at the time, and threats against Jewish communities in those countries as well as the declarations of intentions to sweep the Jews into sea. The Nazi Amin al-Husseini was a prominent leader of Palestinian Arabs.
If you want to explore reasons for atrocities – without justifying them – you might consider those facts.
I also invite you to comment on what might have happened in a different world, where the British simply permitted Jewish immigration into Palestine, and had a reasonable, announced, plan to establish a single democratic state there.
Finally, let me say this, going back to my motivations. I find European criticism of Israel galling. The Europeans made this mess, in any number of ways. It was European anti-semitism that led to the conclusion that Jews needed a homeland, and it was European and American reluctance to take in Jewish refugees both before and after WWII – a sort of Western nimbyism – that built the pressure to create Israel. It was two-faced British policy early in the 20th century that helped get things started.
So I’m not keen on hearing about how terrible Zionism is, especially from Europeans. Tell me what should have been done.
I need to add that I have no problem with criticism of current Israeli policies wrt settlements and so on, or to the influence of the ultra-orthodox on Israeli government in general.
It is the criticism of Zionism as a movement that galls me.
I need to add that I have no problem with criticism of current Israeli policies wrt settlements and so on, or to the influence of the ultra-orthodox on Israeli government in general.
It is the criticism of Zionism as a movement that galls me.
russell — good reminder. Thanks. 🙂
russell — good reminder. Thanks. 🙂
Tell me what should have been done.
Rome should not have fallen.
Tell me what should have been done.
Rome should not have fallen.
C’mon, it was entirely tongue in cheek reference, labeled as from the peanut gallery.
To ignore the specific statements through the years refusing to recognize Israe and the intent to destroy is problematic for me.
A stated enemy in your midst with strong external support leaves no options except constant defense.
C’mon, it was entirely tongue in cheek reference, labeled as from the peanut gallery.
To ignore the specific statements through the years refusing to recognize Israe and the intent to destroy is problematic for me.
A stated enemy in your midst with strong external support leaves no options except constant defense.
Rome should not have fallen.
Fair enough, bobby, but in the 20th century that was really a sunk cost.
Rome should not have fallen.
Fair enough, bobby, but in the 20th century that was really a sunk cost.
From the Athenian POV, the Persians at Marathon represented a far superior, theretofore invincible force.
So when those ~10K Athenians nevertheless decisively defeated the numerically far more impressive looking Persian infantry… Well, that was, rightly, viewed by the Athenians as a great victory.
And with the benefit of hindsight, we can also observe that, regardless of the apprehensions the Greeks no doubt felt in the moment, the (theretofore untested) effectiveness of Greek hoplite tactics against Persian infantry formations made that Athenian victory an unsurprising likelihood, rather than an underdog longshot. Darius probably should have done some things differently, but of course he didn’t know this either.
All of these things are true simultaneously.
We aren’t actually Israelis in 1948, or Athenians in 490 BC, but historians from the future. Considering individual, imperfect, POVs is part of the process, and can certainly help shed light on *why* certain actions were taken, but it’s not helpful to do so with only one party. We must go around the room and try to see where everyone was coming from and what their objectives and perceptions actually were. And then we consider the actual facts and constraints as best we can determine them, with the benefit of historical perspective and a certain dissipation of the fog of war.
I do not claim that Israelis never had cause to *feel* grave concern, nor that they had no reason to congratulate themselves afterward on what was certainly a hard-fought victory. And I understand, as best as such things can be understood, how such things can grow into a convenient national myth, without anyone (necessarily) deliberately trying to create falsehood.
But if we are examining the historicity of things, in retrospect, then “the Israeli POV at the time” is not really our primary concern. At least not our only one.
And saying, from our privileged perspective, that it isn’t that surprising that the Israelis won, because it turned out that theirs was the superior force, and perhaps operated under few constraints, shouldn’t be a particularly controversial statement. Nor should we shy away from attempting to discern, e.g., King Abdullah’s actual intentions, rather than simply assuming it was destruction of the Israel, or whatever is consistent with the national myth we are rebutting.
From the Athenian POV, the Persians at Marathon represented a far superior, theretofore invincible force.
So when those ~10K Athenians nevertheless decisively defeated the numerically far more impressive looking Persian infantry… Well, that was, rightly, viewed by the Athenians as a great victory.
And with the benefit of hindsight, we can also observe that, regardless of the apprehensions the Greeks no doubt felt in the moment, the (theretofore untested) effectiveness of Greek hoplite tactics against Persian infantry formations made that Athenian victory an unsurprising likelihood, rather than an underdog longshot. Darius probably should have done some things differently, but of course he didn’t know this either.
All of these things are true simultaneously.
We aren’t actually Israelis in 1948, or Athenians in 490 BC, but historians from the future. Considering individual, imperfect, POVs is part of the process, and can certainly help shed light on *why* certain actions were taken, but it’s not helpful to do so with only one party. We must go around the room and try to see where everyone was coming from and what their objectives and perceptions actually were. And then we consider the actual facts and constraints as best we can determine them, with the benefit of historical perspective and a certain dissipation of the fog of war.
I do not claim that Israelis never had cause to *feel* grave concern, nor that they had no reason to congratulate themselves afterward on what was certainly a hard-fought victory. And I understand, as best as such things can be understood, how such things can grow into a convenient national myth, without anyone (necessarily) deliberately trying to create falsehood.
But if we are examining the historicity of things, in retrospect, then “the Israeli POV at the time” is not really our primary concern. At least not our only one.
And saying, from our privileged perspective, that it isn’t that surprising that the Israelis won, because it turned out that theirs was the superior force, and perhaps operated under few constraints, shouldn’t be a particularly controversial statement. Nor should we shy away from attempting to discern, e.g., King Abdullah’s actual intentions, rather than simply assuming it was destruction of the Israel, or whatever is consistent with the national myth we are rebutting.
I see no evidence that anyone is ignoring such things. Rather, one might regard them as materially lower on the list of importance relative to the thousands of other considerations involved. E.g., ongoing, actual real life, human rights violations. Or de facto military capability to carry through on such postures.
Conversely, however, it seems to me that to deem those statements the most important factor of interest it is necessary to ignore or seriously underplay rather a large number of other factors.
Which strikes me as…problematic.
I see no evidence that anyone is ignoring such things. Rather, one might regard them as materially lower on the list of importance relative to the thousands of other considerations involved. E.g., ongoing, actual real life, human rights violations. Or de facto military capability to carry through on such postures.
Conversely, however, it seems to me that to deem those statements the most important factor of interest it is necessary to ignore or seriously underplay rather a large number of other factors.
Which strikes me as…problematic.
Byomtov—Of course it is whataboutery. I have a long essay in me about the overuse of that word as what is supposed to be a winning argument. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t. In this case, it isn’t. The entire I-P discussion in all times and places is 90 percent people pointing out atrocities they think the other side is ignoring. You asked what the Israelis should have done in response to Munich, sarcastically referring to extradition as though it was silly and referred to alleged mistakes. Well, in order—
1. The killing of the waiter was a mistake admitted by all. Others are “ alleged”. Asad AbuKhalil says they assassinated a lot of the wrong people and as of 2005 he claims, somewhat mysteriously, that at least two are still alive. I think he said Abbas might have been involved, but don’t think he meant them as one of the two.
2. The fact that an innocent man who had zero to do with it— he wasn’t even Palestinian—was murdered in freaking Norway suggests the possibility that extradition as opposed to roving murder squads might have been the way to go in that case. And the Israelis either escaped or received prison terms but were out by 1975. So your sarcasm was misplaced and claims of “ whataboutery” make no sense on that point. You asked a question and I answered it.
3. Here is the whataboutery. We live in a world where people simply take for granted the right of Israelis to obtain a very rough sort of justice against people who murder their citizens. But it doesn’t work in reverse. The idea that people killed by the Israelis or the US or its Saudi ally have a right to justice in any form, let alone the right to conduct assassinations against those responsible, is so far out of the mainstream you can’t even imagine someone suggesting it in, say, the NYT.
On your counterfactual—Judah Magnes and a handful of others favored a democratic state for all with Zionism not interpreted as favoring a Jewish state. They were rejected by both sides. The Palestinian leaders saw it as a Trojan horse. I think they were wrong morally and pragmatically. That was their best shot at keeping their country and not being expelled. Whether things could have been different in a world without the Balfour Declaration, the Western imperialist attitudes, and without Zionists obviously trying to establish a Jewish state against the wishes of the people already there is something I don’t know. I am guessing some would have opposed it because there are always people opposed to the Other and because antisemitism would kick in. But it would have been much less vehement.
Byomtov—Of course it is whataboutery. I have a long essay in me about the overuse of that word as what is supposed to be a winning argument. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t. In this case, it isn’t. The entire I-P discussion in all times and places is 90 percent people pointing out atrocities they think the other side is ignoring. You asked what the Israelis should have done in response to Munich, sarcastically referring to extradition as though it was silly and referred to alleged mistakes. Well, in order—
1. The killing of the waiter was a mistake admitted by all. Others are “ alleged”. Asad AbuKhalil says they assassinated a lot of the wrong people and as of 2005 he claims, somewhat mysteriously, that at least two are still alive. I think he said Abbas might have been involved, but don’t think he meant them as one of the two.
2. The fact that an innocent man who had zero to do with it— he wasn’t even Palestinian—was murdered in freaking Norway suggests the possibility that extradition as opposed to roving murder squads might have been the way to go in that case. And the Israelis either escaped or received prison terms but were out by 1975. So your sarcasm was misplaced and claims of “ whataboutery” make no sense on that point. You asked a question and I answered it.
3. Here is the whataboutery. We live in a world where people simply take for granted the right of Israelis to obtain a very rough sort of justice against people who murder their citizens. But it doesn’t work in reverse. The idea that people killed by the Israelis or the US or its Saudi ally have a right to justice in any form, let alone the right to conduct assassinations against those responsible, is so far out of the mainstream you can’t even imagine someone suggesting it in, say, the NYT.
On your counterfactual—Judah Magnes and a handful of others favored a democratic state for all with Zionism not interpreted as favoring a Jewish state. They were rejected by both sides. The Palestinian leaders saw it as a Trojan horse. I think they were wrong morally and pragmatically. That was their best shot at keeping their country and not being expelled. Whether things could have been different in a world without the Balfour Declaration, the Western imperialist attitudes, and without Zionists obviously trying to establish a Jewish state against the wishes of the people already there is something I don’t know. I am guessing some would have opposed it because there are always people opposed to the Other and because antisemitism would kick in. But it would have been much less vehement.
“But it would have been much less vehement.”
I want to rephrase that. The haters would have still hated, but there wouldn’t have been as many.
“But it would have been much less vehement.”
I want to rephrase that. The haters would have still hated, but there wouldn’t have been as many.
Donald basically beat me to the punch, but I was going to point out that what byomtov is calling “whataboutery” is basically the golden rule, which can be restated as something like “whatabout if I do that back to you, how would you like it?”
And the golden rule seems like a fair thing to bring up when the discussion of unrestrained extrajudicial assassinations, on foreign soil no less, comes up.
Donald basically beat me to the punch, but I was going to point out that what byomtov is calling “whataboutery” is basically the golden rule, which can be restated as something like “whatabout if I do that back to you, how would you like it?”
And the golden rule seems like a fair thing to bring up when the discussion of unrestrained extrajudicial assassinations, on foreign soil no less, comes up.
I keep referring to this piece. Here is the link. It is very angry and of course I don’t know who was innocent or not. But you don’t get to read much unfiltered outrage on the other side.
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2005/12/spielberg-on-munich-humanization-of.html
I keep referring to this piece. Here is the link. It is very angry and of course I don’t know who was innocent or not. But you don’t get to read much unfiltered outrage on the other side.
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2005/12/spielberg-on-munich-humanization-of.html
Jack, to count any of those other things as more important you have move Israels real fear of being destroyed to some lower importance which I believe is not reasonable.
They are a country working under imminent threat of attack, when not being attacked, full time.
Jack, to count any of those other things as more important you have move Israels real fear of being destroyed to some lower importance which I believe is not reasonable.
They are a country working under imminent threat of attack, when not being attacked, full time.
As opposed to Palestinians, of course. Who have no justifiable cause to fear for their safety or homes. Amiright?
Are you a parody account?
As opposed to Palestinians, of course. Who have no justifiable cause to fear for their safety or homes. Amiright?
Are you a parody account?
Incidentally, the link I just posted is “ whataboutery”, but in a vengeful kind of way. I get the impression that he only grudgingly admits that Munich was wrong. He is infuriated that it got attention and Israeli atrocities do not. It isn’t a balanced piece at all.
Which, btw, is why I think people should be supporting BDS. Peaceful protest, not glorification of “freedom fighters”. The record of freedom fighters even when they win is so bad only someone in love with the idea of it would keep pushing it. I see this in the mainstream too— it was insane to think that we could pick out “ moderate Syrian rebels” when they fought side by side with al Qaeda in Syria and when many of the weapons we supplied quickly ended up in the hands of ISIS. That’s a different rant, but anyway, people who conduct terrorist attacks and win usually end up not being respectful of human rights after they win.
Incidentally, the link I just posted is “ whataboutery”, but in a vengeful kind of way. I get the impression that he only grudgingly admits that Munich was wrong. He is infuriated that it got attention and Israeli atrocities do not. It isn’t a balanced piece at all.
Which, btw, is why I think people should be supporting BDS. Peaceful protest, not glorification of “freedom fighters”. The record of freedom fighters even when they win is so bad only someone in love with the idea of it would keep pushing it. I see this in the mainstream too— it was insane to think that we could pick out “ moderate Syrian rebels” when they fought side by side with al Qaeda in Syria and when many of the weapons we supplied quickly ended up in the hands of ISIS. That’s a different rant, but anyway, people who conduct terrorist attacks and win usually end up not being respectful of human rights after they win.
It was two-faced British policy early in the 20th century that helped get things started.
My mother always said that my grandfather, who was by all accounts a fascinating and brilliant man who was very active in South African politics, fought in the Boer War, and was also probably a Zionist (my mother certainly was, and they were very close) but who died just before 1948, never in her hearing referred to England (pace Trump) except as “England, the whore”.
It was two-faced British policy early in the 20th century that helped get things started.
My mother always said that my grandfather, who was by all accounts a fascinating and brilliant man who was very active in South African politics, fought in the Boer War, and was also probably a Zionist (my mother certainly was, and they were very close) but who died just before 1948, never in her hearing referred to England (pace Trump) except as “England, the whore”.
It is interesting, is it not, what we see here.
We have a bunch of people here with somewhat different takes on the IP situation. Still, we aren’t nearly as invested and embedded in the situation as the Israelis and Palestinians, for all that we have opinions.
Even so, we show no signs of being able to come up with an agreed-upon “solution” to the problem. And if we, with a little emotional distance from the situation, cannot do so, what hope is there for those actually involved to agree on anything substantive?
It is interesting, is it not, what we see here.
We have a bunch of people here with somewhat different takes on the IP situation. Still, we aren’t nearly as invested and embedded in the situation as the Israelis and Palestinians, for all that we have opinions.
Even so, we show no signs of being able to come up with an agreed-upon “solution” to the problem. And if we, with a little emotional distance from the situation, cannot do so, what hope is there for those actually involved to agree on anything substantive?
“If Jordan was, in fact, “not really trying to destroy Israel” then this is an important point. Why is it so hard to give it some degree of historical weight?”
Because you are merely alluding to historical weight rather than actually typing it out.
Jordan directly joined two separate invasions in which other countries had very high level rhetoric about destroying Israel. They didn’t have to join in those two separate invasions. An invasion isn’t just talk. So historians finding that at some point some of the leaders in Jordan mouthed the idea that Jordan didn’t want to completely destroy Israel doesn’t have much *weight* compared to the fact that the joined in on the military invasion in 1948 *and then again* in 1967. The fact that *Jordan itself* only wanted part of Israel *for itself* while joining in on an invasion that had much larger aims than just getting some land for Jordan itself suggests that the historical weight we give to Jordan’s alleged aims *without mentioning even in passing the aims of the other invaders* strikes me, as I said before, as overly narrow.
If four KKK members break into your house, and one with a knife wants to kill you, one with gasoline wants to burn your house down, one with a rope wants to rape your wife, and the biggest one (and only one with a gun)–who is strangely named Arab Legion and is from Jordan–says he merely wants to take all of your furniture, I’m not sure we need to focus on the fact that he says he wants your furniture to the exclusion of everything else. And if you want to talk about the *aims of the home invasion* you would never just say “one guy said he wanted the furniture”. And if the guy with gasoline started pouring it all over the wood, while the guy with rope dashed upstairs, you could be forgiven for fighting all four of them as if your life depended on it *even if it is true that Mr. Arab Legion only wants your furniture*.
“If Jordan was, in fact, “not really trying to destroy Israel” then this is an important point. Why is it so hard to give it some degree of historical weight?”
Because you are merely alluding to historical weight rather than actually typing it out.
Jordan directly joined two separate invasions in which other countries had very high level rhetoric about destroying Israel. They didn’t have to join in those two separate invasions. An invasion isn’t just talk. So historians finding that at some point some of the leaders in Jordan mouthed the idea that Jordan didn’t want to completely destroy Israel doesn’t have much *weight* compared to the fact that the joined in on the military invasion in 1948 *and then again* in 1967. The fact that *Jordan itself* only wanted part of Israel *for itself* while joining in on an invasion that had much larger aims than just getting some land for Jordan itself suggests that the historical weight we give to Jordan’s alleged aims *without mentioning even in passing the aims of the other invaders* strikes me, as I said before, as overly narrow.
If four KKK members break into your house, and one with a knife wants to kill you, one with gasoline wants to burn your house down, one with a rope wants to rape your wife, and the biggest one (and only one with a gun)–who is strangely named Arab Legion and is from Jordan–says he merely wants to take all of your furniture, I’m not sure we need to focus on the fact that he says he wants your furniture to the exclusion of everything else. And if you want to talk about the *aims of the home invasion* you would never just say “one guy said he wanted the furniture”. And if the guy with gasoline started pouring it all over the wood, while the guy with rope dashed upstairs, you could be forgiven for fighting all four of them as if your life depended on it *even if it is true that Mr. Arab Legion only wants your furniture*.
I have the same take on IP matters as Russell. But, since I’m not as smart as he is, I will talk about how this discussion has played out, both here and in general and I hope that take is of interest to some and isn’t felt to be too dismissive by others.
It’s interesting that Bernard and Donald ended up contesting the questions about the birth of Israel. The contestation (is that a word? the whole IP question seems to be so far beyond a debate or a discussion that I think we need a new word for it) seems to require that one side or the other be painted unequivocally as the bad guys from start to finish. Concern about whether Israel should be thought of as a plucky little nation that could seem to be to be beside the point, it’s arguably a nuclear power, which makes questions about Arab nations stating it has a right to exist pretty much beside the point, as jack lecou points out.
What makes the back and forth here respectful is that both Bernard and Donald both reject the furthest outliers and accept that the other does as well. I’m sure we’ve seen some IP debates where the two sides cannot bring themselves to admit that. But the fact that we are starting in 1948 indicates to me that there’s not going to be a lot of give and take already.
And starting in 1948 is simultaneously too early and not early enough. Bernard’s mention of Zionism shows that the story didn’t start with the Holocaust, but either with Herzl and others 50 years before that, or with the Romans and the Jewish diaspora. As bobbyp notes, if those Romans hadn’t had the gall (Gaul?) to collapse, we wouldn’t be stuck with this problem. Or something like that.
Munich and the Death of Klinghoffer were cited. I hope this isn’t a ‘ur doing it rong’ statement, but for me, works of art, like films and operas, are not really a place where discussion is going to be helped or clarified. I was trying to think of a work of art that somehow clarified a political conflict, and I’m coming up blank. I understand that some may take a lesson from a work of art, and that a work of art can represent a particular viewpoint that may be problematic, but there is so much that intervenes between what actually happened and what appears before the audience that I can’t see how it can help. I mean, Munich by Steven Spielberg is already coming from a particular viewpoint so getting angry about that is beside the point. And, looking at the critical reaction on Wikipedia, it isn’t the case that everyone swallowed the story hook line and sinker. Some cut and paste
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_(film)
Variety reviewer Todd McCarthy called Munich a “beautifully made” film. However, he criticized the film for failing to include “compelling” characters, and for its use of laborious plotting and a “flabby script.” McCarthy says that the film turns into “…a lumpy and overlong morality play on a failed thriller template.” …
Chicago Tribune reviewer Allison Benedikt calls Munich a “competent thriller”, but laments that as an “intellectual pursuit, it is little more than a pretty prism through which superficial Jewish guilt and generalized Palestinian nationalism” are made to “… look like the product of serious soul-searching.” Benedikt states that Spielberg’s treatment of the film’s “dense and complicated” subject matter can be summed up as “Palestinians want a homeland, Israelis have to protect theirs.” She rhetorically asks: “Do we need another handsome, well-assembled, entertaining movie to prove that we all bleed red?”[13]
Another critique was Gabriel Schoenfeld’s “Spielberg’s ‘Munich'” in the February 2006 issue of Commentary, who called it “pernicious”. He compared the fictional film to history, asserted that Spielberg and especially Kushner felt that the Palestinian terrorists and the Mossad agents are morally equivalent and concluded: “The movie deserves an Oscar in one category only: most hypocritical film of the year.”[14]
I found the last paragraph interesting, because I couldn’t at first glance tell what Schoenfeld thought was the problem, either Palestinian’s portrayed too nobly or the Mossad agents and the article itself is locked, though the use of ‘terrorists’ suggest it is the former. This is confirmed by this reader’s letter
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/munich/
which tells us that Schoenfeld was arguing that the Israeli side was unfairly portrayed in Munich. I haven’t seen the movie, but I think this shows (as if anyone here needed proof) how there is no way to take a middle position.
I think it was wj who noted that the other IP conflict (i.e. Ireland) seems to have resolved in a way that nobody would have predicted, though with Brexit looming, I have a sinking feeling that we can find a way to f**k it up. Though if it holds up, we still have the Kurds, the Rohinga, the Tibetans, the Tamil, just to name a few off the top of my head.
I have the same take on IP matters as Russell. But, since I’m not as smart as he is, I will talk about how this discussion has played out, both here and in general and I hope that take is of interest to some and isn’t felt to be too dismissive by others.
It’s interesting that Bernard and Donald ended up contesting the questions about the birth of Israel. The contestation (is that a word? the whole IP question seems to be so far beyond a debate or a discussion that I think we need a new word for it) seems to require that one side or the other be painted unequivocally as the bad guys from start to finish. Concern about whether Israel should be thought of as a plucky little nation that could seem to be to be beside the point, it’s arguably a nuclear power, which makes questions about Arab nations stating it has a right to exist pretty much beside the point, as jack lecou points out.
What makes the back and forth here respectful is that both Bernard and Donald both reject the furthest outliers and accept that the other does as well. I’m sure we’ve seen some IP debates where the two sides cannot bring themselves to admit that. But the fact that we are starting in 1948 indicates to me that there’s not going to be a lot of give and take already.
And starting in 1948 is simultaneously too early and not early enough. Bernard’s mention of Zionism shows that the story didn’t start with the Holocaust, but either with Herzl and others 50 years before that, or with the Romans and the Jewish diaspora. As bobbyp notes, if those Romans hadn’t had the gall (Gaul?) to collapse, we wouldn’t be stuck with this problem. Or something like that.
Munich and the Death of Klinghoffer were cited. I hope this isn’t a ‘ur doing it rong’ statement, but for me, works of art, like films and operas, are not really a place where discussion is going to be helped or clarified. I was trying to think of a work of art that somehow clarified a political conflict, and I’m coming up blank. I understand that some may take a lesson from a work of art, and that a work of art can represent a particular viewpoint that may be problematic, but there is so much that intervenes between what actually happened and what appears before the audience that I can’t see how it can help. I mean, Munich by Steven Spielberg is already coming from a particular viewpoint so getting angry about that is beside the point. And, looking at the critical reaction on Wikipedia, it isn’t the case that everyone swallowed the story hook line and sinker. Some cut and paste
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_(film)
Variety reviewer Todd McCarthy called Munich a “beautifully made” film. However, he criticized the film for failing to include “compelling” characters, and for its use of laborious plotting and a “flabby script.” McCarthy says that the film turns into “…a lumpy and overlong morality play on a failed thriller template.” …
Chicago Tribune reviewer Allison Benedikt calls Munich a “competent thriller”, but laments that as an “intellectual pursuit, it is little more than a pretty prism through which superficial Jewish guilt and generalized Palestinian nationalism” are made to “… look like the product of serious soul-searching.” Benedikt states that Spielberg’s treatment of the film’s “dense and complicated” subject matter can be summed up as “Palestinians want a homeland, Israelis have to protect theirs.” She rhetorically asks: “Do we need another handsome, well-assembled, entertaining movie to prove that we all bleed red?”[13]
Another critique was Gabriel Schoenfeld’s “Spielberg’s ‘Munich'” in the February 2006 issue of Commentary, who called it “pernicious”. He compared the fictional film to history, asserted that Spielberg and especially Kushner felt that the Palestinian terrorists and the Mossad agents are morally equivalent and concluded: “The movie deserves an Oscar in one category only: most hypocritical film of the year.”[14]
I found the last paragraph interesting, because I couldn’t at first glance tell what Schoenfeld thought was the problem, either Palestinian’s portrayed too nobly or the Mossad agents and the article itself is locked, though the use of ‘terrorists’ suggest it is the former. This is confirmed by this reader’s letter
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/munich/
which tells us that Schoenfeld was arguing that the Israeli side was unfairly portrayed in Munich. I haven’t seen the movie, but I think this shows (as if anyone here needed proof) how there is no way to take a middle position.
I think it was wj who noted that the other IP conflict (i.e. Ireland) seems to have resolved in a way that nobody would have predicted, though with Brexit looming, I have a sinking feeling that we can find a way to f**k it up. Though if it holds up, we still have the Kurds, the Rohinga, the Tibetans, the Tamil, just to name a few off the top of my head.
They didn’t have to join in those two separate invasions.
True. And Israel didn’t have to invade Egypt in 1956 or initiate the hostilities in 1967.
So there you go.
lj brings up a good point about how this particular issue is discussed and how it all goes back to broad brushed attacks on anti-semitism or the antidemocratic seeds embedded in the ‘Zionist enterprise’.
If you want whataboutery, how about this…the charge has been leveled and/or implied here that Israel is surrounded by haters bent on its destruction, and its very existence continuously imperiled. People still bring up cannards like ‘right to exist’, etc.
Consider:
Israel is universally regarded to have nuclear capability.
Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel and full diplomatic relations, which kinda’ mocks the idea that they harbor any serious notions about pushing them into the sea.
Jordan also has diplomatic relations with Israel.
Syria, in the midst of a bloody civil war, is on a suicide mission.
Lebanon is, you know, rather small, but things appear to be getting better….somebody inform me otherwise.
Iraq is still in recovery. I don’t think it’s going to be pushing anybody into the sea in the near future.
Iran…are you serious? What are they going to do? Invade Jordan? They have a lot of their own problems.
So basically, things are looking pretty good for the Israelis. And what is their response?
Tell me.
One could argue that there has never been a better time for the two sides to talk. Alas, one side is holding all the cards, and is intent on rubbing it in.
A wise one once told me, “Bobby, what goes around comes around.”
The discussion should, perhaps, start here.
They didn’t have to join in those two separate invasions.
True. And Israel didn’t have to invade Egypt in 1956 or initiate the hostilities in 1967.
So there you go.
lj brings up a good point about how this particular issue is discussed and how it all goes back to broad brushed attacks on anti-semitism or the antidemocratic seeds embedded in the ‘Zionist enterprise’.
If you want whataboutery, how about this…the charge has been leveled and/or implied here that Israel is surrounded by haters bent on its destruction, and its very existence continuously imperiled. People still bring up cannards like ‘right to exist’, etc.
Consider:
Israel is universally regarded to have nuclear capability.
Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel and full diplomatic relations, which kinda’ mocks the idea that they harbor any serious notions about pushing them into the sea.
Jordan also has diplomatic relations with Israel.
Syria, in the midst of a bloody civil war, is on a suicide mission.
Lebanon is, you know, rather small, but things appear to be getting better….somebody inform me otherwise.
Iraq is still in recovery. I don’t think it’s going to be pushing anybody into the sea in the near future.
Iran…are you serious? What are they going to do? Invade Jordan? They have a lot of their own problems.
So basically, things are looking pretty good for the Israelis. And what is their response?
Tell me.
One could argue that there has never been a better time for the two sides to talk. Alas, one side is holding all the cards, and is intent on rubbing it in.
A wise one once told me, “Bobby, what goes around comes around.”
The discussion should, perhaps, start here.
Jack,
And saying, from our privileged perspective, that it isn’t that surprising that the Israelis won, because it turned out that theirs was the superior force, and perhaps operated under few constraints, shouldn’t be a particularly controversial statement.
No it should not be. Neither should it be controversial to accept that the Zionists were fighting what they reasonably thought was a war for physical survival against countries with vastly larger populations, Abdullah notwithstanding. No matter how “easy” anyone thinks it was, it probably didn’t look that way at the time.
Jack,
And saying, from our privileged perspective, that it isn’t that surprising that the Israelis won, because it turned out that theirs was the superior force, and perhaps operated under few constraints, shouldn’t be a particularly controversial statement.
No it should not be. Neither should it be controversial to accept that the Zionists were fighting what they reasonably thought was a war for physical survival against countries with vastly larger populations, Abdullah notwithstanding. No matter how “easy” anyone thinks it was, it probably didn’t look that way at the time.
Neither should it be controversial to accept that the Zionists were fighting what they reasonably thought was a war for physical survival against countries with vastly larger populations…
Menachim Begin, 1948: “The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized
…. Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be
restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever.”
Reasonable thoughts?
Neither should it be controversial to accept that the Zionists were fighting what they reasonably thought was a war for physical survival against countries with vastly larger populations…
Menachim Begin, 1948: “The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized
…. Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be
restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever.”
Reasonable thoughts?
I’m siding with Marty.
I think it unfortunate we didn’t offer the Jews Navada back to when they were looking for a home.
I used to think all the Jewish refugee immigrant came from eastern Europe and Russia and was surprise to learn that Baghdad population was about 30% Jewish before the end of WWII.
I’m siding with Marty.
I think it unfortunate we didn’t offer the Jews Navada back to when they were looking for a home.
I used to think all the Jewish refugee immigrant came from eastern Europe and Russia and was surprise to learn that Baghdad population was about 30% Jewish before the end of WWII.
I think it unfortunate we didn’t offer the Jews Navada
Sounds so simple. Are you from Nevada?
This article suggests that the Jewish population of Israel was roughly 700,000 in 1948. The population of Nevada in 1950 was 160,083.
Would you like your state to be expanded, in a very short space of time, by adding four+ times as many people to it as are currently living there?
My only point is to agree with everyone on this thread who has said: there’s no simple answer.
lj’s list (Kurds, the Rohinga, the Tibetans, the Tamil, just to name a few off the top of my head) is going to look like the golden days when climate change really gets going. I almost wrote “when climate change heats up.” Eh.
I think it unfortunate we didn’t offer the Jews Navada
Sounds so simple. Are you from Nevada?
This article suggests that the Jewish population of Israel was roughly 700,000 in 1948. The population of Nevada in 1950 was 160,083.
Would you like your state to be expanded, in a very short space of time, by adding four+ times as many people to it as are currently living there?
My only point is to agree with everyone on this thread who has said: there’s no simple answer.
lj’s list (Kurds, the Rohinga, the Tibetans, the Tamil, just to name a few off the top of my head) is going to look like the golden days when climate change really gets going. I almost wrote “when climate change heats up.” Eh.
lj’s list . . . is going to look like the golden days when climate change really gets going.
Bangladesh alone is going to leave all the existing cases in the shade.
lj’s list . . . is going to look like the golden days when climate change really gets going.
Bangladesh alone is going to leave all the existing cases in the shade.
I lived just across the lake from Navada. Was thinking to look what they did with the desolate place that was Palestine, what could they have done with Navada. There was plenty of federal land to offer them at a discount. Perhaps Navada would have become a Jewish State in the way Utah is the Mormon state.
I lived just across the lake from Navada. Was thinking to look what they did with the desolate place that was Palestine, what could they have done with Navada. There was plenty of federal land to offer them at a discount. Perhaps Navada would have become a Jewish State in the way Utah is the Mormon state.
C’mon, it was entirely tongue in cheek reference, labeled as from the peanut gallery.
if this is in reference to the “northern conquest” thing, it actually immediately followed the words “not peanut gallery”.
whatever.
I get the impression that the assassination of Rabin was a (the?) cusp
I also think the assassination of Rabin was a tragedy. Whatever momentum toward peace had been built up, at great effort, seemed to dissipate.
What is missing now, I think, is leadership that is actually interested in a peaceful resolution. Nobody seems to be able to imagine a way forward, at this point.
C’mon, it was entirely tongue in cheek reference, labeled as from the peanut gallery.
if this is in reference to the “northern conquest” thing, it actually immediately followed the words “not peanut gallery”.
whatever.
I get the impression that the assassination of Rabin was a (the?) cusp
I also think the assassination of Rabin was a tragedy. Whatever momentum toward peace had been built up, at great effort, seemed to dissipate.
What is missing now, I think, is leadership that is actually interested in a peaceful resolution. Nobody seems to be able to imagine a way forward, at this point.
The other point I had was that Iraq and the rest of the Middle East was nasty against the creation of Israel from day one and I don’t see that changing. The Wikipedia article of Jews in Iraq is a fascinating read.
The other point I had was that Iraq and the rest of the Middle East was nasty against the creation of Israel from day one and I don’t see that changing. The Wikipedia article of Jews in Iraq is a fascinating read.
Sure some citizens of Navada might of been unhappy about it but there was money to be made and I don’t think they would have been up In arms about it.
I could be wrong about that.
Sure some citizens of Navada might of been unhappy about it but there was money to be made and I don’t think they would have been up In arms about it.
I could be wrong about that.
I’m a fan of alternate history.
Sadly I see no solution to the current conflict.
I’m a fan of alternate history.
Sadly I see no solution to the current conflict.
I’ve explicitly acknowledged that. The point is that what Israel might have felt at the time isn’t what actually happened.
With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that even at the very beginning, existential fear — though perhaps reasonable at the time given the limited information available — was, as it turned out, unnecessary. Israel secured its early existence not with a miraculous victory against overwhelming odds, but with a perfectly mundane and unsurprising victory. One stemming directly from the fact that its actual strength was greater than the paper strength of its opponents.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me this relative margin of strength has only grown larger since.
Which means that Israel was, however it may have appeared at one time, never in any *real* danger of being swept in to the sea. And whatever that risk once was, it is in even less today, probably by orders of magnitudes.
And yet, in the present day, in this very thread, we have people claiming that Israel still has some kind of legitimate reason to fear for its existence, and that this fear justifies any abuse it may dish out to those in its control.
I think those arguments are being made on an emotional basis, with roots right down in that founding myth of miraculous victory against overwhelming odds. Of perpetual threat and hanging on only by the skin of their teeth. At least, I can’t see where else they come from. Not reality.
It’s a dangerous myth, no?
I’ve explicitly acknowledged that. The point is that what Israel might have felt at the time isn’t what actually happened.
With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that even at the very beginning, existential fear — though perhaps reasonable at the time given the limited information available — was, as it turned out, unnecessary. Israel secured its early existence not with a miraculous victory against overwhelming odds, but with a perfectly mundane and unsurprising victory. One stemming directly from the fact that its actual strength was greater than the paper strength of its opponents.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me this relative margin of strength has only grown larger since.
Which means that Israel was, however it may have appeared at one time, never in any *real* danger of being swept in to the sea. And whatever that risk once was, it is in even less today, probably by orders of magnitudes.
And yet, in the present day, in this very thread, we have people claiming that Israel still has some kind of legitimate reason to fear for its existence, and that this fear justifies any abuse it may dish out to those in its control.
I think those arguments are being made on an emotional basis, with roots right down in that founding myth of miraculous victory against overwhelming odds. Of perpetual threat and hanging on only by the skin of their teeth. At least, I can’t see where else they come from. Not reality.
It’s a dangerous myth, no?
Menachim Begin, 1948: “The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized
…. Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be
restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever.”
Reasonable thoughts?
No.
Menachim Begin, 1948: “The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized
…. Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be
restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever.”
Reasonable thoughts?
No.
What is missing now, I think, is leadership that is actually interested in a peaceful resolution. Nobody seems to be able to imagine a way forward, at this point.
Yes.
What is missing now, I think, is leadership that is actually interested in a peaceful resolution. Nobody seems to be able to imagine a way forward, at this point.
Yes.
Well, not to quibble, but I think your analogy is missing or eliding what is actually being claimed, which is that maybe Jordan wasn’t ever there to take any of “your” stuff at all.
He showed up with the others, sure, but not to invade your home. He was there to house-sit at the adjoining duplex unit, which, at least according the United Nations, was not part of your house and did not belong to you at all*, but instead to some nominal friends of his.
If true, that maybe does put a slightly different complexion on the matter.
—-
* Even if you have since taken to taking over and using more and more of its bedrooms as your own, and posting armed guards in the corridors so only you and your friends can pass freely to use the bathroom and kitchen…
Well, not to quibble, but I think your analogy is missing or eliding what is actually being claimed, which is that maybe Jordan wasn’t ever there to take any of “your” stuff at all.
He showed up with the others, sure, but not to invade your home. He was there to house-sit at the adjoining duplex unit, which, at least according the United Nations, was not part of your house and did not belong to you at all*, but instead to some nominal friends of his.
If true, that maybe does put a slightly different complexion on the matter.
—-
* Even if you have since taken to taking over and using more and more of its bedrooms as your own, and posting armed guards in the corridors so only you and your friends can pass freely to use the bathroom and kitchen…
And yet, in the present day, in this very thread, we have people claiming that Israel still has some kind of legitimate reason to fear for its existence, and that this fear justifies any abuse it may dish out to those in its control.
I think those arguments are being made on an emotional basis, with roots right down in that founding myth of miraculous victory against overwhelming odds
I agree with this, and would only add that jack lecou’s second sentence I quote above explains much more clearly what I was trying to say before. I would only add that in my opinion, Israel’s continuing actions under Netanyahu, which I think all of us including byomtov deplore (to put it mildly) are what will threaten Israel’s existence in the end: you cannot continue to opress another people in this way forever, in the end you pay the price. Despite its (undoubted) nuclear capacity, Israel has been sowing the seeds of its own destruction at least since the assassination of Rabin and perhaps before. It gives me absolutely no pleasure to say this, or to contemplate it. I hope I am wrong, but the change in Israeli public opinion and the moving of the Overton Window in Israel itself, with the Israelis’ concommitant lack of self-insight, is unbelievably depressing.
And yet, in the present day, in this very thread, we have people claiming that Israel still has some kind of legitimate reason to fear for its existence, and that this fear justifies any abuse it may dish out to those in its control.
I think those arguments are being made on an emotional basis, with roots right down in that founding myth of miraculous victory against overwhelming odds
I agree with this, and would only add that jack lecou’s second sentence I quote above explains much more clearly what I was trying to say before. I would only add that in my opinion, Israel’s continuing actions under Netanyahu, which I think all of us including byomtov deplore (to put it mildly) are what will threaten Israel’s existence in the end: you cannot continue to opress another people in this way forever, in the end you pay the price. Despite its (undoubted) nuclear capacity, Israel has been sowing the seeds of its own destruction at least since the assassination of Rabin and perhaps before. It gives me absolutely no pleasure to say this, or to contemplate it. I hope I am wrong, but the change in Israeli public opinion and the moving of the Overton Window in Israel itself, with the Israelis’ concommitant lack of self-insight, is unbelievably depressing.
“Jordan directly joined two separate invasions in which other countries had very high level rhetoric about destroying Israel. They didn’t have to join in those two separate invasions. An invasion isn’t just talk. So historians finding that at some point some of the leaders in Jordan mouthed the idea that Jordan didn’t want to completely destroy Israel doesn’t have much *weight* compared to the fact that the joined in on the military invasion in 1948 *and then again* in 1967. The fact that *Jordan itself* only wanted part of Israel *for itself* while joining in on an invasion that had much larger aims than just getting some land for Jordan itself suggests that the historical weight we give to Jordan’s alleged aims ”
One little problem here. In 1948, Jordan never invaded Israel. It didn’t want part of Israel for itself. It wanted the part of the region assigned to the Palestinian state for itself. They fought, but quoting Shlaim again—
“ Throughout the war, King Abdullah continued to pursue limited objectives and made no attempt to encroach on Jewish state territory.”
So you could argue for saying Jordan should have stayed out, but talk of them invading Israel is false.
The 48 war was a cynical exercise on all sides. Not the morality play we Westerners were raised on.
“Jordan directly joined two separate invasions in which other countries had very high level rhetoric about destroying Israel. They didn’t have to join in those two separate invasions. An invasion isn’t just talk. So historians finding that at some point some of the leaders in Jordan mouthed the idea that Jordan didn’t want to completely destroy Israel doesn’t have much *weight* compared to the fact that the joined in on the military invasion in 1948 *and then again* in 1967. The fact that *Jordan itself* only wanted part of Israel *for itself* while joining in on an invasion that had much larger aims than just getting some land for Jordan itself suggests that the historical weight we give to Jordan’s alleged aims ”
One little problem here. In 1948, Jordan never invaded Israel. It didn’t want part of Israel for itself. It wanted the part of the region assigned to the Palestinian state for itself. They fought, but quoting Shlaim again—
“ Throughout the war, King Abdullah continued to pursue limited objectives and made no attempt to encroach on Jewish state territory.”
So you could argue for saying Jordan should have stayed out, but talk of them invading Israel is false.
The 48 war was a cynical exercise on all sides. Not the morality play we Westerners were raised on.
Ok, let’s posit the duplex. He still brought the guy who wants to kill you with a knife and the guy who wants to rape your wife with him and they’ve started to try. And then after you beat them back the first time, he tried again again a few weeks later and brought them in again. Also he is bringing guys in who are invading BOTH halves of the duplex, not just the one you think his cousin might have title to…
Are you really dealing with the whole picture if you studiously avoid talking about the rapist, throat slitter, and the takeover of the other half of the duplex?
Ok, let’s posit the duplex. He still brought the guy who wants to kill you with a knife and the guy who wants to rape your wife with him and they’ve started to try. And then after you beat them back the first time, he tried again again a few weeks later and brought them in again. Also he is bringing guys in who are invading BOTH halves of the duplex, not just the one you think his cousin might have title to…
Are you really dealing with the whole picture if you studiously avoid talking about the rapist, throat slitter, and the takeover of the other half of the duplex?
“There was plenty of federal land to offer them at a discount. Perhaps Navada would have become a Jewish State in the way Utah is the Mormon state.’
Tell it to the Bundy clan and the rest of the crypto-Christian white supremacists.
Cripes. Cliven Bundy and plenty of other jagoff Americans would be trying to raise pigs and hogs on what they think is federal land that belongs to them as an insult to the Jewish State of Nevada.
By now, and probably much earlier, if that had happened in 1948, the white nationalist republican party would be full-on Yasser Arafat anti-Semites and making Nevada Jewry the enemy Other like they have African-Americans, Hispanics, gays, and anything Left of Rush Limbaugh.
Ann Coulter, Donald mp, Fox News and the rest of insane Q-Anon crew would be flouting their political incorrectness by taunting Jews on the stage and screen and the internet and the big-haired Southern Evangelical grifters would be taking in big money predicting the apocalyptic End Times in Nevada, with lots of dead Jews in mind, because that’s how they roll.
References to jackpots in Las Vegas and Reno would be divined in Holy Scripture by the legion of American right wing assholes who believe Barack Obama was the anti-Christ.
America’s right wing would be even more insufferable and full of shit than it is at the present moment, given the hate merchants loosed on us by the fucking conservative movement.
Now, if you could swing a trade to move Israel to Nevada in exchange for emptying out most of the red states of their current conservative ilk and deporting THEM to Palestine, I’m all ears.
“There was plenty of federal land to offer them at a discount. Perhaps Navada would have become a Jewish State in the way Utah is the Mormon state.’
Tell it to the Bundy clan and the rest of the crypto-Christian white supremacists.
Cripes. Cliven Bundy and plenty of other jagoff Americans would be trying to raise pigs and hogs on what they think is federal land that belongs to them as an insult to the Jewish State of Nevada.
By now, and probably much earlier, if that had happened in 1948, the white nationalist republican party would be full-on Yasser Arafat anti-Semites and making Nevada Jewry the enemy Other like they have African-Americans, Hispanics, gays, and anything Left of Rush Limbaugh.
Ann Coulter, Donald mp, Fox News and the rest of insane Q-Anon crew would be flouting their political incorrectness by taunting Jews on the stage and screen and the internet and the big-haired Southern Evangelical grifters would be taking in big money predicting the apocalyptic End Times in Nevada, with lots of dead Jews in mind, because that’s how they roll.
References to jackpots in Las Vegas and Reno would be divined in Holy Scripture by the legion of American right wing assholes who believe Barack Obama was the anti-Christ.
America’s right wing would be even more insufferable and full of shit than it is at the present moment, given the hate merchants loosed on us by the fucking conservative movement.
Now, if you could swing a trade to move Israel to Nevada in exchange for emptying out most of the red states of their current conservative ilk and deporting THEM to Palestine, I’m all ears.
“No matter how “easy” anyone thinks it was, it probably didn’t look that way at the time.”
I wouldn’t say it was easy or if I did somewhere that was wrong. Thousands of Israelis died. My point is that in actual fact, given the number of people actually fighting, it was not a miracle that Israel won. They had more men under arms than all the Arab forces actually present.
People hear about the population ratios and get the impression the armed forces number ratios were about the same and that would be a miracle given similar levels of technology. Among Christian Zionist types (Idon’t know about religious Jews) people take that miracle aspect seriously, as a sign that God is on Israel’s side.
“No matter how “easy” anyone thinks it was, it probably didn’t look that way at the time.”
I wouldn’t say it was easy or if I did somewhere that was wrong. Thousands of Israelis died. My point is that in actual fact, given the number of people actually fighting, it was not a miracle that Israel won. They had more men under arms than all the Arab forces actually present.
People hear about the population ratios and get the impression the armed forces number ratios were about the same and that would be a miracle given similar levels of technology. Among Christian Zionist types (Idon’t know about religious Jews) people take that miracle aspect seriously, as a sign that God is on Israel’s side.
Palestinians have no fear of being attacked if they simply quit attacking. The parody is watching 50 years of Palestinian aggression and pretending that Israel has ever attacked them unprovoked.
If we move on to discussing the complete unlikelihood of Israelis ever voting to become a minority in their country then the solution set shrinks considerably.
And, randomly, Jordan didn’t just want the West Bank, it wanted the West Bank to use as a militarily superior place to invade Israel from.
Palestinians have no fear of being attacked if they simply quit attacking. The parody is watching 50 years of Palestinian aggression and pretending that Israel has ever attacked them unprovoked.
If we move on to discussing the complete unlikelihood of Israelis ever voting to become a minority in their country then the solution set shrinks considerably.
And, randomly, Jordan didn’t just want the West Bank, it wanted the West Bank to use as a militarily superior place to invade Israel from.
I mulled over whether to reply to Sebastian’s KKK analogy. I guess I will. Notice there is no room for Palestinians in Sebastian’s house. All the property belongs to the Israelis as befits the analogy since they don’t seem to exist at all. You couldn’t even have an occupation later in the story since they don’t exist and don’t own anything and couldn’t have been victimized by the brave Israeli husband defending his wife’s honor. He has all he can handle fighting off those dastardly fiends.
There is something off about this analogy. It is almost as though Arabs don’t exist at all in any way whatsoever except as cartoon villains.
I mulled over whether to reply to Sebastian’s KKK analogy. I guess I will. Notice there is no room for Palestinians in Sebastian’s house. All the property belongs to the Israelis as befits the analogy since they don’t seem to exist at all. You couldn’t even have an occupation later in the story since they don’t exist and don’t own anything and couldn’t have been victimized by the brave Israeli husband defending his wife’s honor. He has all he can handle fighting off those dastardly fiends.
There is something off about this analogy. It is almost as though Arabs don’t exist at all in any way whatsoever except as cartoon villains.
Seb,
The actual analogy would be more like this: A husband and wife living in a duplex start shooting at each other. The kids take sides as well. The Neighborhood Association gets called in and they decide to split the house up. Both sides don’t like the deal. Each side asks for help….so a couple neighbors join in to help the wife half heartedly and rather ineptly, mostly with ulterior motives. The husband’s side gets a lot of help from relatives abroad, and powerful members of the Chamber of Commerce. The other side gets knifed in the back and kicked out of the house.
Seb,
The actual analogy would be more like this: A husband and wife living in a duplex start shooting at each other. The kids take sides as well. The Neighborhood Association gets called in and they decide to split the house up. Both sides don’t like the deal. Each side asks for help….so a couple neighbors join in to help the wife half heartedly and rather ineptly, mostly with ulterior motives. The husband’s side gets a lot of help from relatives abroad, and powerful members of the Chamber of Commerce. The other side gets knifed in the back and kicked out of the house.
God, enough with the stupid analogy. Analogies at their best can clarify situations. This one is just unbelievably bad. The house should be burned to the ground and the property fenced off.
Talk about what actually freaking happened. Trade atrocity accounts.
God, enough with the stupid analogy. Analogies at their best can clarify situations. This one is just unbelievably bad. The house should be burned to the ground and the property fenced off.
Talk about what actually freaking happened. Trade atrocity accounts.
jack: Israel was, however it may have appeared at one time, never in any *real* danger of being swept in to the sea.
Donald: My point is that in actual fact, given the number of people actually fighting, it was not a miracle that Israel won. They had more men under arms than all the Arab forces actually present.
Much the same could be said of WW II. Given the relative populations, industrial plant, raw materials, etc., etc., there was no way that the United States could fail to smash Japan once battle was joined. (Even if distracted by a war in Europe at the same time.) But that doesn’t change the fact that, at the time, Americans saw an existential threat from the East.
jack: Israel was, however it may have appeared at one time, never in any *real* danger of being swept in to the sea.
Donald: My point is that in actual fact, given the number of people actually fighting, it was not a miracle that Israel won. They had more men under arms than all the Arab forces actually present.
Much the same could be said of WW II. Given the relative populations, industrial plant, raw materials, etc., etc., there was no way that the United States could fail to smash Japan once battle was joined. (Even if distracted by a war in Europe at the same time.) But that doesn’t change the fact that, at the time, Americans saw an existential threat from the East.
Okay, I am calm now. Going to jog in hot humid weather with a chance of thunderstorms.
Okay, I am calm now. Going to jog in hot humid weather with a chance of thunderstorms.
But that doesn’t change the fact that, at the time, Americans saw an existential threat from the East.
Yes, those Japanese subs would be right off the coast any day. There was a great deal of unfounded hysterical paranoia (cough*internment*).
On the other hand, it is not commonly believed today that the plucky little USA overcame insurmountable odds to win the war by true grit and determination.
But that doesn’t change the fact that, at the time, Americans saw an existential threat from the East.
Yes, those Japanese subs would be right off the coast any day. There was a great deal of unfounded hysterical paranoia (cough*internment*).
On the other hand, it is not commonly believed today that the plucky little USA overcame insurmountable odds to win the war by true grit and determination.
Foundational myths can be dangerous:
“the lost cause” myth of the South’s noble fight for states’ rights.
“stabbed in the back” – we all know this one, I assume.
Foundational myths can be dangerous:
“the lost cause” myth of the South’s noble fight for states’ rights.
“stabbed in the back” – we all know this one, I assume.
Well, maybe not, but a few things that come to mind:
– IIRC, Americans widely perceived an existential threat in the 9/11 attacks. However shocking, these weren’t actually an existential threat, and that was plain as day to anyone willing to give the matter a quarter second’s worth of thought. One almost wonders if there is a pattern.
– I would say that the superiority of American industrial potential was apparent even to contemporaries, see, e.g., Yamamoto’s sleeping giant quote. It was, I expect, an obvious eventuality which would be apparent to any intelligence analyst equipped with a modicum of economics knowledge, a slide rule, and an almanac with publicly available information like population numbers and oil and steel reserves. (I think the German command perceived this as well, and primarily rested their hopes on some combination of American isolationist tendencies, domestic fascists sympathetic to Germany, and diplomacy keeping the US out of the war, and, failing that, shipping interdiction. At least until Germany could consolidate Europe.)
– The war did indeed play out pretty much by the numbers. It was brutal, and the Japanese fought hard, but at least in our timeline, US victory was inexorable. Japan slowly ran out of things like pilots, ships and fuel, while the US kept churning them out in ever greater numbers. Maybe there’s a couple of places out in the multiverse where the Japanese managed to eke out unlikely successes at critical junctures and capitalized on the openings enough to win, but that really would have been a miraculous victory. The outcome in our timeline was, just as with the Israeli version, more about math than miracles.
Well, maybe not, but a few things that come to mind:
– IIRC, Americans widely perceived an existential threat in the 9/11 attacks. However shocking, these weren’t actually an existential threat, and that was plain as day to anyone willing to give the matter a quarter second’s worth of thought. One almost wonders if there is a pattern.
– I would say that the superiority of American industrial potential was apparent even to contemporaries, see, e.g., Yamamoto’s sleeping giant quote. It was, I expect, an obvious eventuality which would be apparent to any intelligence analyst equipped with a modicum of economics knowledge, a slide rule, and an almanac with publicly available information like population numbers and oil and steel reserves. (I think the German command perceived this as well, and primarily rested their hopes on some combination of American isolationist tendencies, domestic fascists sympathetic to Germany, and diplomacy keeping the US out of the war, and, failing that, shipping interdiction. At least until Germany could consolidate Europe.)
– The war did indeed play out pretty much by the numbers. It was brutal, and the Japanese fought hard, but at least in our timeline, US victory was inexorable. Japan slowly ran out of things like pilots, ships and fuel, while the US kept churning them out in ever greater numbers. Maybe there’s a couple of places out in the multiverse where the Japanese managed to eke out unlikely successes at critical junctures and capitalized on the openings enough to win, but that really would have been a miraculous victory. The outcome in our timeline was, just as with the Israeli version, more about math than miracles.
Well then back to the non-analogy.
Donald, “One little problem here. In 1948, Jordan never invaded Israel. It didn’t want part of Israel for itself. It wanted the part of the region assigned to the Palestinian state for itself.”
I don’t understand the thinking that the Jordanian military action can be neatly carved out from the overall military action. The overall military action was to carve up Israel/Palestine between the victors. Some of those victors had specifically denied that Israel had a right to exist, and were going to take different parts of it for themselves. Even if totally true (and I’m not convinced), the fact that Jordan only wanted its own Palestinian part doesn’t mean that it wasn’t involved in a military invasion intended for MUCH more than that. Twice.
Also I’m a bit off put by the idea that Jordan was just trying to take back what already belonged to it. If we are considering Jordan to be the Palestinian homeland, then the question of where Palestinians could be relocated to (a la WWII resettlements) is more plausible. But my understanding is that no one, and especially not Jordan, wanted that.
“My point is that in actual fact, given the number of people actually fighting, it was not a miracle that Israel won. They had more men under arms than all the Arab forces actually present.”
I don’t understand what you think follows from this point though. Given the population and armed forces available, the Arab forces COULD have committed enough to make winning much more likely for them. But for whatever reason the Arab countries did not actually devote enough men to make victory more likely. That is a great argument for “don’t start wars you don’t really want to commit to”. But that’s historical perspective. From Israel’s perspective at the time, the exact forces were not known, the exact composition of the forces were not known, and the size of additional forces/material on their way was not known.
“The 48 war was a cynical exercise on all sides. Not the morality play we Westerners were raised on.”
I’m fine with that. But treating it cynically doesn’t get the Palestinians anything. Israel is currently a regional superpower. If it wants to Tibet the rest of Palestine, we can do what we did to China in response to Tibet–continue to trade strongly with them while occasionally tut-tutting. I’m not happy with that result, but it is certainly the clear eyed cynical possibility.
Jack, “Which means that Israel was, however it may have appeared at one time, never in any *real* danger of being swept in to the sea. ”
I disagree. They were in a very real danger of being conquered as a nation by a ruling Arab elite that was extremely anti-Semitic and were subject to an invasion from countries that had even very recently taken a large number of nasty anti-Semitic actions. (At least if the Arab countries involved had fully committed their forces instead of half-assing it, which wasn’t known at the time). I don’t know what “swept into the sea” means to you, but that would fulfill my definition. If you mean that in retrospect the Arab nations didn’t apply enough of the force they had available to fulfill their objectives, you’re right but only in retrospect.
Well then back to the non-analogy.
Donald, “One little problem here. In 1948, Jordan never invaded Israel. It didn’t want part of Israel for itself. It wanted the part of the region assigned to the Palestinian state for itself.”
I don’t understand the thinking that the Jordanian military action can be neatly carved out from the overall military action. The overall military action was to carve up Israel/Palestine between the victors. Some of those victors had specifically denied that Israel had a right to exist, and were going to take different parts of it for themselves. Even if totally true (and I’m not convinced), the fact that Jordan only wanted its own Palestinian part doesn’t mean that it wasn’t involved in a military invasion intended for MUCH more than that. Twice.
Also I’m a bit off put by the idea that Jordan was just trying to take back what already belonged to it. If we are considering Jordan to be the Palestinian homeland, then the question of where Palestinians could be relocated to (a la WWII resettlements) is more plausible. But my understanding is that no one, and especially not Jordan, wanted that.
“My point is that in actual fact, given the number of people actually fighting, it was not a miracle that Israel won. They had more men under arms than all the Arab forces actually present.”
I don’t understand what you think follows from this point though. Given the population and armed forces available, the Arab forces COULD have committed enough to make winning much more likely for them. But for whatever reason the Arab countries did not actually devote enough men to make victory more likely. That is a great argument for “don’t start wars you don’t really want to commit to”. But that’s historical perspective. From Israel’s perspective at the time, the exact forces were not known, the exact composition of the forces were not known, and the size of additional forces/material on their way was not known.
“The 48 war was a cynical exercise on all sides. Not the morality play we Westerners were raised on.”
I’m fine with that. But treating it cynically doesn’t get the Palestinians anything. Israel is currently a regional superpower. If it wants to Tibet the rest of Palestine, we can do what we did to China in response to Tibet–continue to trade strongly with them while occasionally tut-tutting. I’m not happy with that result, but it is certainly the clear eyed cynical possibility.
Jack, “Which means that Israel was, however it may have appeared at one time, never in any *real* danger of being swept in to the sea. ”
I disagree. They were in a very real danger of being conquered as a nation by a ruling Arab elite that was extremely anti-Semitic and were subject to an invasion from countries that had even very recently taken a large number of nasty anti-Semitic actions. (At least if the Arab countries involved had fully committed their forces instead of half-assing it, which wasn’t known at the time). I don’t know what “swept into the sea” means to you, but that would fulfill my definition. If you mean that in retrospect the Arab nations didn’t apply enough of the force they had available to fulfill their objectives, you’re right but only in retrospect.
The only hopeful outcome I’ve seen with respect to such matters is Ireland. Is there any really good book or something about why the dynamic changed with Ireland? From what I was seeing, in the early 1993 there wasn’t much hope for what happened by 1998. Why had the dynamic changed so much that the Omagh bombing didn’t scuttle things? Is it the military/civilian thing? I know the IRA claimed to only target military/government targets, but I vaguely thought that was kind of crap. If it wasn’t, I guess I can understand how the Omagh bombing rebounded against the ‘real’ IRA. But if that is the case the Palestinian groups aren’t there.
Was it just dramatically bettered economics?
The only hopeful outcome I’ve seen with respect to such matters is Ireland. Is there any really good book or something about why the dynamic changed with Ireland? From what I was seeing, in the early 1993 there wasn’t much hope for what happened by 1998. Why had the dynamic changed so much that the Omagh bombing didn’t scuttle things? Is it the military/civilian thing? I know the IRA claimed to only target military/government targets, but I vaguely thought that was kind of crap. If it wasn’t, I guess I can understand how the Omagh bombing rebounded against the ‘real’ IRA. But if that is the case the Palestinian groups aren’t there.
Was it just dramatically bettered economics?
I think those arguments are being made on an emotional basis, with roots right down in that founding myth of miraculous victory against overwhelming odds. Of perpetual threat and hanging on only by the skin of their teeth. At least, I can’t see where else they come from. Not reality.
Really, Jack? Those are the roots? You can’t imagine why a bunch of Jews would have a fear of eliminationist violence from people who pretty clearly hate them – and did well before 1948?
You’re not a very imaginative guy, are you?
I think those arguments are being made on an emotional basis, with roots right down in that founding myth of miraculous victory against overwhelming odds. Of perpetual threat and hanging on only by the skin of their teeth. At least, I can’t see where else they come from. Not reality.
Really, Jack? Those are the roots? You can’t imagine why a bunch of Jews would have a fear of eliminationist violence from people who pretty clearly hate them – and did well before 1948?
You’re not a very imaginative guy, are you?
There was plenty of federal land to offer them at a discount.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-battle-continues-to-stop-yucca-mountain-from-becoming-a-nuclear-waste-dump/213976/
Cause giving away other people’s land always works out.
There was plenty of federal land to offer them at a discount.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-battle-continues-to-stop-yucca-mountain-from-becoming-a-nuclear-waste-dump/213976/
Cause giving away other people’s land always works out.
Yes, absolutely. I don’t think American conservatives give a shit about how actual Israeli Jews felt or feel, or what the actual truth — historical or present — of the situation is.
On the other hand, I think the myth of heroic (always European-looking, somehow) settlers holding out against wave after wave of evil brown hordes and then miraculously turning the desert green holds a certain… appeal for certain strains of conservatism for some reason. Can’t put my finger on it.
And that clearly motivates rather unproductive and unrealistic political pressures on the American side. I don’t think we’d have had peace somehow already without that, but it couldn’t have hurt. That myth is just not helpful.
(And it should go without saying, but whatever the fears of that bunch of Jews were in 1948, the fact remains that, 70 years on, they are no longer either justifiable, or justification for the ongoing mistreatment of Palestinians. As I think you have conceded.
Nor do I see the sense in holding Palestinians hostage to an obstinate and unrealistic demand for some ultimately meaningless statements from effectively impotent politicians in distant Arab capitals.)
Yes, absolutely. I don’t think American conservatives give a shit about how actual Israeli Jews felt or feel, or what the actual truth — historical or present — of the situation is.
On the other hand, I think the myth of heroic (always European-looking, somehow) settlers holding out against wave after wave of evil brown hordes and then miraculously turning the desert green holds a certain… appeal for certain strains of conservatism for some reason. Can’t put my finger on it.
And that clearly motivates rather unproductive and unrealistic political pressures on the American side. I don’t think we’d have had peace somehow already without that, but it couldn’t have hurt. That myth is just not helpful.
(And it should go without saying, but whatever the fears of that bunch of Jews were in 1948, the fact remains that, 70 years on, they are no longer either justifiable, or justification for the ongoing mistreatment of Palestinians. As I think you have conceded.
Nor do I see the sense in holding Palestinians hostage to an obstinate and unrealistic demand for some ultimately meaningless statements from effectively impotent politicians in distant Arab capitals.)
“Also I’m a bit off put by the idea that Jordan was just trying to take back what already belonged to it. “
It didn’t belong to it. They were taking the land that was supposed to be the Palestinian state in that stupid UN partition which was unfair to the Palestinians. Which is another sub rant, though I may or may not get around to it.
My point was that Jordan wasn’t taking squat from Israel. Israel took land that was supposed to be Palestinian even under the UN partition. They went from the 55 percent in the UN agreement ( which was already unfair to the Palestinians) to 78 percent at the end of the war. That became the pre 67 Israel borders. Everybody was land grabbing or trying to. That isn’t the pleasing Leon Uris style melodrama we Westerners were raised on, but it was the truth. No government actually looks good here. Yes, the Arab governments or some at least used bloodcurdling rhetoric. That is on them. But actual atrocities— the Israelis committed more. I read somewhere that the Arab Legion actually prevented some Arabs from committing atrocities but I don’t know where I saw that.
Also land grabbing is one thing, but forcing people on the land to leave is something else. Morality aside, of course, it had to be done if Israel wanted the land but not all the Arabs. Way too many of them for a Jewish state. So they were forced out and not allowed back, and Jewish settlers were moved in as fast as possible. Then there was the problem of infiltrators, Palestinians trying to sneak back home. A small number were terrorists. Most weren’t. Morris says several thousand were shot in the years following 48. Others, presumably the bulk of them but I don’t know, were merely expelled.
I will repeat that I think that desperate Jewish refugees had the right to go anywhere they could. That is what keeps me from being 100 percent on the Palestinian “ side”. Ideally, we liberal types are supposed to believe in individual rights, not this national ethnic identity shit. I am oversimplifying a bit, but the point is when you start killing or expelling people or keeping out refugees ( Jewish or Palestinian) you have crossed a line. But Westerners who sit in judgement over Palestinians are just hypocrites. Our countries are the ones who should have thrown open the doors for the Jews. I think liberals in the West subconsciously atoned for their sins by scapegoating the Palestinians. Plus we now help the Israelis keep them under their boot.
“Also I’m a bit off put by the idea that Jordan was just trying to take back what already belonged to it. “
It didn’t belong to it. They were taking the land that was supposed to be the Palestinian state in that stupid UN partition which was unfair to the Palestinians. Which is another sub rant, though I may or may not get around to it.
My point was that Jordan wasn’t taking squat from Israel. Israel took land that was supposed to be Palestinian even under the UN partition. They went from the 55 percent in the UN agreement ( which was already unfair to the Palestinians) to 78 percent at the end of the war. That became the pre 67 Israel borders. Everybody was land grabbing or trying to. That isn’t the pleasing Leon Uris style melodrama we Westerners were raised on, but it was the truth. No government actually looks good here. Yes, the Arab governments or some at least used bloodcurdling rhetoric. That is on them. But actual atrocities— the Israelis committed more. I read somewhere that the Arab Legion actually prevented some Arabs from committing atrocities but I don’t know where I saw that.
Also land grabbing is one thing, but forcing people on the land to leave is something else. Morality aside, of course, it had to be done if Israel wanted the land but not all the Arabs. Way too many of them for a Jewish state. So they were forced out and not allowed back, and Jewish settlers were moved in as fast as possible. Then there was the problem of infiltrators, Palestinians trying to sneak back home. A small number were terrorists. Most weren’t. Morris says several thousand were shot in the years following 48. Others, presumably the bulk of them but I don’t know, were merely expelled.
I will repeat that I think that desperate Jewish refugees had the right to go anywhere they could. That is what keeps me from being 100 percent on the Palestinian “ side”. Ideally, we liberal types are supposed to believe in individual rights, not this national ethnic identity shit. I am oversimplifying a bit, but the point is when you start killing or expelling people or keeping out refugees ( Jewish or Palestinian) you have crossed a line. But Westerners who sit in judgement over Palestinians are just hypocrites. Our countries are the ones who should have thrown open the doors for the Jews. I think liberals in the West subconsciously atoned for their sins by scapegoating the Palestinians. Plus we now help the Israelis keep them under their boot.
“I think liberals in the West subconsciously atoned for their sins by scapegoating the Palestinians”
Misspoke there. Americans in general did this. But liberals usually claim to be opposed to oppression in the name of ethnicity and experience cognitive dissonance with Israel and the Palestinians.
Conservatives are varied. But the majority are as Jack described them on this issue.
“I think liberals in the West subconsciously atoned for their sins by scapegoating the Palestinians”
Misspoke there. Americans in general did this. But liberals usually claim to be opposed to oppression in the name of ethnicity and experience cognitive dissonance with Israel and the Palestinians.
Conservatives are varied. But the majority are as Jack described them on this issue.
“I hope this isn’t a ‘ur doing it rong’ statement, but for me, works of art, like films and operas, are not really a place where discussion is going to be helped or clarified. I was trying to think of a work of art that somehow clarified a political conflict, and I’m coming up blank.”
I think this is usually true. Munich and the Klinghoffer play, though, seem to be attempts at using art to clarify a conflict and I don’t think it worked. Actually, I know little about the Klinghoffer piece so I can’t say, but the very choice of topic seems designed to get people screaming at each other.
Uncle Tom’s Cabin might be the exception. Not great literature by modern standards but it portrayed the brutality of slavery for people who might not have thought about it much.
“I hope this isn’t a ‘ur doing it rong’ statement, but for me, works of art, like films and operas, are not really a place where discussion is going to be helped or clarified. I was trying to think of a work of art that somehow clarified a political conflict, and I’m coming up blank.”
I think this is usually true. Munich and the Klinghoffer play, though, seem to be attempts at using art to clarify a conflict and I don’t think it worked. Actually, I know little about the Klinghoffer piece so I can’t say, but the very choice of topic seems designed to get people screaming at each other.
Uncle Tom’s Cabin might be the exception. Not great literature by modern standards but it portrayed the brutality of slavery for people who might not have thought about it much.
Good counter example. thx
Good counter example. thx
I read somewhere that the Arab Legion actually prevented some Arabs from committing atrocities but I don’t know where I saw that.
Wikipedia says Arab Legion troops prevented Palestinian mobs from massacring groups of Jews in Jerusalem following the city’s capture, for one. There may be other instances.
I read somewhere that the Arab Legion actually prevented some Arabs from committing atrocities but I don’t know where I saw that.
Wikipedia says Arab Legion troops prevented Palestinian mobs from massacring groups of Jews in Jerusalem following the city’s capture, for one. There may be other instances.
Last post tonight. On solutions, we could have a debate about 1ss vs 2ss or talk about the low level of political leadership on both sides, but there is something simpler that should be done right now—
Israel should stop being so gratuitously cruel. Their blockade of Gaza goes way beyond what security needs would dictate. And they really do operate a racist system on the WB. Even if one accepted the Zionist narrative of the history, there is no reason to keep expanding the settlements and making Palestinian lives miserable.
And American politicians could point this out. Loudly. And start cutting aid.
I think I linked David Shulman before. He has been a Zionist. I think he might have a foot out the door. Anyway, when you read his New York Review articles you can see that security just doesn’t justify this crap.
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/06/22/israels-irrational-rationality/
This was from a year ago. He ends with a faint hope that maybe Trump was serious about peace. That part looked pretty silly then and worse now.
Last post tonight. On solutions, we could have a debate about 1ss vs 2ss or talk about the low level of political leadership on both sides, but there is something simpler that should be done right now—
Israel should stop being so gratuitously cruel. Their blockade of Gaza goes way beyond what security needs would dictate. And they really do operate a racist system on the WB. Even if one accepted the Zionist narrative of the history, there is no reason to keep expanding the settlements and making Palestinian lives miserable.
And American politicians could point this out. Loudly. And start cutting aid.
I think I linked David Shulman before. He has been a Zionist. I think he might have a foot out the door. Anyway, when you read his New York Review articles you can see that security just doesn’t justify this crap.
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/06/22/israels-irrational-rationality/
This was from a year ago. He ends with a faint hope that maybe Trump was serious about peace. That part looked pretty silly then and worse now.
2 state solution: only possible if it includes returning to something very close to the 1967 borders. (Maybe some very small tweaks at the edges.) Including Jerusalem redivided. Which is not politically possible in Israel currently — and the demographics make it look ever less possible.
1 state solution:
Alternative A — full rights within Israel for Palestinians. Means Israel ceases to be “a Jewish state.” So that’s not happening.
Alternative B — apartheid: that it, Israel denies voting (and possibly other) rights to Palestinians. With or without forcing current “Israeli Arabs” to lose their rights — and ignoring the question, if they keep them, of how to treat children of marriages across the divide. This looks to be where Netanyahu et al. are heading. And it pretty well guarantees Israel getting the same treatment that South Africa got.
Alternative C — ethnic cleansing. First off, where to put them? There isn’t (aren’t) countries which are able, not to mention willing, to take them. And the genocide version is death for Israel in pretty short order.
2 state solution: only possible if it includes returning to something very close to the 1967 borders. (Maybe some very small tweaks at the edges.) Including Jerusalem redivided. Which is not politically possible in Israel currently — and the demographics make it look ever less possible.
1 state solution:
Alternative A — full rights within Israel for Palestinians. Means Israel ceases to be “a Jewish state.” So that’s not happening.
Alternative B — apartheid: that it, Israel denies voting (and possibly other) rights to Palestinians. With or without forcing current “Israeli Arabs” to lose their rights — and ignoring the question, if they keep them, of how to treat children of marriages across the divide. This looks to be where Netanyahu et al. are heading. And it pretty well guarantees Israel getting the same treatment that South Africa got.
Alternative C — ethnic cleansing. First off, where to put them? There isn’t (aren’t) countries which are able, not to mention willing, to take them. And the genocide version is death for Israel in pretty short order.
The only hopeful outcome I’ve seen with respect to such matters is Ireland.
It’s nice that the Irish found a way to temporarily paper things over, but the circumstances appear to have been vastly different.
The only hopeful outcome I’ve seen with respect to such matters is Ireland.
It’s nice that the Irish found a way to temporarily paper things over, but the circumstances appear to have been vastly different.
I disagree. They were in a very real danger of being conquered as a nation by a ruling Arab elite that was extremely anti-Semitic and were subject to an invasion from countries that had even very recently taken a large number of nasty anti-Semitic actions.
As Jack and Donald have pretty much made the case for, this is totally at odds with actually existing historical circumstances, an argument you have not even tried to rebut in any meaningful way. One could just as easily claim that Palestinians were in very real danger of being conquered by a group of religious zealots imbued with a deeply held western version of
ethno-nationalism ….and in fact, this is pretty much exactly what happened.
To his credit, byomtov, at least, concedes this essential reality.
I disagree. They were in a very real danger of being conquered as a nation by a ruling Arab elite that was extremely anti-Semitic and were subject to an invasion from countries that had even very recently taken a large number of nasty anti-Semitic actions.
As Jack and Donald have pretty much made the case for, this is totally at odds with actually existing historical circumstances, an argument you have not even tried to rebut in any meaningful way. One could just as easily claim that Palestinians were in very real danger of being conquered by a group of religious zealots imbued with a deeply held western version of
ethno-nationalism ….and in fact, this is pretty much exactly what happened.
To his credit, byomtov, at least, concedes this essential reality.
I would ask all the pro-Israeli commenters to explain why there is NOT ONE mention on their part of Israeli hatred for “arabs” or “Palestinians”.
Apparently in circumstances of civil war*, only their side is exempt from such feelings.
Again…again, again…what we see today is the outcome of a civil war.
I would ask all the pro-Israeli commenters to explain why there is NOT ONE mention on their part of Israeli hatred for “arabs” or “Palestinians”.
Apparently in circumstances of civil war*, only their side is exempt from such feelings.
Again…again, again…what we see today is the outcome of a civil war.
One could just as easily claim that Palestinians were in very real danger of being conquered by a group of religious zealots imbued with a deeply held western version of ethno-nationalism.
Considering how many of the Zionist leaders (not sure about the masses, but definitely the leaders) were seriously secular, it might be more accurate to call this ethno-nationalist zealotism with overtones of religion. That is, it was at least as much a political movement as a religious one.
One could just as easily claim that Palestinians were in very real danger of being conquered by a group of religious zealots imbued with a deeply held western version of ethno-nationalism.
Considering how many of the Zionist leaders (not sure about the masses, but definitely the leaders) were seriously secular, it might be more accurate to call this ethno-nationalist zealotism with overtones of religion. That is, it was at least as much a political movement as a religious one.
That is, it was at least as much a political movement as a religious one.
In point of fact, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there were many Jews who opposed the Zionist vision from its very inception.
That is, it was at least as much a political movement as a religious one.
In point of fact, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there were many Jews who opposed the Zionist vision from its very inception.
It seems that this was the moment in time when the possibilities disappeared.
I’m not sure about that – receded into the far, far distance is perhaps more accurate.
As Rabin demonstrated, generosity is about the only thing which might restart moves towards a peaceful settlement.
The two sides (with a few notable exceptions) have been talking past each other for decades, and both are utterly convinced of their own rectitude. I can remember attending debates in the Oxford Union over three decades ago, and the essential arguments were more or less as now, and the unwillingness to concede a single point just as today. I have sympathy with claims made by both sides – and at the same time an utter lack of sympathy for their complete intransigence.
That the power disparity between the Israeli state and the Palestinians is far greater than it was back then is indisputable, but in some respects is, I think, beside the point. Israel is a nuclear armed state which is not going voluntarily to disappear; but neither are the Palestinian dispossessed.
While Israel, for now, utterly dominates its neighbours militarily, technologically and economically, it can’t rely on that being the case forever.
The one thing which might work is generosity – which could, for example comprise a massive financial settlement for the Palestinian dispossessed, and aid (including Israeli agritech) for neighbouring states which might offer a permanent homeland. What is clear is that neither side is going to ‘win’ without either reconciling on the one hand, or unimaginable bloodshed on the other.
And trying now to adjudicate the rights and wrongs of 1948 is futile.
It seems that this was the moment in time when the possibilities disappeared.
I’m not sure about that – receded into the far, far distance is perhaps more accurate.
As Rabin demonstrated, generosity is about the only thing which might restart moves towards a peaceful settlement.
The two sides (with a few notable exceptions) have been talking past each other for decades, and both are utterly convinced of their own rectitude. I can remember attending debates in the Oxford Union over three decades ago, and the essential arguments were more or less as now, and the unwillingness to concede a single point just as today. I have sympathy with claims made by both sides – and at the same time an utter lack of sympathy for their complete intransigence.
That the power disparity between the Israeli state and the Palestinians is far greater than it was back then is indisputable, but in some respects is, I think, beside the point. Israel is a nuclear armed state which is not going voluntarily to disappear; but neither are the Palestinian dispossessed.
While Israel, for now, utterly dominates its neighbours militarily, technologically and economically, it can’t rely on that being the case forever.
The one thing which might work is generosity – which could, for example comprise a massive financial settlement for the Palestinian dispossessed, and aid (including Israeli agritech) for neighbouring states which might offer a permanent homeland. What is clear is that neither side is going to ‘win’ without either reconciling on the one hand, or unimaginable bloodshed on the other.
And trying now to adjudicate the rights and wrongs of 1948 is futile.
Jack,
Yes, absolutely. I don’t think American conservatives give a shit about how actual Israeli Jews felt or feel, or what the actual truth — historical or present — of the situation is.
OTOH, I do give a shit. The evangelical fondness for Israel is not, IMO, “good for the Jews.”
whatever the fears of that bunch of Jews were in 1948, the fact remains that, 70 years on, they are no longer either justifiable, or justification for the ongoing mistreatment of Palestinians. As I think you have conceded.
Well, I don’t know that I’ve “conceded” that as much as I just agree with it and have for some time. There really is no justification for current Israeli policy.
Jack,
Yes, absolutely. I don’t think American conservatives give a shit about how actual Israeli Jews felt or feel, or what the actual truth — historical or present — of the situation is.
OTOH, I do give a shit. The evangelical fondness for Israel is not, IMO, “good for the Jews.”
whatever the fears of that bunch of Jews were in 1948, the fact remains that, 70 years on, they are no longer either justifiable, or justification for the ongoing mistreatment of Palestinians. As I think you have conceded.
Well, I don’t know that I’ve “conceded” that as much as I just agree with it and have for some time. There really is no justification for current Israeli policy.
I agree that the mistreatment of Palestinians under current Israeli “policy” is brutal and reprehensible and that American evangelical fondness for Israel is merely a coaxing smile, accompanied by a sniffing German Shepherd, to encourage boarding a crowded train to a nice fake Biblical reality show theme park over the eastern horizon (vee haf vays of bringing Biblical prophecy to fruition), but I’ve always wondered why, when Jews gather together, they are referred to as doing so in “bunches”, like bananas.
Same with blacks, Hispanics, gays, Native Americans, and Muslims.
Meanwhile, Romans form themselves into armies of armored Centurions, Nazis are accorded uniformed Panzer Divisions, Schutzstaffel, and tiki torches, Stalin has his Divisions, and American fascists sneak up on us as the Silent Majority who would rather be Russians, Nazis, and Roman crucifiers than vote for Clinton and Obama and include the Other in the same subsidized healthcare the conservative cucks receive.
I agree that the mistreatment of Palestinians under current Israeli “policy” is brutal and reprehensible and that American evangelical fondness for Israel is merely a coaxing smile, accompanied by a sniffing German Shepherd, to encourage boarding a crowded train to a nice fake Biblical reality show theme park over the eastern horizon (vee haf vays of bringing Biblical prophecy to fruition), but I’ve always wondered why, when Jews gather together, they are referred to as doing so in “bunches”, like bananas.
Same with blacks, Hispanics, gays, Native Americans, and Muslims.
Meanwhile, Romans form themselves into armies of armored Centurions, Nazis are accorded uniformed Panzer Divisions, Schutzstaffel, and tiki torches, Stalin has his Divisions, and American fascists sneak up on us as the Silent Majority who would rather be Russians, Nazis, and Roman crucifiers than vote for Clinton and Obama and include the Other in the same subsidized healthcare the conservative cucks receive.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ingraham-the-america-we-know-and-love-is-gone-due-to-immigration
No, you white ethnic nationalist cuck, the America we knew was gone the day you and Dinesh D’Souza misappropriated the organs of journalism at Dartmouth College to exercise your lying hate glands and began dating to (jack)boot.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ingraham-the-america-we-know-and-love-is-gone-due-to-immigration
No, you white ethnic nationalist cuck, the America we knew was gone the day you and Dinesh D’Souza misappropriated the organs of journalism at Dartmouth College to exercise your lying hate glands and began dating to (jack)boot.
Regarding mp’s fantasia about asbestos, the Mob, and the downing of the Towers, he left out the eminently verifiable fact that John John Kennedy Junior, presumed dead in the small plane crash, was actually living with his wife in a concealed suite high about Manhatten in Tower 2 and the entire operation was aimed at killing him again, as in OMG, they’ve killed Kenny again.
He and his wife parachuted from the burning tower to an escape cigarette boat stationed in the Hudson River and they now live as prisoners in the Mar-a-Lago crawl space, along with John Lennon, JonBenet Ramsey, Soupy Sales, Rasputin, and Roy Cohn’s hairpiece.
Meanwhile, the Politburo convenes on the Potomac. Devin Nunes is building a dacha in Mendocino where he rapes and sodomizes the DACA kids.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/8/9/1786972/-Russians-see-US-Senate-sanctions-bill-before-American-public-does
Regarding mp’s fantasia about asbestos, the Mob, and the downing of the Towers, he left out the eminently verifiable fact that John John Kennedy Junior, presumed dead in the small plane crash, was actually living with his wife in a concealed suite high about Manhatten in Tower 2 and the entire operation was aimed at killing him again, as in OMG, they’ve killed Kenny again.
He and his wife parachuted from the burning tower to an escape cigarette boat stationed in the Hudson River and they now live as prisoners in the Mar-a-Lago crawl space, along with John Lennon, JonBenet Ramsey, Soupy Sales, Rasputin, and Roy Cohn’s hairpiece.
Meanwhile, the Politburo convenes on the Potomac. Devin Nunes is building a dacha in Mendocino where he rapes and sodomizes the DACA kids.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/8/9/1786972/-Russians-see-US-Senate-sanctions-bill-before-American-public-does
The 14 words:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/08/20-words
Hitler rose to power on the wings of free speech.
The 14 words:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/08/20-words
Hitler rose to power on the wings of free speech.
I’ve always thought that the IP debate would be more focused if it were in fact two debates: 1) the moral and legal foundation for creating a state in the first place; and 2) solutions accepting the fact of existence of Israel without questioning the founding. This thread has nipped at the edges of doing that, but not quite. The problem is the argument gets muddied if you approach both at the same time, IMHO.
On the first, we could expand on the expulsion of Germans from Poland and the Allied powers drawing lines after WWII. We could add to that the French Mandate and British Mandates writ large. The artificially-created boundaries of Syria and Lebanon from the French Mandate. And we have Iraq, Israel and Trans-Jordan from the British. Whether or not this was neo-colonialism (I think it was), the Ottomans sided with the wrong side. But we aren’t talking about the other countries and their right to exist and the (sometimes quite large) Jewish populations of those countries. If the creation of Israel is unjustified, what about the other countries?
The assumption is this: The Palestinians should have been relocated to some mythical Arab nation state (and the emerging Arab states should have gratefully absorbed them as “arabs”)…not PALESTINE….because there was no ARAB PALESTINE. This was a major conceit of the western powers
I think there is an argument that Trans-Jordan was in fact the Arab Palestine to begin with. It was part of the British Mandate of Palestine way back when. If memory serves, Trans-Jordan was the area excluded from Jewish settlement in what was the British Mandate of “Palestine.” And then the UN started whittling down the area that was to become Israel until 1948 until it was untenable and indefensible. And then the war.
At the same time, no amount of thinking or debate is going to change that fact that Israel exists. And it isn’t going anywhere. So, to me, the debate on what do do should not be clouded with whether or not it should exist. That is a separate question.
As to the second question . . .
One could argue that there has never been a better time for the two sides to talk. Alas, one side is holding all the cards, and is intent on rubbing it in.
Good point on the first sentence, if one assumes Iran isn’t close to going nuclear and ignores Iranian proxies. Not sure if I agree on the second.
I don’t pretend to even know where to go on the solution to the IP issue. No way Israel will go back to 1948 borders, where an occupant of the West Bank could divide the country by driving 9 miles to the sea. Not going to happen. Really not going to happen with Hamas in power.
I’d be willing to kick in a few tens of billions if it resulted in peace. Israel paid its citizens in Gaza something like 200k to relocate them, but I’m not sure if that was per person or household. Per person, a mere 362 billion (if I did my math correctly) would be the equivalent to move the Gazans elsewhere. A bit more for those in the West Bank. But say under a trillion dollars. Maybe the Arab countries would be willing to help resettle if each person had $200k attached to them.
I know, callous argument, but I don’t see anything else working.
Anecdote: I just picked up a PCT hiker from Israel the other day to take him back to the trail (he was hitchhiking). Mild mannered guy. Not all that happy with the current leadership in Israel, etc. He is from northern Israel right near the border. It struck me how much of his perspective, for what I considered a pretty liberally-minded person, was colored by the question of security. I mean of course, but still.
I’ve always thought that the IP debate would be more focused if it were in fact two debates: 1) the moral and legal foundation for creating a state in the first place; and 2) solutions accepting the fact of existence of Israel without questioning the founding. This thread has nipped at the edges of doing that, but not quite. The problem is the argument gets muddied if you approach both at the same time, IMHO.
On the first, we could expand on the expulsion of Germans from Poland and the Allied powers drawing lines after WWII. We could add to that the French Mandate and British Mandates writ large. The artificially-created boundaries of Syria and Lebanon from the French Mandate. And we have Iraq, Israel and Trans-Jordan from the British. Whether or not this was neo-colonialism (I think it was), the Ottomans sided with the wrong side. But we aren’t talking about the other countries and their right to exist and the (sometimes quite large) Jewish populations of those countries. If the creation of Israel is unjustified, what about the other countries?
The assumption is this: The Palestinians should have been relocated to some mythical Arab nation state (and the emerging Arab states should have gratefully absorbed them as “arabs”)…not PALESTINE….because there was no ARAB PALESTINE. This was a major conceit of the western powers
I think there is an argument that Trans-Jordan was in fact the Arab Palestine to begin with. It was part of the British Mandate of Palestine way back when. If memory serves, Trans-Jordan was the area excluded from Jewish settlement in what was the British Mandate of “Palestine.” And then the UN started whittling down the area that was to become Israel until 1948 until it was untenable and indefensible. And then the war.
At the same time, no amount of thinking or debate is going to change that fact that Israel exists. And it isn’t going anywhere. So, to me, the debate on what do do should not be clouded with whether or not it should exist. That is a separate question.
As to the second question . . .
One could argue that there has never been a better time for the two sides to talk. Alas, one side is holding all the cards, and is intent on rubbing it in.
Good point on the first sentence, if one assumes Iran isn’t close to going nuclear and ignores Iranian proxies. Not sure if I agree on the second.
I don’t pretend to even know where to go on the solution to the IP issue. No way Israel will go back to 1948 borders, where an occupant of the West Bank could divide the country by driving 9 miles to the sea. Not going to happen. Really not going to happen with Hamas in power.
I’d be willing to kick in a few tens of billions if it resulted in peace. Israel paid its citizens in Gaza something like 200k to relocate them, but I’m not sure if that was per person or household. Per person, a mere 362 billion (if I did my math correctly) would be the equivalent to move the Gazans elsewhere. A bit more for those in the West Bank. But say under a trillion dollars. Maybe the Arab countries would be willing to help resettle if each person had $200k attached to them.
I know, callous argument, but I don’t see anything else working.
Anecdote: I just picked up a PCT hiker from Israel the other day to take him back to the trail (he was hitchhiking). Mild mannered guy. Not all that happy with the current leadership in Israel, etc. He is from northern Israel right near the border. It struck me how much of his perspective, for what I considered a pretty liberally-minded person, was colored by the question of security. I mean of course, but still.
Hitler also breathed oxygen. Free speech isn’t the problem with Nazis. It’s the hating and killing people part that’s the problem.
Hitler also breathed oxygen. Free speech isn’t the problem with Nazis. It’s the hating and killing people part that’s the problem.
Maybe the Arab countries would be willing to help resettle if each person had $200k attached to them.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethnic-cleansing
Maybe the Arab countries would be willing to help resettle if each person had $200k attached to them.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethnic-cleansing
Yes, but selective oxygen deprivation therapy might thwart the march to the hating and the killing.
In a similar vein, spraying for ants before those White House picnics might be advisable.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/chris-collins-is-just-one-of-the-many-creeps-picnicking-on-trumps-lawn?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning
The republican party is like a vat of potato salad left out in the sun.
Poison.
Yes, but selective oxygen deprivation therapy might thwart the march to the hating and the killing.
In a similar vein, spraying for ants before those White House picnics might be advisable.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/chris-collins-is-just-one-of-the-many-creeps-picnicking-on-trumps-lawn?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning
The republican party is like a vat of potato salad left out in the sun.
Poison.
Cleek:
To be clear, I wasn’t thinking of forcible displacement. But I was reading a while back how much Israel paid its own citizens and it got me thinking about a financial solution. You obviously couldn’t do it forcibly, and that wasn’t my intent. I was using the Israeli example just for the price paid to calculate what that would cost. I was thinking more of the “reparations” route. But I would think that reparations coupled with a simple renunciation of the right to return would not go anywhere anyway. I wish it were so, but if it were so, that would have already happened, I think.
Cleek:
To be clear, I wasn’t thinking of forcible displacement. But I was reading a while back how much Israel paid its own citizens and it got me thinking about a financial solution. You obviously couldn’t do it forcibly, and that wasn’t my intent. I was using the Israeli example just for the price paid to calculate what that would cost. I was thinking more of the “reparations” route. But I would think that reparations coupled with a simple renunciation of the right to return would not go anywhere anyway. I wish it were so, but if it were so, that would have already happened, I think.
Ethnic cleansing: where do all us mutts go? Let’s start a country where everyone is welcome, mutt or pure-bred.
Oh, wait……sort of.
(Who gets to define pure-bred?)
I just looked up “Blood Quantum” on wikipedia to refresh my memory:
Also, from Sinclair Lewis’s Kingsblood Royal:
The first quote makes me wonder, just to be fair: did the focus of some Native Americans on whether you’re full-blooded or not get adopted from Euro-Americans? Or did attitudes differ among tribes?
And sorry, this is quite a wander off the main topic. But as a mutt in almost every respect, I find the notion of membership/citizenship based on “purity,” of whatever variety, abhorrent and terrifying.
Ethnic cleansing: where do all us mutts go? Let’s start a country where everyone is welcome, mutt or pure-bred.
Oh, wait……sort of.
(Who gets to define pure-bred?)
I just looked up “Blood Quantum” on wikipedia to refresh my memory:
Also, from Sinclair Lewis’s Kingsblood Royal:
The first quote makes me wonder, just to be fair: did the focus of some Native Americans on whether you’re full-blooded or not get adopted from Euro-Americans? Or did attitudes differ among tribes?
And sorry, this is quite a wander off the main topic. But as a mutt in almost every respect, I find the notion of membership/citizenship based on “purity,” of whatever variety, abhorrent and terrifying.
And yet again: mass migration in the era of climate change is going to make mincemeat of the notion of pure ethnic enclaves or nations. IMHO.
And yet again: mass migration in the era of climate change is going to make mincemeat of the notion of pure ethnic enclaves or nations. IMHO.
And finally, the Kingsblood Royal quote is cringeworthy in this era. But I read the book as a very young person (probably early teens) and it made a big impact on me in my little Italian-American-Catholic bubble. I have remember that line about how the babies assumed they were babies forever after.
And finally, the Kingsblood Royal quote is cringeworthy in this era. But I read the book as a very young person (probably early teens) and it made a big impact on me in my little Italian-American-Catholic bubble. I have remember that line about how the babies assumed they were babies forever after.
Hitler also breathed oxygen.
Wait. You guys are oxygen breathers?!
Hitler also breathed oxygen.
Wait. You guys are oxygen breathers?!
As Rabin demonstrated, generosity is about the only thing which might restart moves towards a peaceful settlement.
And generosity was a significant part of what got the Northern Ireland peace agreement done. At least as far as I could tell from half a world away.
As Rabin demonstrated, generosity is about the only thing which might restart moves towards a peaceful settlement.
And generosity was a significant part of what got the Northern Ireland peace agreement done. At least as far as I could tell from half a world away.
I think there is an argument that Trans-Jordan was in fact the Arab Palestine to begin with.
I’m not so sure about that.
It appears Palestine was carved out first, and was to contain within it “a National Home for the Jews”, but the post WWI diplomacy was indeed convoluted and complex! Trans-Jordan came later, and was granted largely autonomous status.
At least that is how I read it.
I think there is an argument that Trans-Jordan was in fact the Arab Palestine to begin with.
I’m not so sure about that.
It appears Palestine was carved out first, and was to contain within it “a National Home for the Jews”, but the post WWI diplomacy was indeed convoluted and complex! Trans-Jordan came later, and was granted largely autonomous status.
At least that is how I read it.
“And trying now to adjudicate the rights and wrongs of 1948 is futile.”
Yes and no. It matters in that even if Palestinians are willing to settle for a 2ss, the mythological version of what happened stacks the deck against them. They start off with 22 percent of their lad being tge maximalist position.
And some are moving towards one man one vote. I don’t know how many.
“I think there is an argument that Trans-Jordan was in fact the Arab Palestine to begin with. It was part of the British Mandate of Palestine way back when. If memory serves, Trans-Jordan was the area excluded from Jewish settlement in what was the British Mandate of “Palestine.” And then the UN started whittling down the area that was to become Israel until 1948 until it was untenable and indefensible”
That is the maximalist Likud position, that Jordan is Palestine. It only makes sense on the assumption that Palestinians living in their own land were being unreasonable wanting to stay there. My polite way of saying it was and is an utterly racist position adopted by rightwing Zionists.
Incidentally, the desert blooming argument was referenced by Jeff. One can talk about what Israel did with the land, but it was not a desolate wasteland when the Arabs had it. See, for instance, Meron Benvenisti’s book on that, but I don’t feel like copying text.
“And yet again: mass migration in the era of climate change is going to make mincemeat of the notion of pure ethnic enclaves or nations. IMHO.”
Yep. I don’t know if it is true, but the Syrian Civil War might in part have been triggered by drought. It might be the beginning of things to come. I think Tom Friedman said this, but it might be true anyway.
“And trying now to adjudicate the rights and wrongs of 1948 is futile.”
Yes and no. It matters in that even if Palestinians are willing to settle for a 2ss, the mythological version of what happened stacks the deck against them. They start off with 22 percent of their lad being tge maximalist position.
And some are moving towards one man one vote. I don’t know how many.
“I think there is an argument that Trans-Jordan was in fact the Arab Palestine to begin with. It was part of the British Mandate of Palestine way back when. If memory serves, Trans-Jordan was the area excluded from Jewish settlement in what was the British Mandate of “Palestine.” And then the UN started whittling down the area that was to become Israel until 1948 until it was untenable and indefensible”
That is the maximalist Likud position, that Jordan is Palestine. It only makes sense on the assumption that Palestinians living in their own land were being unreasonable wanting to stay there. My polite way of saying it was and is an utterly racist position adopted by rightwing Zionists.
Incidentally, the desert blooming argument was referenced by Jeff. One can talk about what Israel did with the land, but it was not a desolate wasteland when the Arabs had it. See, for instance, Meron Benvenisti’s book on that, but I don’t feel like copying text.
“And yet again: mass migration in the era of climate change is going to make mincemeat of the notion of pure ethnic enclaves or nations. IMHO.”
Yep. I don’t know if it is true, but the Syrian Civil War might in part have been triggered by drought. It might be the beginning of things to come. I think Tom Friedman said this, but it might be true anyway.
I think Tom Friedman said this, but it might be true anyway.
In a similar vein, I think Jared Diamond said it about Rwanda.
I think Tom Friedman said this, but it might be true anyway.
In a similar vein, I think Jared Diamond said it about Rwanda.
I think Tom Friedman said this, but it might be true anyway.
In a similar vein, I think Jared Diamond said it about Rwanda.
Assorted people who do complex systems analysis have suggested that the trigger for the Arab Spring was a spike in food prices caused by droughts outside MENA that decreased wheat yields. I have not looked at the details, but Egypt imports a fairly staggering amount of wheat per capita. It’s been conventional wisdom for a long time that a bad year that hits any two of the big five or six wheat exporters means MENA starves. This may be the year — things are looking poorly in all of the US, Europe, and Ukraine.
I think Tom Friedman said this, but it might be true anyway.
In a similar vein, I think Jared Diamond said it about Rwanda.
Assorted people who do complex systems analysis have suggested that the trigger for the Arab Spring was a spike in food prices caused by droughts outside MENA that decreased wheat yields. I have not looked at the details, but Egypt imports a fairly staggering amount of wheat per capita. It’s been conventional wisdom for a long time that a bad year that hits any two of the big five or six wheat exporters means MENA starves. This may be the year — things are looking poorly in all of the US, Europe, and Ukraine.
And yet again: mass migration in the era of climate change is going to make mincemeat of the notion of pure ethnic enclaves or nations. IMHO.
It’s just about conceivable that technology will keep the Middle East habitable in the coming decades – and it is, after all, one of the best situated places on the planet for large scale solar power (already deliverable below 2c per kWh). You can do a lot with abundant, cheap energy.
It’s going to take massive investment, and what would guarantee it becomes inhospitable desert is continued war.
And yet again: mass migration in the era of climate change is going to make mincemeat of the notion of pure ethnic enclaves or nations. IMHO.
It’s just about conceivable that technology will keep the Middle East habitable in the coming decades – and it is, after all, one of the best situated places on the planet for large scale solar power (already deliverable below 2c per kWh). You can do a lot with abundant, cheap energy.
It’s going to take massive investment, and what would guarantee it becomes inhospitable desert is continued war.
did the focus of some Native Americans on whether you’re full-blooded or not get adopted from Euro-Americans?
I believe it did.
It’s interesting, we are talking about relocation, and the Trail of Tears, where the “5 Civilized Tribes”, which had largely adopted white Southern culture, to the point of keeping slaves, were relocated to Oklahoma, and, when the land that they were moved to was going to be given to white settlers, the government had to determine what land was reservation land and what land was available, so the Dawes Roll was taken, which has led to problems with blood quantum for these tribes.
https://www.npr.org/2011/09/19/140594124/u-s-government-opposes-cherokee-nations-decision
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/an-ancestry-of-african-native-americans-7986049/
I normally don’t post Daily Show links, but this seems apropos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZVkLqPX6kk
did the focus of some Native Americans on whether you’re full-blooded or not get adopted from Euro-Americans?
I believe it did.
It’s interesting, we are talking about relocation, and the Trail of Tears, where the “5 Civilized Tribes”, which had largely adopted white Southern culture, to the point of keeping slaves, were relocated to Oklahoma, and, when the land that they were moved to was going to be given to white settlers, the government had to determine what land was reservation land and what land was available, so the Dawes Roll was taken, which has led to problems with blood quantum for these tribes.
https://www.npr.org/2011/09/19/140594124/u-s-government-opposes-cherokee-nations-decision
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/an-ancestry-of-african-native-americans-7986049/
I normally don’t post Daily Show links, but this seems apropos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZVkLqPX6kk
The I/P conflict is not solvable by us. I am perplexed by, and against, some of our whole hearted UN support for Israel when that stance is totally unwarranted. I’m in the here and now (although majored in history, and completely am in favor of people examining history and its effect on the present day). I’m interested in post-WWII history, including the muffling of Nazi and Imperial Japanese dead-enders. There was management of people who wanted to restart the war ASAP (“possible” being far-fetched, perhaps, but think of the trouble that people who won the war thought they could have caused).
I hate the current Israeli government. We (as a voting “democracy” – at least that was somewhat true in the past) have not as much control over that as what we do now, about ourselves.
Focus, people. All y’all hate me because I was trying to say this during the Obama administration. Sorry! Next time we get a reasonable President, please:
Fight the Nazis with all you have. You want to call them Republicans? Okay: fight the Republicans with all you have.
Don’t fight the less than perfect Democrats. They’ll always be less then perfect. Write them letters, and complain, and quietly try to change them, whatever. But “moving them to the left” gives Putin room to “move them to Jill Stein” . Or whoever will distract them from Putin’s puppet.
The I/P fight? Glenn’s not going to win it, Donald.
The I/P conflict is not solvable by us. I am perplexed by, and against, some of our whole hearted UN support for Israel when that stance is totally unwarranted. I’m in the here and now (although majored in history, and completely am in favor of people examining history and its effect on the present day). I’m interested in post-WWII history, including the muffling of Nazi and Imperial Japanese dead-enders. There was management of people who wanted to restart the war ASAP (“possible” being far-fetched, perhaps, but think of the trouble that people who won the war thought they could have caused).
I hate the current Israeli government. We (as a voting “democracy” – at least that was somewhat true in the past) have not as much control over that as what we do now, about ourselves.
Focus, people. All y’all hate me because I was trying to say this during the Obama administration. Sorry! Next time we get a reasonable President, please:
Fight the Nazis with all you have. You want to call them Republicans? Okay: fight the Republicans with all you have.
Don’t fight the less than perfect Democrats. They’ll always be less then perfect. Write them letters, and complain, and quietly try to change them, whatever. But “moving them to the left” gives Putin room to “move them to Jill Stein” . Or whoever will distract them from Putin’s puppet.
The I/P fight? Glenn’s not going to win it, Donald.
Just reread my post. Definitely should have edited first. Sorry.
I’ll continue to lay low.
Just reread my post. Definitely should have edited first. Sorry.
I’ll continue to lay low.
“The I/P fight? Glenn’s not going to win it, Donald.”
You mean Linda Sarsour, the Palestinian American woman who helped organize the pussy hat march? This issue seems to have more traction with younger people. The Forward has recently had a couple of articles about how some shadowy group is trying to intimidate BDS supporters on campus. So somebody thinks it matters.
I don’t think people should vote third party because Democrats are bad on some issues. Republicans are normally worse on issues even when Democrats are bad, third parties don’t win ( usually) and they don’t even seem to work in terms of pressure as best I can tell. But people aren’t and shouldn’t stop talking about issues because somebody might vote third party if they get mad. Also, when a reasonable President is in then you can’t talk about some issues because an unreasonable President might come in. This is a strange sort of system where we simply aren’t supposed to talk about some issues. This in a weird way is the Nader legacy— some folks like you get antsy or even angr ywhen someone even brings up an issue which the third party types might use. People like me then get angry. The third party people think this justifies going third party. Fun and rants are had by all.
As for solving it, I would settle for us not making it worse. Which we have done by reflexively supporting Israel. They know they can do whatever they want and we might or might not grumble, but they will get what they want from us. Netanyahu and bin Salman seem to have Trump on a leash, far more than Putin. I think we could stop making things worse in the Middle East. It goes against all our instincts to jump in there and start killing people or sanctioning them to the point where their lives are miserable, or arming some war criminal or other, but with great effort we might be able to restrain ourselves from pouring out our benevolence in these traditionally American ways. . We might even be able to nudge things in a slightly positive direction if we weren’t busy making things worse.
“The I/P fight? Glenn’s not going to win it, Donald.”
You mean Linda Sarsour, the Palestinian American woman who helped organize the pussy hat march? This issue seems to have more traction with younger people. The Forward has recently had a couple of articles about how some shadowy group is trying to intimidate BDS supporters on campus. So somebody thinks it matters.
I don’t think people should vote third party because Democrats are bad on some issues. Republicans are normally worse on issues even when Democrats are bad, third parties don’t win ( usually) and they don’t even seem to work in terms of pressure as best I can tell. But people aren’t and shouldn’t stop talking about issues because somebody might vote third party if they get mad. Also, when a reasonable President is in then you can’t talk about some issues because an unreasonable President might come in. This is a strange sort of system where we simply aren’t supposed to talk about some issues. This in a weird way is the Nader legacy— some folks like you get antsy or even angr ywhen someone even brings up an issue which the third party types might use. People like me then get angry. The third party people think this justifies going third party. Fun and rants are had by all.
As for solving it, I would settle for us not making it worse. Which we have done by reflexively supporting Israel. They know they can do whatever they want and we might or might not grumble, but they will get what they want from us. Netanyahu and bin Salman seem to have Trump on a leash, far more than Putin. I think we could stop making things worse in the Middle East. It goes against all our instincts to jump in there and start killing people or sanctioning them to the point where their lives are miserable, or arming some war criminal or other, but with great effort we might be able to restrain ourselves from pouring out our benevolence in these traditionally American ways. . We might even be able to nudge things in a slightly positive direction if we weren’t busy making things worse.
In that case, ignore mine as well. I don’t particularly want t have our usual argument.
In that case, ignore mine as well. I don’t particularly want t have our usual argument.
You mean Linda Sarsour, the Palestinian American woman who helped organize the pussy hat march?
No, Donald, I meant Glenn. I said Glenn.
Linda Sarsour isn’t my idol either, even though I knitted a pink pussy hat, and attended. Was it the right color? Apparently pussy hats lost favor because they were too pink. I used some yarn that was close, and what I had. I don’t know what Linda thinks.
Let’s leave it alone. You didn’t address what I said, and it was somewhat ill-advised, and we don’t like each other much. Or maybe we do in Schrödinger’s world.
You mean Linda Sarsour, the Palestinian American woman who helped organize the pussy hat march?
No, Donald, I meant Glenn. I said Glenn.
Linda Sarsour isn’t my idol either, even though I knitted a pink pussy hat, and attended. Was it the right color? Apparently pussy hats lost favor because they were too pink. I used some yarn that was close, and what I had. I don’t know what Linda thinks.
Let’s leave it alone. You didn’t address what I said, and it was somewhat ill-advised, and we don’t like each other much. Or maybe we do in Schrödinger’s world.
Wonder what color your hat was, Donald.
Wonder what color your hat was, Donald.
bobbyp:
I read it as the entire mandate of Palestine (which included modern-day Israel and what is now Jordan) was to have an Arab emirate (now Jordan, previously Trans-Jordan, or rather obviously “across the Jordan River) and a “homeland for the Jewish people.” At least that was the Balfour Declaration. Then the Churchill White Paper “clarified” that a Jewish homeland would not be what was now left of “Palestine” but “within” “Palestine.” Which I understand in turn led to the UN progressively carving a smaller and smaller portion of “Palestine” into the Jewish homeland.
At the end of the day, the UN resolution passed for a two-state solution because they saw back then there was no other solution. The Zionists accepted the UN plan although it was far less than what they expected and the Arabs rejected it and went on to attack to take by force what they could not get before the UN. And the British got the heck out of there.
Donald:
I’m not trying to define “Palestine,” I’m simply pointing out that the League of Nations gave the British a protectorate labeled “Palestine” that included what is now Jordan, and proposed a two-state solution with Trans-Jordan being “Arab” and reserving the remainder of “Palestine” to house, at least in part, a Jewish homeland. And they decided to split the baby in part using the river.
The plan wasn’t to relocate anybody, although there were restrictions preventing Jews from immigrating into Trans-Jordan and into “Palestine.” But expulsions (both ways) happened anyway. Surprise, surprise.
bobbyp:
I read it as the entire mandate of Palestine (which included modern-day Israel and what is now Jordan) was to have an Arab emirate (now Jordan, previously Trans-Jordan, or rather obviously “across the Jordan River) and a “homeland for the Jewish people.” At least that was the Balfour Declaration. Then the Churchill White Paper “clarified” that a Jewish homeland would not be what was now left of “Palestine” but “within” “Palestine.” Which I understand in turn led to the UN progressively carving a smaller and smaller portion of “Palestine” into the Jewish homeland.
At the end of the day, the UN resolution passed for a two-state solution because they saw back then there was no other solution. The Zionists accepted the UN plan although it was far less than what they expected and the Arabs rejected it and went on to attack to take by force what they could not get before the UN. And the British got the heck out of there.
Donald:
I’m not trying to define “Palestine,” I’m simply pointing out that the League of Nations gave the British a protectorate labeled “Palestine” that included what is now Jordan, and proposed a two-state solution with Trans-Jordan being “Arab” and reserving the remainder of “Palestine” to house, at least in part, a Jewish homeland. And they decided to split the baby in part using the river.
The plan wasn’t to relocate anybody, although there were restrictions preventing Jews from immigrating into Trans-Jordan and into “Palestine.” But expulsions (both ways) happened anyway. Surprise, surprise.
The British didn’t have a consistent plan and they made inconsistent promises. But the whole thing was crazy and arrogant in a characteristically imperial way. Jews were a small minority in the tens and early 20’s. You couldn’t have a majority Jewish state in the region without forcing it on the natives and without transfer as they put it back then. The idea that Israel was whittled down because Jordan should have been Palestine again only makes sense if the rights of the people who were actually living there didn’t matter.
Zionism was supported by Gentile antisemites to some degree. The root problem was Western antisemitism. Zionism was the solution— let the Jews go to Palestine and then if the Arabs objected to their land being promised to foreigners by other foreigners, blame them.
I have a friend from Texas who saw my copy of Segev’s book on the Mandate period on the shelf and she said “Arabs were killing Jews back then too.” Which irritated me. The sheer smugness. Of course retorts come to mind late, but the obvious one for her, a conservative very well educated woman who, btw, voted for Bush then and Trump more recently, was to ask how Anglo Texans were treating Hispanics in that era. The answer is they were murdering them by the thousands.
The British didn’t have a consistent plan and they made inconsistent promises. But the whole thing was crazy and arrogant in a characteristically imperial way. Jews were a small minority in the tens and early 20’s. You couldn’t have a majority Jewish state in the region without forcing it on the natives and without transfer as they put it back then. The idea that Israel was whittled down because Jordan should have been Palestine again only makes sense if the rights of the people who were actually living there didn’t matter.
Zionism was supported by Gentile antisemites to some degree. The root problem was Western antisemitism. Zionism was the solution— let the Jews go to Palestine and then if the Arabs objected to their land being promised to foreigners by other foreigners, blame them.
I have a friend from Texas who saw my copy of Segev’s book on the Mandate period on the shelf and she said “Arabs were killing Jews back then too.” Which irritated me. The sheer smugness. Of course retorts come to mind late, but the obvious one for her, a conservative very well educated woman who, btw, voted for Bush then and Trump more recently, was to ask how Anglo Texans were treating Hispanics in that era. The answer is they were murdering them by the thousands.
Reference for last claim—
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/opinion/when-americans-lynched-mexicans.html
And yes, this is whataboutery irrelevant to the IP conflict, but smug conservatives like my friend irritate me.
Reference for last claim—
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/opinion/when-americans-lynched-mexicans.html
And yes, this is whataboutery irrelevant to the IP conflict, but smug conservatives like my friend irritate me.
I’m not trying to define “Palestine,” I’m simply pointing out that the League of Nations gave the British a protectorate labeled “Palestine” that included what is now Jordan, and proposed a two-state solution with Trans-Jordan being “Arab” and reserving the remainder of “Palestine” to house, at least in part, a Jewish homeland.
One (but only one!) of the problems afflicting the Middle East is simply that it’s a hodgepodge of ethnic groups with minimal if any relation to current political boundaries. The only real “nation-states” are Iran, Egypt, Israel (for the moment) and maybe Turkey (although the large Kurdish population, and their treatment by the majority Turks, makes that arguable). The others are artificial kludges. That applies to Palestine (however defined) as much as to Iraq, Syria, Yemen, etc., etc.
At best, you can get members of a self-defined ethnic group to agree on who they include. Getting agreement on who constitutes other groups, or even whether a particular other group is real, is far more challenging. Leaving everybody with the quite reasonable feeling that their very existance (certainly as a group, possibly as individuals) is under constant threat from pretty much everybody around them.
The implications for any Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement seem obvious. Generations of experience have taught all concerned that nobody can be trusted. Ever. Not the counterparties in an agreement. Not any “guarantors” of the agreement. Not any nominally uninvolved neighbors.
And that’s totally independent of whatever, from the outside, appears to be the actual substance of the agreement. Which is a separate can of worms.
I’m not trying to define “Palestine,” I’m simply pointing out that the League of Nations gave the British a protectorate labeled “Palestine” that included what is now Jordan, and proposed a two-state solution with Trans-Jordan being “Arab” and reserving the remainder of “Palestine” to house, at least in part, a Jewish homeland.
One (but only one!) of the problems afflicting the Middle East is simply that it’s a hodgepodge of ethnic groups with minimal if any relation to current political boundaries. The only real “nation-states” are Iran, Egypt, Israel (for the moment) and maybe Turkey (although the large Kurdish population, and their treatment by the majority Turks, makes that arguable). The others are artificial kludges. That applies to Palestine (however defined) as much as to Iraq, Syria, Yemen, etc., etc.
At best, you can get members of a self-defined ethnic group to agree on who they include. Getting agreement on who constitutes other groups, or even whether a particular other group is real, is far more challenging. Leaving everybody with the quite reasonable feeling that their very existance (certainly as a group, possibly as individuals) is under constant threat from pretty much everybody around them.
The implications for any Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement seem obvious. Generations of experience have taught all concerned that nobody can be trusted. Ever. Not the counterparties in an agreement. Not any “guarantors” of the agreement. Not any nominally uninvolved neighbors.
And that’s totally independent of whatever, from the outside, appears to be the actual substance of the agreement. Which is a separate can of worms.
Not sure if this is an illegal download site or not, but this book may be of interest
https://epdf.tips/diasporas-concepts-intersections-identities.html
Not sure if this is an illegal download site or not, but this book may be of interest
https://epdf.tips/diasporas-concepts-intersections-identities.html
And yet again: mass migration in the era of climate change is going to make mincemeat of the notion of pure ethnic enclaves or nations. IMHO.
It’s just about conceivable that technology will keep the Middle East habitable in the coming decades
Technology is great, and it would be equally great to find better ways to generate energy.
That said, technology is not going to solve problems of the type and scale that are likely to follow from climate change.
People are going to have to learn to deal with each other. Which is to say, get along, in peaceful and constructive ways.
That, or we’re going to be at each other’s throats, and a lot of people are going to die.
Gonna be almost 10 billion people on the planet in 2050. That’s just over 30 years from now.
Remember 1986? 1986 to now is how far away 2050 is.
If you think inequality in the US is an issue, wait until you see what inequality at global scale looks like.
And yet again: mass migration in the era of climate change is going to make mincemeat of the notion of pure ethnic enclaves or nations. IMHO.
It’s just about conceivable that technology will keep the Middle East habitable in the coming decades
Technology is great, and it would be equally great to find better ways to generate energy.
That said, technology is not going to solve problems of the type and scale that are likely to follow from climate change.
People are going to have to learn to deal with each other. Which is to say, get along, in peaceful and constructive ways.
That, or we’re going to be at each other’s throats, and a lot of people are going to die.
Gonna be almost 10 billion people on the planet in 2050. That’s just over 30 years from now.
Remember 1986? 1986 to now is how far away 2050 is.
If you think inequality in the US is an issue, wait until you see what inequality at global scale looks like.
Remember 1986?
Oh, yeah. I think that’s the year I graduated high school. (Or was I graduated from high school? Does anyone ever say that?)
I hope I’m still around in 2050, though I may regret being around by the time 2050 gets here. (I guess “here” means “the present” in this formulation. It’s almost like saying, “when 2050 becomes now.”)
Remember 1986?
Oh, yeah. I think that’s the year I graduated high school. (Or was I graduated from high school? Does anyone ever say that?)
I hope I’m still around in 2050, though I may regret being around by the time 2050 gets here. (I guess “here” means “the present” in this formulation. It’s almost like saying, “when 2050 becomes now.”)
hsh —
In my dialect (which is of course the only correct one), I graduated from high school.
I did not graduate high school (ugggggghhhhhh!)
nor was I graduated from high school.
So there. 😉
hsh —
In my dialect (which is of course the only correct one), I graduated from high school.
I did not graduate high school (ugggggghhhhhh!)
nor was I graduated from high school.
So there. 😉
I usually graduate from high school, too. I’m not sure why I initially wrote it that way, but I did think about it after reading it and decided to leave it as a colorful, folksy flourish.
I usually graduate from high school, too. I’m not sure why I initially wrote it that way, but I did think about it after reading it and decided to leave it as a colorful, folksy flourish.
From Bryan Garner’s Modern American Usage:
Garner rates “graduated” without the “from” at stage 2 of his 5 language change stages:
Stage 1: Rejected
Stage 2: Widely shunned
Stage 3: Widespread but…
Stage 4: Ubiquitous but…
Stage 5: Fully accepted.
It’s only a matter of time…
…before no one remembers that you change tack, not tact, and that may and might are not interchangeable, nor are who and whom……
The amazing thing to me about who and whom is that contrary to what I would have expected — “whom” disappearing because no one could remember when to use it — it seems like “who” is disappearing because people are so anxious about it they overcorrect. I see “whom” as the subject of sentences and clauses all the time now. I have a collection, in fact, with links…..
Meanwhile, I revere Bryan Garner; his big fat usage book is a treat for anyone who loves words and the history of usage. And his scale of where a word or phrase is on the language change continuum is an extra special bonus.
From Bryan Garner’s Modern American Usage:
Garner rates “graduated” without the “from” at stage 2 of his 5 language change stages:
Stage 1: Rejected
Stage 2: Widely shunned
Stage 3: Widespread but…
Stage 4: Ubiquitous but…
Stage 5: Fully accepted.
It’s only a matter of time…
…before no one remembers that you change tack, not tact, and that may and might are not interchangeable, nor are who and whom……
The amazing thing to me about who and whom is that contrary to what I would have expected — “whom” disappearing because no one could remember when to use it — it seems like “who” is disappearing because people are so anxious about it they overcorrect. I see “whom” as the subject of sentences and clauses all the time now. I have a collection, in fact, with links…..
Meanwhile, I revere Bryan Garner; his big fat usage book is a treat for anyone who loves words and the history of usage. And his scale of where a word or phrase is on the language change continuum is an extra special bonus.
Ah, hsh, you’re nothing if not colorful and folksy.
Heh.
Ah, hsh, you’re nothing if not colorful and folksy.
Heh.
Many teachers ride the ‘was graduated’ hobby, but common usage, good literary practice and dictionary sanction may all be lined up on the side of the active [intransitive] form, ‘to graduate.'”
Ending sentences with prepositions and split infinitives, also, too.
I see “whom” as the subject of sentences and clauses all the time now.
Like “and I” no matter what.
Many teachers ride the ‘was graduated’ hobby, but common usage, good literary practice and dictionary sanction may all be lined up on the side of the active [intransitive] form, ‘to graduate.'”
Ending sentences with prepositions and split infinitives, also, too.
I see “whom” as the subject of sentences and clauses all the time now.
Like “and I” no matter what.
“That is the maximalist Likud position, that Jordan is Palestine. It only makes sense on the assumption that Palestinians living in their own land were being unreasonable wanting to stay there. My polite way of saying it was and is an utterly racist position adopted by rightwing Zionists.”
But this is also from a time where the great powers thought forcibly relocating 7 million German-heritage families out of the cities and homes theyd been born into in Poland was an appropriate way to reduce violent tendencies. So arguing that they couldn’t have been contemplating moving 700,000 Arab Palestinians to Jordan seems wrong. The idea of population transfers being wrong wasn’t as strongly agreed to as it is now.
“That is the maximalist Likud position, that Jordan is Palestine. It only makes sense on the assumption that Palestinians living in their own land were being unreasonable wanting to stay there. My polite way of saying it was and is an utterly racist position adopted by rightwing Zionists.”
But this is also from a time where the great powers thought forcibly relocating 7 million German-heritage families out of the cities and homes theyd been born into in Poland was an appropriate way to reduce violent tendencies. So arguing that they couldn’t have been contemplating moving 700,000 Arab Palestinians to Jordan seems wrong. The idea of population transfers being wrong wasn’t as strongly agreed to as it is now.
The idea of population transfers being wrong wasn’t as strongly agreed to as it is now.
Maybe so, but what made the German-heritage families “German-heritage”? Were the Palestinians “Jordanian-heritage”? I’m not excusing either removal, but I’m not sure they’re equivalent. (Part of the reason I’m not sure is that I don’t know that much about either situation, so I’m just looking at the logic of the comparison.)
The idea of population transfers being wrong wasn’t as strongly agreed to as it is now.
Maybe so, but what made the German-heritage families “German-heritage”? Were the Palestinians “Jordanian-heritage”? I’m not excusing either removal, but I’m not sure they’re equivalent. (Part of the reason I’m not sure is that I don’t know that much about either situation, so I’m just looking at the logic of the comparison.)
Since our way of life is non-negotiable, we will pull up the drawbridge on the global 99% (i.e. the 3rd and 4th world) and let them perish (while blaming them for it). Then our 1% will do the same on the remaining 98% of us (1% will be paid to defend against the 98% and dealt with later). Technologigal progress will make our services unnecessary to the deserving survivors. Let’s hope that there will then be the equivalent to the absence of telephone sanitizers to bite them in the behind. And let their end be slow and agonizing!
In all cynical seriousness: We will have little problem to look away and we will sooner or later come to accept ‘unfortunate measures’ to keep the status quo (just keep them out of sight).
Some prominent RW politicians in Southern Europe already put the idea on the table to let their navies sink some North African refugee boats in front of TV cameras to deter others. Also proposed were regular raids to destroy the boats before they can depart. Those dead bodies washed ashore over here are a PR problem, the same people starving over there are not.
We may be less blunt than The Donald over here und prefer things less messy but the donkey cavity quotient is only lower in degree not in kind.
Since our way of life is non-negotiable, we will pull up the drawbridge on the global 99% (i.e. the 3rd and 4th world) and let them perish (while blaming them for it). Then our 1% will do the same on the remaining 98% of us (1% will be paid to defend against the 98% and dealt with later). Technologigal progress will make our services unnecessary to the deserving survivors. Let’s hope that there will then be the equivalent to the absence of telephone sanitizers to bite them in the behind. And let their end be slow and agonizing!
In all cynical seriousness: We will have little problem to look away and we will sooner or later come to accept ‘unfortunate measures’ to keep the status quo (just keep them out of sight).
Some prominent RW politicians in Southern Europe already put the idea on the table to let their navies sink some North African refugee boats in front of TV cameras to deter others. Also proposed were regular raids to destroy the boats before they can depart. Those dead bodies washed ashore over here are a PR problem, the same people starving over there are not.
We may be less blunt than The Donald over here und prefer things less messy but the donkey cavity quotient is only lower in degree not in kind.
Some prominent RW politicians in Southern Europe already put the idea on the table to let their navies sink some North African refugee boats in front of TV cameras to deter others.
Are they proposing to first buy TVs for all those poor Africans, so they will be able to see the sinkings and be deterred? Inquiring minds want to know….
Some prominent RW politicians in Southern Europe already put the idea on the table to let their navies sink some North African refugee boats in front of TV cameras to deter others.
Are they proposing to first buy TVs for all those poor Africans, so they will be able to see the sinkings and be deterred? Inquiring minds want to know….
Since our way of life is non-negotiable, we will pull up the drawbridge on the global 99%
a cordon sanitaire, addressing not the outbreak of disease, but the inbreak of the poor and unfortunate.
best of luck with that.
at a certain point, if people have nothing else to eat, they will eat us. and i can’t say i’ll blame them.
there is no drawbridge.
Since our way of life is non-negotiable, we will pull up the drawbridge on the global 99%
a cordon sanitaire, addressing not the outbreak of disease, but the inbreak of the poor and unfortunate.
best of luck with that.
at a certain point, if people have nothing else to eat, they will eat us. and i can’t say i’ll blame them.
there is no drawbridge.
there is no drawbridge.
Obviously we can’t ask “those people” how well the Great Wall of China worked. Probably can’t even countenance Googling Manchu Dynasty Origin. Among others invasions it didn’t successfully stop.
But perhaps our allergy to history won’t be so strong as to have us forget the Maginot Line and how well that worked….
there is no drawbridge.
Obviously we can’t ask “those people” how well the Great Wall of China worked. Probably can’t even countenance Googling Manchu Dynasty Origin. Among others invasions it didn’t successfully stop.
But perhaps our allergy to history won’t be so strong as to have us forget the Maginot Line and how well that worked….
There is an ugly parallel between the German-heritage people driven from their homes to Germany after WW2 and the Palestinians. They were not welcome as persons at all but extremly useful politically. Most political parties in Western Germany tried to recruit them as voters by promising them that they would be able to return home and get back what ‘those people’ took from them. Parts of the involontary exiles soon started to organize and became the ‘professional displaced’ (Berufsvertriebene). You may compare them to the Cuban exiles. In both cases they became reliable allies of the conservative fringe (and enemies of any policy of détente). In the countries that evicted them on the other hand they served as the seeming living proof that Germany would never give up the attempts to get back what she lost. Even the change form communism to democracy to new conservative ethno-nationalism made no difference there. Neither did the 2+4 treaty wherein Germany officially renounced once and for all any claims as the acceptable price for reunification. Now the remnants of the Vetriebenen-movement went full RW fringe and have become an embarassement even for most German conservatives. But they are as popular as poster childs for fear mongering campaigns in Poland and the Czech Repeublic as ever.
The Palestinians were as welcome in the Arab countries as the German refugees from the East in core Germany but their ’cause’ was useful for the Arab elites. And today Palestinians claiming ‘right of return’ serve as the permanent bogeymen of the Israeli Right. That it is a practical impossibility (as it was in Germany) does not matter. “They will come, take what is rightfully yours and kick you out into the streets” still works like a charm.
Imo, if the Palestinians would suddenly stop to use violence, it would not change the situation. The Israeli RW would do everything to provoke them, claim that it is all a ruse and meanwhile proceed with the disappropriating policies. And this would get silent support from the Palestinian and Arab (and Iranian) radicals that need the absence of a peaceful solution.
There is an ugly parallel between the German-heritage people driven from their homes to Germany after WW2 and the Palestinians. They were not welcome as persons at all but extremly useful politically. Most political parties in Western Germany tried to recruit them as voters by promising them that they would be able to return home and get back what ‘those people’ took from them. Parts of the involontary exiles soon started to organize and became the ‘professional displaced’ (Berufsvertriebene). You may compare them to the Cuban exiles. In both cases they became reliable allies of the conservative fringe (and enemies of any policy of détente). In the countries that evicted them on the other hand they served as the seeming living proof that Germany would never give up the attempts to get back what she lost. Even the change form communism to democracy to new conservative ethno-nationalism made no difference there. Neither did the 2+4 treaty wherein Germany officially renounced once and for all any claims as the acceptable price for reunification. Now the remnants of the Vetriebenen-movement went full RW fringe and have become an embarassement even for most German conservatives. But they are as popular as poster childs for fear mongering campaigns in Poland and the Czech Repeublic as ever.
The Palestinians were as welcome in the Arab countries as the German refugees from the East in core Germany but their ’cause’ was useful for the Arab elites. And today Palestinians claiming ‘right of return’ serve as the permanent bogeymen of the Israeli Right. That it is a practical impossibility (as it was in Germany) does not matter. “They will come, take what is rightfully yours and kick you out into the streets” still works like a charm.
Imo, if the Palestinians would suddenly stop to use violence, it would not change the situation. The Israeli RW would do everything to provoke them, claim that it is all a ruse and meanwhile proceed with the disappropriating policies. And this would get silent support from the Palestinian and Arab (and Iranian) radicals that need the absence of a peaceful solution.
“But this is also from a time where the great powers thought forcibly relocating 7 million German-heritage families out of the cities and homes theyd been born into in Poland was an appropriate way to reduce violent tendencies”
There is a reason Arendt starts “ The Origins of Totalitarianism” with a discussion of imperialism. There were mass atrocities and callous behavior comparable to the deeds of Hitler and Stalin, conducted by “ civilized” people in the 19th and early 20th Century. I don’t doubt that in the world wars the behavior of Westerners to outsiders came back home. I don’t think that one can justify the casual racist attitude towards Palestinians by pointing to the extreme brutality that occurred in the aftermath of WW2 under Stalin’s jurisdiction with the approval of Roosevelt and Churchill.
“But this is also from a time where the great powers thought forcibly relocating 7 million German-heritage families out of the cities and homes theyd been born into in Poland was an appropriate way to reduce violent tendencies”
There is a reason Arendt starts “ The Origins of Totalitarianism” with a discussion of imperialism. There were mass atrocities and callous behavior comparable to the deeds of Hitler and Stalin, conducted by “ civilized” people in the 19th and early 20th Century. I don’t doubt that in the world wars the behavior of Westerners to outsiders came back home. I don’t think that one can justify the casual racist attitude towards Palestinians by pointing to the extreme brutality that occurred in the aftermath of WW2 under Stalin’s jurisdiction with the approval of Roosevelt and Churchill.
Obviously we can’t ask “those people” how well the Great Wall of China worked. Probably can’t even countenance Googling Manchu Dynasty Origin. Among others invasions it didn’t successfully stop.
But perhaps our allergy to history won’t be so strong as to have us forget the Maginot Line and how well that worked….
Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not.
Since when do refugees from starvation etc. come with tanks and fighter jets?
The old Mongols and the 20th century Germans were top notch fighting forces.
From the fringe perspective the ‘problem’ is that we are still too full of the milk of human kindness and have these irrational reservations against just nuking the scum preemptively.
[I seem to be in a particularly cynical mood today]
Obviously we can’t ask “those people” how well the Great Wall of China worked. Probably can’t even countenance Googling Manchu Dynasty Origin. Among others invasions it didn’t successfully stop.
But perhaps our allergy to history won’t be so strong as to have us forget the Maginot Line and how well that worked….
Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not.
Since when do refugees from starvation etc. come with tanks and fighter jets?
The old Mongols and the 20th century Germans were top notch fighting forces.
From the fringe perspective the ‘problem’ is that we are still too full of the milk of human kindness and have these irrational reservations against just nuking the scum preemptively.
[I seem to be in a particularly cynical mood today]
FDR, of course, wasn’t alive when it was carried out. But from what I read he approved the plan.
Also, of course, if you want to justify Palestinian expulsions this way, why not anyone’s? People who approve of such policies should be glad to hand their homes over to the Palestinians and move to Jordan themselves.
It makes sense. A Palestinian in Jordan might feel vengeful and in fact they did. A Palestinian family moved to the US is a little out of range from Israel and if it is a nice house might even feel fairly compensated. Not sure what Christian Zionists and others would do in Jordan, but it was their idea.
FDR, of course, wasn’t alive when it was carried out. But from what I read he approved the plan.
Also, of course, if you want to justify Palestinian expulsions this way, why not anyone’s? People who approve of such policies should be glad to hand their homes over to the Palestinians and move to Jordan themselves.
It makes sense. A Palestinian in Jordan might feel vengeful and in fact they did. A Palestinian family moved to the US is a little out of range from Israel and if it is a nice house might even feel fairly compensated. Not sure what Christian Zionists and others would do in Jordan, but it was their idea.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-legal-team-to-guest-host-hannity-radio-show
My bartender served as the arresting officer, my attorney, and the jury in my DWAI case a number of years ago.
Give it up America.
The experiment has failed.
Faulty hypothesis. Contaminated lab rats.
We’re a piece of shit.
Regarding global warming, the first order of business is deciding not whether the craven denialist filth who are burning government books full of weather data and banning all research into the matter should be killed, but how goddamned savage the executions will be.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-legal-team-to-guest-host-hannity-radio-show
My bartender served as the arresting officer, my attorney, and the jury in my DWAI case a number of years ago.
Give it up America.
The experiment has failed.
Faulty hypothesis. Contaminated lab rats.
We’re a piece of shit.
Regarding global warming, the first order of business is deciding not whether the craven denialist filth who are burning government books full of weather data and banning all research into the matter should be killed, but how goddamned savage the executions will be.
Like hsh, the question about expulsions of the ethnic Germans had me look around a bit. Here’s what I found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944%E2%80%9350)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_from_Poland_during_and_after_World_War_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_from_Czechoslovakia
From the first wikipedia page
Given the complex history of the affected regions and the divergent interests of the victorious Allied powers, it is difficult to ascribe a definitive set of motives to the expulsions. The respective paragraph of the Potsdam Agreement only states vaguely: “The Three Governments, having considered the question in all its aspects, recognize that the transfer to Germany of German populations, or elements thereof, remaining in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, will have to be undertaken. They agreed that any transfers that take place should be effected in an orderly and humane manner.” The major motivations revealed were:
A desire to create ethnically homogeneous nation-states: This is presented by several authors as a key issue that motivated the expulsions.[45][46][47][48][49][50]
View of a German minority as potentially troublesome: From the Soviet perspective, shared by the communist administrations installed in Soviet-occupied Europe, the remaining large German populations outside postwar Germany were seen as a potentially troublesome ‘fifth column’ that would, because of its social structure, interfere with the envisioned Sovietisation of the respective countries.[51] The Western allies also saw the threat of a potential German ‘fifth column’, especially in Poland after the agreed-to compensation with former German territory.[45] In general, the Western allies hoped to secure a more lasting peace by eliminating the German minorities, which they thought could be done in a humane manner.[45][52] The idea to expel the ethnic Germans was supported by the Winston Churchill[53] and Anthony Eden since 1942.[54]
Another motivation was to punish the Germans;[45][47][50][55] the Allies declared them collectively guilty of German war crimes.[52][56][57][58]
Soviet political considerations. Stalin saw the expulsions as a means of creating antagonism between the Soviet satellite states and their neighbours. The satellite states would then need the protection of the Soviet Union.[59] The expulsions served several practical purposes as well.
To argue that there was also a desire to do so in the Palestine mandate suggests that only the first reason was operative for the Allied powers and ignores all of the other reasons that ethnic Germans were moved.
The page on Poland has this
The waves of expulsions after the Potsdam conference must also be seen in the context of the contemporary, likewise unorganized, resettling of displaced or homeless Poles. Polish settlers, who themselves had been expelled from areas east of the Curzon Line, arrived with about nothing, putting an even higher pressure on the remaining Germans to leave.[88] For the Germans, the Potsdam Agreement eased conditions only in one way – because now the Poles were more confident in keeping the former eastern territories of Germany, the expulsions were performed with less haste, which meant the Germans were duly informed about their expulsions earlier and were allowed to carry some luggage
and the page on Czechslovakia points out that attitudes hardened in Czechslovakia after the reprisal for the assassination of Heydrich, which included the arrest of 13,000 Czechs of which an estimated 5000 were murdered and the execution of all the inhabitants of the Czech villages of Lidice and Ležáky.
Furthermore,
On July 27, 1945, the Ministry of National Defence issued a secret order[which?] directing that the transfer should be carried out on as large a scale as possible and as expeditiously as possible so as to present the Western powers with a fait accompli.[28]
This is not to take the line that the expulsions were defensible (two links below, the second one has color pictures that are not for the squeamish
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rm-douglas/expulsion-germans-forced-migration_b_1625437.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-time-of-retribution-paying-with-life-and-limb-for-the-crimes-of-nazi-germany-a-759737-3.html
but to say that well, if they did it to the Germans, they must have been contemplating doing it to the Arab Palestinians seems a bit too loose imho. I suppose contemplating could be like Jeff saying why didn’t we move all the Jews to Nevada and one can cite that Churchill and Eden both approved of the policy, but Churchill always had a soft spot for ideas that didn’t always go as planned (Gallipoli, the 1920’s RAF bombing campaign in the Middle East, Operation Habakkuk) So I’m not sure why you say that the array of Arab armies against Israel is not important, but some ‘contemplation’ of population transfers in the British mandate by the Western powers is. Plus the fact that the UK and US refused to accept Jewish refugees in the run up to the war and didn’t really take the idea of German death camps seriously until they were actually liberated. If you argue that population transfers were [seriously] contemplated, you have to argue that the Western powers actually wanted to do something for the Jews. Given the relationship between Irgun and British authorities, I can’t imagine them thinking they wanted to do anything to help the Jewish refugees coming to Palestine.
Still, I’m glad that you prompted me to do some googling about this, cause I learned some stuff. This link has the following
But for the victors’ calculations to be understood entirely, we actually have to turn back the clock even further, to the end of World War I. Woodrow Wilson arguably bears as much responsibility as Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt and Czechoslovakia’s president, Edvard Beneš, for the postwar spree of ethnic cleansing. In 1918, the remnants of the multinational Habsburg and Ottoman empires were carved into sovereign nation-states, in accordance with the Wilsonian ideal of “national self-determination.” As Hannah Arendt perceptively argued, the world stood convinced in 1918 that “true freedom, true emancipation, and true popular sovereignty could be attained only with full national emancipation, and that people without their own national government were deprived of human rights.”
This puts, at least for me, the Zionist project in a clearer perspective and explains why what probably seemed like an daydream pre-war would become such a driving force after the war.
Also, the New Republic review of R. M. Douglas’s Orderly and Humane: The Expulsion of the Germans after the Second World War
https://newrepublic.com/article/102925/orderly-humane-expulsion-germans-richard-evans
which has some interesting information about the political power of those expelled in postwar Germany, which Hartmut underlines the darkside
Astonishingly, however, the millions of ethnic German expellees, far from becoming a disruptive element in postwar West German society, integrated seamlessly into it within a few years. Of course the vast majority were angry and resentful and desperate to return to their former homes, and the pressure-group they founded, the Bund der Heimatvertriebenen und Entrechteten (literally the League of People Driven from their Homes and Deprived of their Rights) soon began to exert an influence in West German politics. But West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer cleverly took the wind from its sails by raising a new tax, the so-called Lastenausgleich, to compensate the expellees for their losses, setting up a special ministry to deal with them, and giving them eligibility for social insurance.
In foreign policy Adenauer vociferously demanded the return of the territories annexed by Germany’s eastern neighbors and insisted on the expellees’ right of return. He realized that these demands were unrealistic, but he persisted with them because he knew they won him the expellees’ political support. Massive propaganda underlining their sufferings helped create a feeling of sympathy among West Germans and aided integration. Above all, however, the so-called “economic miracle” in West Germany gave them, in little more than a decade, a much better material life than they had ever enjoyed before. Initially housed in camps, including former Nazi concentration camps, they were given help by the churches (whose role is underestimated by Douglas) and by the state, and benefited from the massive program of homebuilding. By the early 1960s their unemployment rate had fallen to little more than the average in West Germany as a whole.
Earlier, it was noted that what seemed to be lacking in the IP problem was leadership, and I have to wonder who could have possibly done what Adenauer did. Abdullah of Jordan proposed a United Arab Kingdom with two states, but it was rejected by all sides.
Like hsh, the question about expulsions of the ethnic Germans had me look around a bit. Here’s what I found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944%E2%80%9350)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_from_Poland_during_and_after_World_War_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_from_Czechoslovakia
From the first wikipedia page
Given the complex history of the affected regions and the divergent interests of the victorious Allied powers, it is difficult to ascribe a definitive set of motives to the expulsions. The respective paragraph of the Potsdam Agreement only states vaguely: “The Three Governments, having considered the question in all its aspects, recognize that the transfer to Germany of German populations, or elements thereof, remaining in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, will have to be undertaken. They agreed that any transfers that take place should be effected in an orderly and humane manner.” The major motivations revealed were:
A desire to create ethnically homogeneous nation-states: This is presented by several authors as a key issue that motivated the expulsions.[45][46][47][48][49][50]
View of a German minority as potentially troublesome: From the Soviet perspective, shared by the communist administrations installed in Soviet-occupied Europe, the remaining large German populations outside postwar Germany were seen as a potentially troublesome ‘fifth column’ that would, because of its social structure, interfere with the envisioned Sovietisation of the respective countries.[51] The Western allies also saw the threat of a potential German ‘fifth column’, especially in Poland after the agreed-to compensation with former German territory.[45] In general, the Western allies hoped to secure a more lasting peace by eliminating the German minorities, which they thought could be done in a humane manner.[45][52] The idea to expel the ethnic Germans was supported by the Winston Churchill[53] and Anthony Eden since 1942.[54]
Another motivation was to punish the Germans;[45][47][50][55] the Allies declared them collectively guilty of German war crimes.[52][56][57][58]
Soviet political considerations. Stalin saw the expulsions as a means of creating antagonism between the Soviet satellite states and their neighbours. The satellite states would then need the protection of the Soviet Union.[59] The expulsions served several practical purposes as well.
To argue that there was also a desire to do so in the Palestine mandate suggests that only the first reason was operative for the Allied powers and ignores all of the other reasons that ethnic Germans were moved.
The page on Poland has this
The waves of expulsions after the Potsdam conference must also be seen in the context of the contemporary, likewise unorganized, resettling of displaced or homeless Poles. Polish settlers, who themselves had been expelled from areas east of the Curzon Line, arrived with about nothing, putting an even higher pressure on the remaining Germans to leave.[88] For the Germans, the Potsdam Agreement eased conditions only in one way – because now the Poles were more confident in keeping the former eastern territories of Germany, the expulsions were performed with less haste, which meant the Germans were duly informed about their expulsions earlier and were allowed to carry some luggage
and the page on Czechslovakia points out that attitudes hardened in Czechslovakia after the reprisal for the assassination of Heydrich, which included the arrest of 13,000 Czechs of which an estimated 5000 were murdered and the execution of all the inhabitants of the Czech villages of Lidice and Ležáky.
Furthermore,
On July 27, 1945, the Ministry of National Defence issued a secret order[which?] directing that the transfer should be carried out on as large a scale as possible and as expeditiously as possible so as to present the Western powers with a fait accompli.[28]
This is not to take the line that the expulsions were defensible (two links below, the second one has color pictures that are not for the squeamish
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rm-douglas/expulsion-germans-forced-migration_b_1625437.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-time-of-retribution-paying-with-life-and-limb-for-the-crimes-of-nazi-germany-a-759737-3.html
but to say that well, if they did it to the Germans, they must have been contemplating doing it to the Arab Palestinians seems a bit too loose imho. I suppose contemplating could be like Jeff saying why didn’t we move all the Jews to Nevada and one can cite that Churchill and Eden both approved of the policy, but Churchill always had a soft spot for ideas that didn’t always go as planned (Gallipoli, the 1920’s RAF bombing campaign in the Middle East, Operation Habakkuk) So I’m not sure why you say that the array of Arab armies against Israel is not important, but some ‘contemplation’ of population transfers in the British mandate by the Western powers is. Plus the fact that the UK and US refused to accept Jewish refugees in the run up to the war and didn’t really take the idea of German death camps seriously until they were actually liberated. If you argue that population transfers were [seriously] contemplated, you have to argue that the Western powers actually wanted to do something for the Jews. Given the relationship between Irgun and British authorities, I can’t imagine them thinking they wanted to do anything to help the Jewish refugees coming to Palestine.
Still, I’m glad that you prompted me to do some googling about this, cause I learned some stuff. This link has the following
But for the victors’ calculations to be understood entirely, we actually have to turn back the clock even further, to the end of World War I. Woodrow Wilson arguably bears as much responsibility as Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt and Czechoslovakia’s president, Edvard Beneš, for the postwar spree of ethnic cleansing. In 1918, the remnants of the multinational Habsburg and Ottoman empires were carved into sovereign nation-states, in accordance with the Wilsonian ideal of “national self-determination.” As Hannah Arendt perceptively argued, the world stood convinced in 1918 that “true freedom, true emancipation, and true popular sovereignty could be attained only with full national emancipation, and that people without their own national government were deprived of human rights.”
This puts, at least for me, the Zionist project in a clearer perspective and explains why what probably seemed like an daydream pre-war would become such a driving force after the war.
Also, the New Republic review of R. M. Douglas’s Orderly and Humane: The Expulsion of the Germans after the Second World War
https://newrepublic.com/article/102925/orderly-humane-expulsion-germans-richard-evans
which has some interesting information about the political power of those expelled in postwar Germany, which Hartmut underlines the darkside
Astonishingly, however, the millions of ethnic German expellees, far from becoming a disruptive element in postwar West German society, integrated seamlessly into it within a few years. Of course the vast majority were angry and resentful and desperate to return to their former homes, and the pressure-group they founded, the Bund der Heimatvertriebenen und Entrechteten (literally the League of People Driven from their Homes and Deprived of their Rights) soon began to exert an influence in West German politics. But West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer cleverly took the wind from its sails by raising a new tax, the so-called Lastenausgleich, to compensate the expellees for their losses, setting up a special ministry to deal with them, and giving them eligibility for social insurance.
In foreign policy Adenauer vociferously demanded the return of the territories annexed by Germany’s eastern neighbors and insisted on the expellees’ right of return. He realized that these demands were unrealistic, but he persisted with them because he knew they won him the expellees’ political support. Massive propaganda underlining their sufferings helped create a feeling of sympathy among West Germans and aided integration. Above all, however, the so-called “economic miracle” in West Germany gave them, in little more than a decade, a much better material life than they had ever enjoyed before. Initially housed in camps, including former Nazi concentration camps, they were given help by the churches (whose role is underestimated by Douglas) and by the state, and benefited from the massive program of homebuilding. By the early 1960s their unemployment rate had fallen to little more than the average in West Germany as a whole.
Earlier, it was noted that what seemed to be lacking in the IP problem was leadership, and I have to wonder who could have possibly done what Adenauer did. Abdullah of Jordan proposed a United Arab Kingdom with two states, but it was rejected by all sides.
Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not.
If it were that simple, it would hardly be worth discussing.
Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not.
If it were that simple, it would hardly be worth discussing.
…before no one remembers that you change tack, not tact, and that may and might are not interchangeable, nor are who and whom……
Completely off-thread (as usual – sorry, sorry!), my particular bugbear (and recently used on this very blog) is flaunt for flout and vice versa. Also slither for sliver (possibly due to the influence of Jamie Oliver), disinterested for uninterested (now at 3 or 4 on the Garner scale, at least in the UK) and many more. Having said that, I don’t think I’m too clear on the difference between may and might…..
…before no one remembers that you change tack, not tact, and that may and might are not interchangeable, nor are who and whom……
Completely off-thread (as usual – sorry, sorry!), my particular bugbear (and recently used on this very blog) is flaunt for flout and vice versa. Also slither for sliver (possibly due to the influence of Jamie Oliver), disinterested for uninterested (now at 3 or 4 on the Garner scale, at least in the UK) and many more. Having said that, I don’t think I’m too clear on the difference between may and might…..
I thought of a possible improvement to my plan. Take the homes of Texas Christian Zionists and give to the Palestinians as before. But don’t send the the Texas Christian Zionists to Jordan. There are 49 other states plus Canada where people speak approximately the same language, but keep it simple and send them to Oklahoma. Oklahoma is Texas.
The problem is that the intransigent Texas Zionists might start launching terrorist attacks on the state of Palestine in Texas.
So we are back to sending them to Jordan.
I thought of a possible improvement to my plan. Take the homes of Texas Christian Zionists and give to the Palestinians as before. But don’t send the the Texas Christian Zionists to Jordan. There are 49 other states plus Canada where people speak approximately the same language, but keep it simple and send them to Oklahoma. Oklahoma is Texas.
The problem is that the intransigent Texas Zionists might start launching terrorist attacks on the state of Palestine in Texas.
So we are back to sending them to Jordan.
Assorted people who do complex systems analysis have suggested that the trigger for the Arab Spring was a spike in food prices caused by droughts outside MENA that decreased wheat yields.
The US, being the elephant that it is, steps on everybody, intentionally or not. Google returns over 324 thousand links for the pairing of ethanol and “Arab Spring.”
“Complex systems theorists say that a combination of deregulated markets, commodity speculation, and food-to-fuel ethanol policies are the direct cause of the spike in food prices that led to the Arab Spring and the civil war in Syria.”
Commodity Traders Helped Spark the War in Syria, Complex Systems Theorists Say: New math shows that financial speculation caused the spike in food prices that led to war.
Assorted people who do complex systems analysis have suggested that the trigger for the Arab Spring was a spike in food prices caused by droughts outside MENA that decreased wheat yields.
The US, being the elephant that it is, steps on everybody, intentionally or not. Google returns over 324 thousand links for the pairing of ethanol and “Arab Spring.”
“Complex systems theorists say that a combination of deregulated markets, commodity speculation, and food-to-fuel ethanol policies are the direct cause of the spike in food prices that led to the Arab Spring and the civil war in Syria.”
Commodity Traders Helped Spark the War in Syria, Complex Systems Theorists Say: New math shows that financial speculation caused the spike in food prices that led to war.
Hairshirtthedontist: “Maybe so, but what made the German-heritage families “German-heritage”? Were the Palestinians “Jordanian-heritage”?”
That is one of those line drawing problems that becomes so vexing. Neither Jordan nor Palestine existed when the borders were being drawn, so they weren’t Jordanian-heritage per se. But did they have a similar heritage as what we now call ‘Palestinians’? Yes. And no. It depends on how you want to draw the lines. Are Shiite and Sunni Iraqis from the same heritage? Yes, and no. Modern day Palestinians in general are closer to modern day Jordanians than they are to Egyptians. They are closer than Lebanese and Syrians (who are pretty close) but also share a lot with both of those. The question “did people identify as Palestinian at the time” is similarly annoying because they did, but it was more like how San Diegans identify–a regional identification less than California or the United States.
“Also, of course, if you want to justify Palestinian expulsions this way, why not anyone’s?”
It isn’t a justification. Its an explanation of the mindset of the time. The powerful countries at the time looked at the map between Germany and Poland and said “this much is Polish and this is Germany” and then they forcibly moved 7 million no-more-or-less-innocent people than the Palestinians to Germany to reduce ethnic strife in support of those borders (and many hundreds of thousands the other way into Poland). At essentially the same historical moment, they were drawing borders and dividing people up in the Middle East. Arguing that they couldn’t have meant for 700,000 at-the-time-Arabs-living-in-Palestine to be assigned and probably moved to what they were creating as Jordan seems silly considering that the same regimes moved 7,000,000 out of Poland to reduce what they saw as ethnic tensions.
Was that a fantastic moral decision? No.
But in the context of such decisions, it isn’t shocking. The right of return to Poland, or Hungary, or the Czech Republic (all from European expulsions contemporaneous with the founding of Israel) has been effectively extinguished as causing more trouble than the fantasy is worth.
Hairshirtthedontist: “Maybe so, but what made the German-heritage families “German-heritage”? Were the Palestinians “Jordanian-heritage”?”
That is one of those line drawing problems that becomes so vexing. Neither Jordan nor Palestine existed when the borders were being drawn, so they weren’t Jordanian-heritage per se. But did they have a similar heritage as what we now call ‘Palestinians’? Yes. And no. It depends on how you want to draw the lines. Are Shiite and Sunni Iraqis from the same heritage? Yes, and no. Modern day Palestinians in general are closer to modern day Jordanians than they are to Egyptians. They are closer than Lebanese and Syrians (who are pretty close) but also share a lot with both of those. The question “did people identify as Palestinian at the time” is similarly annoying because they did, but it was more like how San Diegans identify–a regional identification less than California or the United States.
“Also, of course, if you want to justify Palestinian expulsions this way, why not anyone’s?”
It isn’t a justification. Its an explanation of the mindset of the time. The powerful countries at the time looked at the map between Germany and Poland and said “this much is Polish and this is Germany” and then they forcibly moved 7 million no-more-or-less-innocent people than the Palestinians to Germany to reduce ethnic strife in support of those borders (and many hundreds of thousands the other way into Poland). At essentially the same historical moment, they were drawing borders and dividing people up in the Middle East. Arguing that they couldn’t have meant for 700,000 at-the-time-Arabs-living-in-Palestine to be assigned and probably moved to what they were creating as Jordan seems silly considering that the same regimes moved 7,000,000 out of Poland to reduce what they saw as ethnic tensions.
Was that a fantastic moral decision? No.
But in the context of such decisions, it isn’t shocking. The right of return to Poland, or Hungary, or the Czech Republic (all from European expulsions contemporaneous with the founding of Israel) has been effectively extinguished as causing more trouble than the fantasy is worth.
Oops I changed who I was responding to there, the second quote is Donald. I knew that, but it should have been clear in the commented text. Sorry about that.
Oops I changed who I was responding to there, the second quote is Donald. I knew that, but it should have been clear in the commented text. Sorry about that.
The problem is that the intransigent Texas Zionists might start launching terrorist attacks on the state of Palestine in Texas.
There’s already a Palestine in Texas.
The problem is that the intransigent Texas Zionists might start launching terrorist attacks on the state of Palestine in Texas.
There’s already a Palestine in Texas.
If it were that simple, it would hardly be worth discussing.
To the contrary. People believing it to be that simple are the ones keeping up the discussion [/snark]
If it were that simple, it would hardly be worth discussing.
To the contrary. People believing it to be that simple are the ones keeping up the discussion [/snark]
Since when do refugees from starvation etc. come with tanks and fighter jets?
My point, obviously poorly made, was that walls have ends. And people who can’t get thru them will end up going around.
Since when do refugees from starvation etc. come with tanks and fighter jets?
My point, obviously poorly made, was that walls have ends. And people who can’t get thru them will end up going around.
In the context of what Hannah Arendt described— imperialist attitudes towards non Western peoples with those attitudes migrating back to Europe— it isn’t shocking.
My point all along is that within the US and to a lesser degree Britain, the IP story is usually told from a viewpoint heavily weighted against Palestinians. That doesn’t mean the Arab side or even the Palestinian side is innocent. “ The Sacred Landscape”, a book I recommended is very critical of the Palestinian elites. But he also shows how Palestinian villagers, some living in villages who had nonaggression pacts with their Jewish neighbors, got royally screwed over, expelled for no reason at all except to get rid of them.
In the context of what Hannah Arendt described— imperialist attitudes towards non Western peoples with those attitudes migrating back to Europe— it isn’t shocking.
My point all along is that within the US and to a lesser degree Britain, the IP story is usually told from a viewpoint heavily weighted against Palestinians. That doesn’t mean the Arab side or even the Palestinian side is innocent. “ The Sacred Landscape”, a book I recommended is very critical of the Palestinian elites. But he also shows how Palestinian villagers, some living in villages who had nonaggression pacts with their Jewish neighbors, got royally screwed over, expelled for no reason at all except to get rid of them.
Liberal_Japonicus “To argue that there was also a desire to do so in the Palestine mandate suggests that only the first reason was operative for the Allied powers and ignores all of the other reasons that ethnic Germans were moved.”
Can you make clearer which ones you think don’t apply to Palestine?
“A desire to create ethnically homogeneous nation-states: This is presented by several authors as a key issue that motivated the expulsions.”
This one clearly applies.
“View of a German minority as potentially troublesome”
First I’m not sure this should be seen as a separate concern. The reason they wanted a more ethnically homogenous nation state is because they believed that a large minority population with drastically different cultural ethos was going to be potentially troublesome (remember they also moved Polish populations out of Germany).
But to the extent that it applies to Germans in Poland it certainly applies to what we now call the Palestinians in Israel. Furthermore it was and is seen that way in other Arab countries too. The Syrian massacre of Palestinians in Hama for example. And in an argument that cuts both ways, Arafat’s attempts to gain power in Jordan triggered the Black September. Those two events alone are thought to have killed about 1/3 of the total number of Palestinians killed by Israel throughout Israel’s entire history. (estimated at about 90,000 over Israel’s history).
So the main element missing is the Allies’ desire to collectively punish the Germans by expelling German minorities in other countries.
Liberal_Japonicus “To argue that there was also a desire to do so in the Palestine mandate suggests that only the first reason was operative for the Allied powers and ignores all of the other reasons that ethnic Germans were moved.”
Can you make clearer which ones you think don’t apply to Palestine?
“A desire to create ethnically homogeneous nation-states: This is presented by several authors as a key issue that motivated the expulsions.”
This one clearly applies.
“View of a German minority as potentially troublesome”
First I’m not sure this should be seen as a separate concern. The reason they wanted a more ethnically homogenous nation state is because they believed that a large minority population with drastically different cultural ethos was going to be potentially troublesome (remember they also moved Polish populations out of Germany).
But to the extent that it applies to Germans in Poland it certainly applies to what we now call the Palestinians in Israel. Furthermore it was and is seen that way in other Arab countries too. The Syrian massacre of Palestinians in Hama for example. And in an argument that cuts both ways, Arafat’s attempts to gain power in Jordan triggered the Black September. Those two events alone are thought to have killed about 1/3 of the total number of Palestinians killed by Israel throughout Israel’s entire history. (estimated at about 90,000 over Israel’s history).
So the main element missing is the Allies’ desire to collectively punish the Germans by expelling German minorities in other countries.
My point, obviously poorly made, was that walls have ends. And people who can’t get thru them will end up going around.
I expect that the US will fairly rapidly get to the kind of arrangement that the Syrians are getting in Jordan.
My point, obviously poorly made, was that walls have ends. And people who can’t get thru them will end up going around.
I expect that the US will fairly rapidly get to the kind of arrangement that the Syrians are getting in Jordan.
Donald “My point all along is that within the US and to a lesser degree Britain, the IP story is usually told from a viewpoint heavily weighted against Palestinians.”
I think that is true. I also think that a more balanced look doesn’t get Palestinians very much in practical outcomes. Europe won’t entertain the idea of a right of return to Poland. Even a group which did much less blameworthy–Tibet–gets just thoughts and prayers at best.
We can tell a much more balanced story and still not get to “and they should be allowed to take over what is currently Israel through a one state solution with a right of return”. We can tell a much more balanced story and still think “setting up something with ethnic tensions already worse than Yugoslavia doesn’t seem wise”.
I don’t know how we get to an Ireland situation here. (The numbers alone are a problem. Ireland was less than 1/50th of the UK population. The Palestinian population plus right of return would be over 1/2 of Israel.) What Arab majority country would modern day Israelis feel safe in? What would most progressives feel safe in? What is the best case scenario? Egypt? Turkey? What is the most likely scenario? Syria? Lebanon?
Donald “My point all along is that within the US and to a lesser degree Britain, the IP story is usually told from a viewpoint heavily weighted against Palestinians.”
I think that is true. I also think that a more balanced look doesn’t get Palestinians very much in practical outcomes. Europe won’t entertain the idea of a right of return to Poland. Even a group which did much less blameworthy–Tibet–gets just thoughts and prayers at best.
We can tell a much more balanced story and still not get to “and they should be allowed to take over what is currently Israel through a one state solution with a right of return”. We can tell a much more balanced story and still think “setting up something with ethnic tensions already worse than Yugoslavia doesn’t seem wise”.
I don’t know how we get to an Ireland situation here. (The numbers alone are a problem. Ireland was less than 1/50th of the UK population. The Palestinian population plus right of return would be over 1/2 of Israel.) What Arab majority country would modern day Israelis feel safe in? What would most progressives feel safe in? What is the best case scenario? Egypt? Turkey? What is the most likely scenario? Syria? Lebanon?
lj,
the fact that the UK and US refused to accept Jewish refugees in the run up to the war and didn’t really take the idea of German death camps seriously until they were actually liberated.
Just for completeness, let’s note that the refusal continued after the war, the not wholly surprising discovery of death camps notwithstanding. Truman himself was an advocate for admitting refugees, but faced an obstinate Congress.
lj,
the fact that the UK and US refused to accept Jewish refugees in the run up to the war and didn’t really take the idea of German death camps seriously until they were actually liberated.
Just for completeness, let’s note that the refusal continued after the war, the not wholly surprising discovery of death camps notwithstanding. Truman himself was an advocate for admitting refugees, but faced an obstinate Congress.
Hama was a battle/ massacre between the Syrian army and the Muslim Brotherhood in which thousands of civilians died. The numbers are guesswork. I have never seen anyone say it was Palestinians in particular who were killed there. Patrick Seale said it Hama was for a long time a stronghold of Islamic conservatives. The Asad regime is associated with the Alawites. It was conservative Sunnis against secular ruthless Baathists.
Incidentally, this is why I thought our support of Syrian rebels was insane. The most militarily effective outside of ISIS was Al Nusra, which is Al Qaeda. One group we directly supported chopped off a Palestinian teenager’s head. We stopped supporting that group, but the so called moderates fought alongside Al Nusra and our weapons were often captured in the hands of ISIS. A rebel victory would likely have meant mass slaughter for Alawites and probably not much better for Christians. A NYT article last year said people in our government referred to that possible outcome as a catastrophic success.
Black September was between the PLO and Hussein of Jordan. Again the numbers are guesses. The huge number comes from Arafat. Smaller numbers go as low as 2000, cited in the NYT obituary for Arafat alongside the 25,000 estimate of Arafat
Israel killed many thousands of civilians when it was in Lebanon in 1982, usually claimed to be around 10 to 20,000. Fighting in urban areas or bombing urban areas tends to do that.
Comparisons of death counts are misleading. If some country, say Iran, could somehow supply Hamas and any remaining radical PLO types with enough weaponry to inflict 100,000 dead on the IDF and if they took towns close to Tel Aviv and there was a real risk that Israel could fall to Islamic extremists, how do you think Israel would treat the WB and Gaza? ( You could cut the numbers down to tens of thousands since Israel is smaller than Syria. ). Hell, I think we would be bombing them too. Iran in those circumstances would probably get nuked. Yet we think it is fine to supply weapons to rather dubious groups and blame all the results on the other side. My point being that if Israel were truly threatened, to the point where it was losing a lot of territory and suffering massive losses, the reaction would make the Syrian civil war look like Quakers at a prayer meeting. The same for the US, though there one should scale the numbers up. We never seem to stop and think that even if Asad is a bastard, fueling a civil war makes us partly responsible. We would see that quickly enough if we or Israel were threatened on that scale.
Hama was a battle/ massacre between the Syrian army and the Muslim Brotherhood in which thousands of civilians died. The numbers are guesswork. I have never seen anyone say it was Palestinians in particular who were killed there. Patrick Seale said it Hama was for a long time a stronghold of Islamic conservatives. The Asad regime is associated with the Alawites. It was conservative Sunnis against secular ruthless Baathists.
Incidentally, this is why I thought our support of Syrian rebels was insane. The most militarily effective outside of ISIS was Al Nusra, which is Al Qaeda. One group we directly supported chopped off a Palestinian teenager’s head. We stopped supporting that group, but the so called moderates fought alongside Al Nusra and our weapons were often captured in the hands of ISIS. A rebel victory would likely have meant mass slaughter for Alawites and probably not much better for Christians. A NYT article last year said people in our government referred to that possible outcome as a catastrophic success.
Black September was between the PLO and Hussein of Jordan. Again the numbers are guesses. The huge number comes from Arafat. Smaller numbers go as low as 2000, cited in the NYT obituary for Arafat alongside the 25,000 estimate of Arafat
Israel killed many thousands of civilians when it was in Lebanon in 1982, usually claimed to be around 10 to 20,000. Fighting in urban areas or bombing urban areas tends to do that.
Comparisons of death counts are misleading. If some country, say Iran, could somehow supply Hamas and any remaining radical PLO types with enough weaponry to inflict 100,000 dead on the IDF and if they took towns close to Tel Aviv and there was a real risk that Israel could fall to Islamic extremists, how do you think Israel would treat the WB and Gaza? ( You could cut the numbers down to tens of thousands since Israel is smaller than Syria. ). Hell, I think we would be bombing them too. Iran in those circumstances would probably get nuked. Yet we think it is fine to supply weapons to rather dubious groups and blame all the results on the other side. My point being that if Israel were truly threatened, to the point where it was losing a lot of territory and suffering massive losses, the reaction would make the Syrian civil war look like Quakers at a prayer meeting. The same for the US, though there one should scale the numbers up. We never seem to stop and think that even if Asad is a bastard, fueling a civil war makes us partly responsible. We would see that quickly enough if we or Israel were threatened on that scale.
I too should apologize for the sidetrack, but in relation to this:
Having said that, I don’t think I’m too clear on the difference between may and might…..
There are situations where they are more or less interchangeable, perhaps signifying different shades of provisional-ness (now there’s a word….) (lj could surely say more on this aspect of may/might; I’m forgetting the technical terminology).
But I’m talking abominations like this:
— If she wished, she was told, she may come in and look.
— In fact, had Brunelle played ball with Biel months ago, he believes the race for the at-large council seat may well be a two-way contest.
For a while I thought this horror was confined to hastily written stuff on the internet. Now I’m seeing it in published books……
Get off my lawn etc.
I too should apologize for the sidetrack, but in relation to this:
Having said that, I don’t think I’m too clear on the difference between may and might…..
There are situations where they are more or less interchangeable, perhaps signifying different shades of provisional-ness (now there’s a word….) (lj could surely say more on this aspect of may/might; I’m forgetting the technical terminology).
But I’m talking abominations like this:
— If she wished, she was told, she may come in and look.
— In fact, had Brunelle played ball with Biel months ago, he believes the race for the at-large council seat may well be a two-way contest.
For a while I thought this horror was confined to hastily written stuff on the internet. Now I’m seeing it in published books……
Get off my lawn etc.
To be clear, in case I wasn’t, I am glad that Israel’s various enemies have never had the relative military effectiveness that one sees in the insurgents in countries like Syria, where there was a real chance the government might have been toppled due to the fact that they lost ( last I checked) about 100,000 army and militia dead. Even nice Western governments tend to do things like drop nuclear bombs on cities to avoid those kinds of death tolls on their own side. Nasty ones with other weapons do other things.
To be clear, in case I wasn’t, I am glad that Israel’s various enemies have never had the relative military effectiveness that one sees in the insurgents in countries like Syria, where there was a real chance the government might have been toppled due to the fact that they lost ( last I checked) about 100,000 army and militia dead. Even nice Western governments tend to do things like drop nuclear bombs on cities to avoid those kinds of death tolls on their own side. Nasty ones with other weapons do other things.
“Nasty ones with other weapons do other things.”
Um, meaning Syria in this case. Time to fold the laundry and stop posting.
“Nasty ones with other weapons do other things.”
Um, meaning Syria in this case. Time to fold the laundry and stop posting.
‘might’ is simply the past tense of ‘may’.
or, it was in 900AD.
‘might’ is simply the past tense of ‘may’.
or, it was in 900AD.
What about “might could”?
What about “might could”?
Hmm, Janie, does that mean when they’re not interchangeable that might is sort of like the subjunctive of may? Asking for a friend (I really remember almost nothing about the subjunctive)…
Hmm, Janie, does that mean when they’re not interchangeable that might is sort of like the subjunctive of may? Asking for a friend (I really remember almost nothing about the subjunctive)…
Hi Sebastian, you wrote to hsh
The powerful countries at the time looked at the map between Germany and Poland and said “this much is Polish and this is Germany” and then they forcibly moved 7 million no-more-or-less-innocent people than the Palestinians to Germany to reduce ethnic strife in support of those borders (and many hundreds of thousands the other way into Poland).
Well, yes and no. First of all, they had to reconstitute Poland, so Eastern portions went to the Soviet Union, plus deal with the enclave of Königsberg. The wikipedia page has a timeline map
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Poland
So it looks to me that the whole process was a question of give and take between Stalin and Truman. You also asked
Can you make clearer which ones you think don’t apply to Palestine?
It seems to me that if we understand the process as a give and take, then _all_ the points after the first one are Soviet concerns, not US/UK concerns. As such, I don’t think they would have applied to a movement of population of Arabs in Palestine because the only actor that would be considered comparable to the Soviet Union would be Israel and they didn’t exist.
We can tell a much more balanced story and still not get to “and they should be allowed to take over what is currently Israel through a one state solution with a right of return”. We can tell a much more balanced story and still think “setting up something with ethnic tensions already worse than Yugoslavia doesn’t seem wise”.
Since I don’t think that the process concerning the explusion of ethnic Germans was simply a question of drawing lines on a map, but the result to two sides negotiating the end state after WWII with all the moral shortcomings and ethical dilemmas that this entailed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Cossacks_after_World_War_II
Perhaps one of the points about the debate between Donald and Bernard is that we can’t tell a balanced story without understanding all of the history involved. Or maybe we can, if one side is willing to forgo particular parts of their story. I am probably more sympathetic to support of Palestine, especially given the rightward movement of Israel, but I note that the debate starts basically after WWII and that there is a lot of history on the Jewish side that has not been touched here.
However, the discussion of German expulsions is actually not even that, it is a historical parallel that arose because of great power politics, it merely draws a historical parallel that leaves out a lot of stuff. I don’t think by oversimplifying what happened at Yalta, you get to a more balanced story of the IP conflict.
Hi Sebastian, you wrote to hsh
The powerful countries at the time looked at the map between Germany and Poland and said “this much is Polish and this is Germany” and then they forcibly moved 7 million no-more-or-less-innocent people than the Palestinians to Germany to reduce ethnic strife in support of those borders (and many hundreds of thousands the other way into Poland).
Well, yes and no. First of all, they had to reconstitute Poland, so Eastern portions went to the Soviet Union, plus deal with the enclave of Königsberg. The wikipedia page has a timeline map
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Poland
So it looks to me that the whole process was a question of give and take between Stalin and Truman. You also asked
Can you make clearer which ones you think don’t apply to Palestine?
It seems to me that if we understand the process as a give and take, then _all_ the points after the first one are Soviet concerns, not US/UK concerns. As such, I don’t think they would have applied to a movement of population of Arabs in Palestine because the only actor that would be considered comparable to the Soviet Union would be Israel and they didn’t exist.
We can tell a much more balanced story and still not get to “and they should be allowed to take over what is currently Israel through a one state solution with a right of return”. We can tell a much more balanced story and still think “setting up something with ethnic tensions already worse than Yugoslavia doesn’t seem wise”.
Since I don’t think that the process concerning the explusion of ethnic Germans was simply a question of drawing lines on a map, but the result to two sides negotiating the end state after WWII with all the moral shortcomings and ethical dilemmas that this entailed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Cossacks_after_World_War_II
Perhaps one of the points about the debate between Donald and Bernard is that we can’t tell a balanced story without understanding all of the history involved. Or maybe we can, if one side is willing to forgo particular parts of their story. I am probably more sympathetic to support of Palestine, especially given the rightward movement of Israel, but I note that the debate starts basically after WWII and that there is a lot of history on the Jewish side that has not been touched here.
However, the discussion of German expulsions is actually not even that, it is a historical parallel that arose because of great power politics, it merely draws a historical parallel that leaves out a lot of stuff. I don’t think by oversimplifying what happened at Yalta, you get to a more balanced story of the IP conflict.
GftNC, I tend to see it more as “might” meaning that you have the ability to do something, but have not yet decided whether to do it. Whereas “may” means more that you have authorization/permission to do it, but again have not yet decided whether to exercise that authority.
GftNC, I tend to see it more as “might” meaning that you have the ability to do something, but have not yet decided whether to do it. Whereas “may” means more that you have authorization/permission to do it, but again have not yet decided whether to exercise that authority.
GftNC — my brain is too fried right now to sort it out, and I too am out of practice thinking about this stuff formally; my reaction is more along the lines of good grammar being like pornography: I know it when I see it. 🙂
So I’m probably going to end up regretting that I brought it up at all, but I think cleek’s comment (except the 900 AD part) is relevant to my first example. You could rewrite it in the present tense and “may” would be okay:
— If she wishes, she may come in and look.
The second example a different meaning of “may,” i.e. not the “permission” meaning, and I think the problem has to do with the fact that it’s a contrary to fact situation.
But that’s all I got right now. Maybe when lj gets out of bed……but then lj maybe will chide me for being so prescriptive… 😉
GftNC — my brain is too fried right now to sort it out, and I too am out of practice thinking about this stuff formally; my reaction is more along the lines of good grammar being like pornography: I know it when I see it. 🙂
So I’m probably going to end up regretting that I brought it up at all, but I think cleek’s comment (except the 900 AD part) is relevant to my first example. You could rewrite it in the present tense and “may” would be okay:
— If she wishes, she may come in and look.
The second example a different meaning of “may,” i.e. not the “permission” meaning, and I think the problem has to do with the fact that it’s a contrary to fact situation.
But that’s all I got right now. Maybe when lj gets out of bed……but then lj maybe will chide me for being so prescriptive… 😉
wj, thanks, but that doesn’t work (I think) for all cases of may and might.
my reaction is more along the lines of good grammar being like pornography: I know it when I see it. 🙂
Good enough for me!
wj, thanks, but that doesn’t work (I think) for all cases of may and might.
my reaction is more along the lines of good grammar being like pornography: I know it when I see it. 🙂
Good enough for me!
What about “might could”?
Depends on how it stacks up.
What about “might could”?
Depends on how it stacks up.
actually, my take on modals, teaching them to (low-intermediate) Japanese students, is to do what cleek says and view them as past tense and then use other, more concrete verbs they might use in the passage, to help them figure out which one they should use.
In linguistics it is epistemic versus deontic and this page has a nice chart that I would probably recommend to a student if they ever got to the point where this was really important.
https://allthingslinguistic.com/post/138048860136/the-difference-between-epistemic-deontic
As the page says, English does well with degrees of possibility, but doesn’t do too well with epistemic and deontic.
actually, my take on modals, teaching them to (low-intermediate) Japanese students, is to do what cleek says and view them as past tense and then use other, more concrete verbs they might use in the passage, to help them figure out which one they should use.
In linguistics it is epistemic versus deontic and this page has a nice chart that I would probably recommend to a student if they ever got to the point where this was really important.
https://allthingslinguistic.com/post/138048860136/the-difference-between-epistemic-deontic
As the page says, English does well with degrees of possibility, but doesn’t do too well with epistemic and deontic.
Israel was born after the most cataclysmic war in history (as far as we know). Its origins preceded that, but the country was created as a “reparations” of sorts. The cost of “reparations” aren’t shared equally. They can’t be.
I resent the current Israeli government (apparently supported by a majority of Israelis), and their treatment of Palestinians. I resent the effect on US politics that AIPAC has. Like a lot of people, I’m tempted to give up on Israel, and declare the whole thing a bad idea.
But … there’s this thing about historical hatred of Jews, and the fact that Israel was created to make that “historical”.
Again, WWII was cataclysmic. We still have to fight its aftermath. People didn’t suddenly embrace each other and just move on: they gave up stuff in order to move on. There were winners, and I’m glad the winners won.
My country (the USA) is losing the aftermath at the moment. There’s no fight more important than winning it back. Maybe that includes fighting Netanyahu. More power to you, if that’s your strategy for winning more democracy in America (or the UK, or other places). Obviously, historical realists know that we’ve always been full of shit. But being full of hope for more justice requires that we have an ambition (and maybe a creation myth). We need to believe in ourselves, and our possibilities.
I don’t see this with the constant “critics”.
My fight is closer to home: welcoming refugees. It would have helped if we’d done it then. It’s likely to solve a lot of problems in future if we do it now.
Israel was born after the most cataclysmic war in history (as far as we know). Its origins preceded that, but the country was created as a “reparations” of sorts. The cost of “reparations” aren’t shared equally. They can’t be.
I resent the current Israeli government (apparently supported by a majority of Israelis), and their treatment of Palestinians. I resent the effect on US politics that AIPAC has. Like a lot of people, I’m tempted to give up on Israel, and declare the whole thing a bad idea.
But … there’s this thing about historical hatred of Jews, and the fact that Israel was created to make that “historical”.
Again, WWII was cataclysmic. We still have to fight its aftermath. People didn’t suddenly embrace each other and just move on: they gave up stuff in order to move on. There were winners, and I’m glad the winners won.
My country (the USA) is losing the aftermath at the moment. There’s no fight more important than winning it back. Maybe that includes fighting Netanyahu. More power to you, if that’s your strategy for winning more democracy in America (or the UK, or other places). Obviously, historical realists know that we’ve always been full of shit. But being full of hope for more justice requires that we have an ambition (and maybe a creation myth). We need to believe in ourselves, and our possibilities.
I don’t see this with the constant “critics”.
My fight is closer to home: welcoming refugees. It would have helped if we’d done it then. It’s likely to solve a lot of problems in future if we do it now.
“Maybe that includes fighting Netanyahu. More power to you, if that’s your strategy for winning more democracy in America (or the UK, or other places…”
We don’t play well together, but I am going to try explaining my position without particularly hoping to change your mind, but maybe we can do this without it going downhill. So yes, that is my strategy. Not Netanyahu and Israel only—Yemen is a higher priority. But getting Americans to see that our interventions, both direct and indirect, are harmful to other people and also to ourselves. I saw Tom Friedman the other day saying that what we did wrong in Libya was not stick around to help rebuild after toppling Gaddafi. We have spent trillions of dollars on Iraq and Afghanistan and thousands of American soldiers have died, along with tens of thousands wounded, many so seriously that in previous wars they would have died without the quick medical treatment they get now. Nobody knows how many Iraqis have died, but the absolute low number is over 200,000 and it is probably much higher. Afghanistan is just guesswork. Both countries are in bad shape. We failed. Yemen— the press keeps citing the 10,000 figure, but that is years old and the violent death toll is probably closer to 50,000 with that many children starving to death every year. And Friedman thinks we should also be “fixing” Libya. Many think we should also have had a no fly zone and a safe zone in Syria, which actually translates to another war and occupation. Trump’s puppet like relationship with both the Saudis and the Israelis means we might be edging towards war with Iran.
This stuff is crazy by any standard and it isn’t limited to Republicans, though on average they are worse. It is an American attitude that absolutely has to change and people should not stop talking about it. As it happens, once Obama left most of the Democrats moved to the antiwar position on Yemen. Good. But we should have not let them bomb in the first place, The Saudis are evidently too incompetent to carry out much of a war without our help.
On Palestine, a bunch of mostly innocent villagers were forced to pay the price for Western antisemitism and that is the bargain Americans have struck on their behalf. Worse, Americans swallow the mythology whole and presume to lecture Palestinians and ignore that we have helped the Israelis make their lives miserable. It is frankly gross and racist as hell.
Change attitudes and behavior changes, including voting behavior. I can walk and chew gum at the same time, barely. I am even better at looking at our political system and noticing that there are only two parties on the national level that can win and that third parties on that level seem to do more harm than good, even if one hopes they will raise issues, because that just doesn’t happen. Democrats are better on virtually every issue and Kevin Drum was right that the party of Trump just needs to be burned to the ground.
“Maybe that includes fighting Netanyahu. More power to you, if that’s your strategy for winning more democracy in America (or the UK, or other places…”
We don’t play well together, but I am going to try explaining my position without particularly hoping to change your mind, but maybe we can do this without it going downhill. So yes, that is my strategy. Not Netanyahu and Israel only—Yemen is a higher priority. But getting Americans to see that our interventions, both direct and indirect, are harmful to other people and also to ourselves. I saw Tom Friedman the other day saying that what we did wrong in Libya was not stick around to help rebuild after toppling Gaddafi. We have spent trillions of dollars on Iraq and Afghanistan and thousands of American soldiers have died, along with tens of thousands wounded, many so seriously that in previous wars they would have died without the quick medical treatment they get now. Nobody knows how many Iraqis have died, but the absolute low number is over 200,000 and it is probably much higher. Afghanistan is just guesswork. Both countries are in bad shape. We failed. Yemen— the press keeps citing the 10,000 figure, but that is years old and the violent death toll is probably closer to 50,000 with that many children starving to death every year. And Friedman thinks we should also be “fixing” Libya. Many think we should also have had a no fly zone and a safe zone in Syria, which actually translates to another war and occupation. Trump’s puppet like relationship with both the Saudis and the Israelis means we might be edging towards war with Iran.
This stuff is crazy by any standard and it isn’t limited to Republicans, though on average they are worse. It is an American attitude that absolutely has to change and people should not stop talking about it. As it happens, once Obama left most of the Democrats moved to the antiwar position on Yemen. Good. But we should have not let them bomb in the first place, The Saudis are evidently too incompetent to carry out much of a war without our help.
On Palestine, a bunch of mostly innocent villagers were forced to pay the price for Western antisemitism and that is the bargain Americans have struck on their behalf. Worse, Americans swallow the mythology whole and presume to lecture Palestinians and ignore that we have helped the Israelis make their lives miserable. It is frankly gross and racist as hell.
Change attitudes and behavior changes, including voting behavior. I can walk and chew gum at the same time, barely. I am even better at looking at our political system and noticing that there are only two parties on the national level that can win and that third parties on that level seem to do more harm than good, even if one hopes they will raise issues, because that just doesn’t happen. Democrats are better on virtually every issue and Kevin Drum was right that the party of Trump just needs to be burned to the ground.
Democrats are better on virtually every issue and Kevin Drum was right that the party of Trump just needs to be burned to the ground.
Thanks, Donald. That’s the takeaway.
The other stuff is important, and real, but until Republicans are no longer a threat (because we’ll never get anywhere with them in power), we can’t talk about what’s right, because we always have to be arguing about the best way to fight what’s wrong.
Democrats are better on virtually every issue and Kevin Drum was right that the party of Trump just needs to be burned to the ground.
Thanks, Donald. That’s the takeaway.
The other stuff is important, and real, but until Republicans are no longer a threat (because we’ll never get anywhere with them in power), we can’t talk about what’s right, because we always have to be arguing about the best way to fight what’s wrong.
Democrats are better on virtually every
issueaspect of my world view.FIFY. 🙂
Democrats are better on virtually every
issueaspect of my world view.FIFY. 🙂
I missed this ‘gaffe’:
https://www.newsweek.com/ocasio-cortez-slams-israeli-occupation-walks-it-back-i-am-not-expert-1029386
From this side of the Atlantic it seems pretty well a truism that Israel occupies significant parts of the West Bank.
It might be considered undiplomatic language to use when dealing directly with Israel, but it would cause little or no pushback domestically, particularly for a politician on the left, but also not much for a conservative.
I missed this ‘gaffe’:
https://www.newsweek.com/ocasio-cortez-slams-israeli-occupation-walks-it-back-i-am-not-expert-1029386
From this side of the Atlantic it seems pretty well a truism that Israel occupies significant parts of the West Bank.
It might be considered undiplomatic language to use when dealing directly with Israel, but it would cause little or no pushback domestically, particularly for a politician on the left, but also not much for a conservative.
That issue was discussed by Corey Robin over at CT
http://crookedtimber.org/2018/07/16/on-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-palestine-and-the-left/
with Donald and Sebastian also participating. No knock on them, but reading the back and forth in the comment thread makes me appreciate the community we have here.
That issue was discussed by Corey Robin over at CT
http://crookedtimber.org/2018/07/16/on-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-palestine-and-the-left/
with Donald and Sebastian also participating. No knock on them, but reading the back and forth in the comment thread makes me appreciate the community we have here.
FIFY. 🙂
political, social, and economic issues are inevitably questions of value.
is it better to do A or B?
better by what measure?
so hell yeah, they are inseparable from each individual’s world view.
your ‘fix’ adds nothing to sapient’s original comment.
FIFY. 🙂
political, social, and economic issues are inevitably questions of value.
is it better to do A or B?
better by what measure?
so hell yeah, they are inseparable from each individual’s world view.
your ‘fix’ adds nothing to sapient’s original comment.
Actually, it was Donald’s comment, and it kind of illustrates that people generally notice the stuff that they do themselves (and that applies to me, I tend to be picky and pedantic, as my above observation proves and I have to take more care not to complain about it in others), cause I feel like Charles runs everything through his libertarian worldview.
Actually, it was Donald’s comment, and it kind of illustrates that people generally notice the stuff that they do themselves (and that applies to me, I tend to be picky and pedantic, as my above observation proves and I have to take more care not to complain about it in others), cause I feel like Charles runs everything through his libertarian worldview.
yes, it was donald. my bad.
yes, it was donald. my bad.
I took Charles’ smiley face to indicate a sense of self-parody, FWIW.
I took Charles’ smiley face to indicate a sense of self-parody, FWIW.
lj: No knock on them, but reading the back and forth in the comment thread makes me appreciate the community we have here.
i prompt that.
🙂
lj: No knock on them, but reading the back and forth in the comment thread makes me appreciate the community we have here.
i prompt that.
🙂
I didn’t object to Charles’s comment, self parody or not. There is a lot of room for legitimate disagreement on various issues. I favor single payer, for instance, but if you can create a health care system that takes care of everyone at a reasonable cost then there is IMO no reason to be ideological about it. I have read that some European countries ( Germany perhaps, but I’m not sure) do it with a very heavily regulated private system. But it seems like everyone does it better than us.
I mostly just lurk when issues like that come up. Interested, but not much to add.
I didn’t object to Charles’s comment, self parody or not. There is a lot of room for legitimate disagreement on various issues. I favor single payer, for instance, but if you can create a health care system that takes care of everyone at a reasonable cost then there is IMO no reason to be ideological about it. I have read that some European countries ( Germany perhaps, but I’m not sure) do it with a very heavily regulated private system. But it seems like everyone does it better than us.
I mostly just lurk when issues like that come up. Interested, but not much to add.
We’re nowhere near the IP dispute, but or government is working hard at creating border issues. Because what is life (at least if you’re Trump) if you can’t display dominance over everyone close to you?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/the-trump-administration-is-ensnared-in-another-border-dispute–this-time-with-canada/2018/08/11/43bcc8aa-9800-11e8-818b-e9b7348cd87d_story.html
We’re nowhere near the IP dispute, but or government is working hard at creating border issues. Because what is life (at least if you’re Trump) if you can’t display dominance over everyone close to you?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/the-trump-administration-is-ensnared-in-another-border-dispute–this-time-with-canada/2018/08/11/43bcc8aa-9800-11e8-818b-e9b7348cd87d_story.html
I posted this on the other thread but am putting it here again, as I think it is the sort of nuanced thing I would like to say, but since I am not sufficiently subtle or mature I can post the thoughts of someone who is.
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/blog/zionism-antisemitism-left-today/
I posted this on the other thread but am putting it here again, as I think it is the sort of nuanced thing I would like to say, but since I am not sufficiently subtle or mature I can post the thoughts of someone who is.
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/blog/zionism-antisemitism-left-today/
I enjoyed that piece when you posted it in the earlier, though I have to point out, the author uses the phrase “I shall argue that not only is this view of Zionism warped, but it pours oil onto the troubled waters of the topic we are here to discuss”, which is interesting, cause I think that’s exactly opposite the meaning.
But getting to the meat of the link, I feel like IP discussions in the UK and US are often two different animals, perhaps related, but not the same. Not sure why that is, though the evangelical lobby which views Israel’s moves to the right as proof of coming biblical prophecies and, I’m afraid, the willingness to argue in a way where the ends justifies the means. By having those people in the mix (and I’m sure there are some elected officials in that number) skews the conversation and makes it different from the UK.
I enjoyed that piece when you posted it in the earlier, though I have to point out, the author uses the phrase “I shall argue that not only is this view of Zionism warped, but it pours oil onto the troubled waters of the topic we are here to discuss”, which is interesting, cause I think that’s exactly opposite the meaning.
But getting to the meat of the link, I feel like IP discussions in the UK and US are often two different animals, perhaps related, but not the same. Not sure why that is, though the evangelical lobby which views Israel’s moves to the right as proof of coming biblical prophecies and, I’m afraid, the willingness to argue in a way where the ends justifies the means. By having those people in the mix (and I’m sure there are some elected officials in that number) skews the conversation and makes it different from the UK.
Donald,
I read the Klug link.
Much of what he says is true, (note that he seems to agree with me that this is a European-created problem). I do think that when he approvingly quotes Aurora Morales:
“I believe our safety lies in the solidarity of working people,” she writes, “and not in a Zionist state”,
he and Morales are simply mistaken. The Soviet Union was certainly anti-Semitic – more so than the Western capitalist states. More broadly, I see no necessary correlation between a country’s economic system and the degree of anti-Semitism present. Poland was anti-Semitic before WWII, and as a Communist country as well.
In any event, the notion that the Zionists should have sat around and waited for some workers’ paradise to appear makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Donald,
I read the Klug link.
Much of what he says is true, (note that he seems to agree with me that this is a European-created problem). I do think that when he approvingly quotes Aurora Morales:
“I believe our safety lies in the solidarity of working people,” she writes, “and not in a Zionist state”,
he and Morales are simply mistaken. The Soviet Union was certainly anti-Semitic – more so than the Western capitalist states. More broadly, I see no necessary correlation between a country’s economic system and the degree of anti-Semitism present. Poland was anti-Semitic before WWII, and as a Communist country as well.
In any event, the notion that the Zionists should have sat around and waited for some workers’ paradise to appear makes no sense to me whatsoever.
I didn’t focus too much on that part and would have to go back to reread it. I assume he meant democratic socialism or something like that with equal rights for all as the ideal to be achieved. The authoritarian communist version didn’t work out the way many of its proponents intended, putting it mildly.
LJ— I have nothing good to say about the Christian Zionists ( I was one when young), but I don’t think that is the only source of bigotry on the Zionist side of the fence. It plays a big role with American conservatives. But one thing that had me start to question Zionism was when I began to see that the way people talked about Palestinians sounded very much the way many southern whites talked about blacks. Their poverty was always their fault, their culture, their decisions. American liberals trying to atone for Western antisemitism would support Israel and make Palestinians or their leaders mainly responsible for their own plight. In both cases, sure, sometimes poor people make bad choices and certainly Palestinians and their leaders have done so too, but the Western discussion has been too imbalanced against them. I don’t want to rehash the thread, but I think the Christian Zionists are a problem, but also an easy scapegoat for liberals.
There is a zero sum type of reasoning which drives the discussions on both sides and is partly responsible for the bigotry one sees on both sides. In the “ Daphne” anecdote in Klug’s piece, part of the hostility is this thing where ideologues think that you can’t make any concession to the other side of the issue, something that can pop up in any heated emotional political argument, but here it slides into antisemitism. In some cases I don’t doubt the antisemitism was already there, but I also think the zero sum approach to the issue will turn people into bigots if they don’t stop to reflect on what they are doing.
I didn’t focus too much on that part and would have to go back to reread it. I assume he meant democratic socialism or something like that with equal rights for all as the ideal to be achieved. The authoritarian communist version didn’t work out the way many of its proponents intended, putting it mildly.
LJ— I have nothing good to say about the Christian Zionists ( I was one when young), but I don’t think that is the only source of bigotry on the Zionist side of the fence. It plays a big role with American conservatives. But one thing that had me start to question Zionism was when I began to see that the way people talked about Palestinians sounded very much the way many southern whites talked about blacks. Their poverty was always their fault, their culture, their decisions. American liberals trying to atone for Western antisemitism would support Israel and make Palestinians or their leaders mainly responsible for their own plight. In both cases, sure, sometimes poor people make bad choices and certainly Palestinians and their leaders have done so too, but the Western discussion has been too imbalanced against them. I don’t want to rehash the thread, but I think the Christian Zionists are a problem, but also an easy scapegoat for liberals.
There is a zero sum type of reasoning which drives the discussions on both sides and is partly responsible for the bigotry one sees on both sides. In the “ Daphne” anecdote in Klug’s piece, part of the hostility is this thing where ideologues think that you can’t make any concession to the other side of the issue, something that can pop up in any heated emotional political argument, but here it slides into antisemitism. In some cases I don’t doubt the antisemitism was already there, but I also think the zero sum approach to the issue will turn people into bigots if they don’t stop to reflect on what they are doing.
I assume he meant democratic socialism or something like that with equal rights for all as the ideal to be achieved.
I think that is charitable. The talk was given at event organized by a group called “Marxism 2017.”
Regardless, ISTM that “equal rights for all” is a goal rather than a plan.
I assume he meant democratic socialism or something like that with equal rights for all as the ideal to be achieved.
I think that is charitable. The talk was given at event organized by a group called “Marxism 2017.”
Regardless, ISTM that “equal rights for all” is a goal rather than a plan.
I didn’t mean to suggest that Christian Zionists are the only source that makes the debate different, I tend to think of them as the ‘secret ingredient’ that makes the US debate look so different from the UK.
I didn’t mean to suggest that Christian Zionists are the only source that makes the debate different, I tend to think of them as the ‘secret ingredient’ that makes the US debate look so different from the UK.
“I think that is charitable. The talk was given at event organized by a group called “Marxism 2017.””
My understanding is that some Marxists were and are democratic socialists. The Leninists, not so much, though some Western Marxists still make excuses for him.
LJ—I think the Christian Zionists help make the discussion in the Republican Party different. Democrats still pay lip service to the 2ss. Republicans barely acknowledge there is an occupation, but even here that isn’t just because of Christian fundamentalists. Chris Christie had to walk back a reference to occupied territories because it upset Adelson.
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/chris-christie-occupied-territories-apology-105169
“I think that is charitable. The talk was given at event organized by a group called “Marxism 2017.””
My understanding is that some Marxists were and are democratic socialists. The Leninists, not so much, though some Western Marxists still make excuses for him.
LJ—I think the Christian Zionists help make the discussion in the Republican Party different. Democrats still pay lip service to the 2ss. Republicans barely acknowledge there is an occupation, but even here that isn’t just because of Christian fundamentalists. Chris Christie had to walk back a reference to occupied territories because it upset Adelson.
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/chris-christie-occupied-territories-apology-105169
Thanks for the link. I think it also shows the different ways that mega-donors like Adelson operate in the US as opposed to how they operate in the UK?
Funny quote from Christie in the article:
“We cannot have a world where our friends are unsure of whether we’ll be with them, and our enemies are unsure of whether we’ll be against them,” Christie said to loud applause.
Thanks for the link. I think it also shows the different ways that mega-donors like Adelson operate in the US as opposed to how they operate in the UK?
Funny quote from Christie in the article:
“We cannot have a world where our friends are unsure of whether we’ll be with them, and our enemies are unsure of whether we’ll be against them,” Christie said to loud applause.
The funny part being that the administration apparently doesn’t consider it applicable to the vast majority of our allies.
The funny part being that the administration apparently doesn’t consider it applicable to the vast majority of our allies.
wj: or enemies!
wj: or enemies!
GftNC: Nah, at the moment our enemies can be pretty sure we won’t be against them the vast majority of the time.
GftNC: Nah, at the moment our enemies can be pretty sure we won’t be against them the vast majority of the time.
LOL 🙂
LOL 🙂
“We are not amused.”
“We are not amused.”
Sticking this here because in rare districts ( well, two so far) politicians can come under pressure from both sides on the IP issue. The comments to this piece ( three so far) are a bit more nuanced than the article itself.
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/rashida-tlaib-dodges-questions-about-pro-israel-endorsement
Sticking this here because in rare districts ( well, two so far) politicians can come under pressure from both sides on the IP issue. The comments to this piece ( three so far) are a bit more nuanced than the article itself.
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/rashida-tlaib-dodges-questions-about-pro-israel-endorsement
Well with a site named Electronic Intifada you could hardly expected nuance.
One does wonder if they would really prefer that she lose. At least it would put them right up there with the Christian fundamentalists….
Well with a site named Electronic Intifada you could hardly expected nuance.
One does wonder if they would really prefer that she lose. At least it would put them right up there with the Christian fundamentalists….
Good grief. It is called Electronic Intifada because they write in favor of Palestinian rights on the internet.
As for the substance, the problem is that there is very strong pressure against anyone taking a pro Palestinian position. Are people who care about this simply supposed to shut their mouths or can they maybe exert pressure back?
This, btw, is why people who are not politicians should never start acting like politicians on issues they care about. Tlaib is in a difficult position. I would vote for her and for Alexandra Ocasio- Cortez even if they ended up waffling, but at the same time, if people don’t make it difficult for politicians who waffle on certain issues, then all of the pressure comes from the other side on those issues.
Good grief. It is called Electronic Intifada because they write in favor of Palestinian rights on the internet.
As for the substance, the problem is that there is very strong pressure against anyone taking a pro Palestinian position. Are people who care about this simply supposed to shut their mouths or can they maybe exert pressure back?
This, btw, is why people who are not politicians should never start acting like politicians on issues they care about. Tlaib is in a difficult position. I would vote for her and for Alexandra Ocasio- Cortez even if they ended up waffling, but at the same time, if people don’t make it difficult for politicians who waffle on certain issues, then all of the pressure comes from the other side on those issues.
This from the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/14/bds-boycott-divestment-sanctions-movement-transformed-israeli-palestinian-debate
This from the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/14/bds-boycott-divestment-sanctions-movement-transformed-israeli-palestinian-debate
Thanks very much for that link, LJ. That is about the best article in a mainstream outlet on BDS that I have ever seen. For that matter, in any outlet. I would be pleasantly shocked to see it appear in the NYT.
Thrall seems to get all the nuances, including the link to the current fight over Labour and antisemitism which he mentions in passing here—
“This working definition was adapted in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), and has been used, endorsed or recommended, with some small modifications, by a number of other organisations – including the US Department of State, which, since 2008, has defined antisemitism to include any of three categories of criticism of Israel, known as the “three Ds”: delegitimisation of Israel, demonisation of Israel and double standards for Israel. (More recently, the IHRA working definition has been at the centre of the antisemitism controversy in the Labour party, which adopted a modified version of the examples accompanying the definition.)
By the state department’s definition, delegitimisation includes “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist”. Thus anti-Zionism – including the view that Israel should be a state of all its citizens, with equal rights for Jews and non-Jews – is a form of delegitimisation and therefore antisemitic. According to this definition, virtually all Palestinians (and a large proportion of ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel, who oppose Zionism for religious reasons) are guilty of antisemitism because they want Jews and Palestinians to continue living in Palestine but not within a Jewish state. ”
————————
This, btw, is one reason why I don’t want governments or think tanks working with corporations to decide what is or is not legitimate. Because Palestinians who think they have the right to live in their own homeland and anyone who agrees with them is, according to the US state department, an antisemite.
Thanks very much for that link, LJ. That is about the best article in a mainstream outlet on BDS that I have ever seen. For that matter, in any outlet. I would be pleasantly shocked to see it appear in the NYT.
Thrall seems to get all the nuances, including the link to the current fight over Labour and antisemitism which he mentions in passing here—
“This working definition was adapted in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), and has been used, endorsed or recommended, with some small modifications, by a number of other organisations – including the US Department of State, which, since 2008, has defined antisemitism to include any of three categories of criticism of Israel, known as the “three Ds”: delegitimisation of Israel, demonisation of Israel and double standards for Israel. (More recently, the IHRA working definition has been at the centre of the antisemitism controversy in the Labour party, which adopted a modified version of the examples accompanying the definition.)
By the state department’s definition, delegitimisation includes “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist”. Thus anti-Zionism – including the view that Israel should be a state of all its citizens, with equal rights for Jews and non-Jews – is a form of delegitimisation and therefore antisemitic. According to this definition, virtually all Palestinians (and a large proportion of ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel, who oppose Zionism for religious reasons) are guilty of antisemitism because they want Jews and Palestinians to continue living in Palestine but not within a Jewish state. ”
————————
This, btw, is one reason why I don’t want governments or think tanks working with corporations to decide what is or is not legitimate. Because Palestinians who think they have the right to live in their own homeland and anyone who agrees with them is, according to the US state department, an antisemite.
Awww, no Intellectual Property? I came back after so many years just to post on how the Federal Circuit made a significant, en banc ruling on the deadline for filing an Inter Partes(/i> review …. in the third footnote of an opinion that largely dealt with entirely different topics.
(Yes, von lurks. And I’m not getting involved in this one :-). All the best.)
Awww, no Intellectual Property? I came back after so many years just to post on how the Federal Circuit made a significant, en banc ruling on the deadline for filing an Inter Partes(/i> review …. in the third footnote of an opinion that largely dealt with entirely different topics.
(Yes, von lurks. And I’m not getting involved in this one :-). All the best.)
Stop Italics! Oh, frickin-a. I screwed up the HTML. How weirdly appropriate.
Stop Italics! Oh, frickin-a. I screwed up the HTML. How weirdly appropriate.
Wow! Blast from the past! Hope you are well!
Wow! Blast from the past! Hope you are well!
von
VON#??!!!?
von
VON#??!!!?
I know what McRaven’s next mission should be.
It will be a domestic search and destroy operation to kill the enemies of America.
There are tens of millions of them.
https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2018/08/he-likes-admirals-who-dont-kill-bin.html
I know what McRaven’s next mission should be.
It will be a domestic search and destroy operation to kill the enemies of America.
There are tens of millions of them.
https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2018/08/he-likes-admirals-who-dont-kill-bin.html