by hilzoy
I read this post about George Galloway, by Daniel Davies at Crooked Timber, and thought: surely that’s over the top. I mean, yes, from what I can tell, Galloway is a bit unhinged, but can this really be called for?
“To be honest, listening to these orations, my reaction was that this is on the absolute cusp of being the sort of thing that a decent, liberal society ought to be chucking people in jail for. The issue is the language; a charitable interpretation might be that GG has allowed his own gift for turning a fiery phrase to combine with the hyperbole beloved of Arab literature (“a thousand curses, etc, etc) to quite dangerous effect. A less charitable interpretation would be that, like Enoch Powell with his River Tiber, he knows exactly what he’s f*cking doing and doesn’t care. (…) If this was said in the UK, I would guess it would be exactly the sort of thing that would be captured by the incitement to hatred laws (either racial or religious depending on whether he’s going on about Islam or specifically Arabs). I’m not a great fan of those laws, so I wouldn’t necessarily support such a prosecution, but I would certainly regard it as a misfortune he’d brought on himself.”
Then I listened to it, and thought: basically, yes. Silly me for doubting Daniel Davies. (The video is from MEMRI TV, taken from various Arab stations, but there aren’t really accuracy issues, since you can hear what he says in English if you try. The subtitles are basically accurate; I think I spotted one place where they added an ‘it’ that grammatically ought to have been there, but that was the extent of it.) It’s absolutely repellent, and an irresponsible incitement to violence.
I am a free speech fiend. I supported the right of Nazis to march through Skokie, and I did so knowing that Skokie wasn’t just any old town, it was a town where holocaust survivors lived. I also oppose the British laws, and would oppose Galloway’s prosecution under them had he made his remarks in Britain. But it would be with the same feeling of swallowing revulsion and asking: ‘Why oh why do my principles have to require this?’ that I feel when I think about Skokie.
“…MEMRI TV […] but there aren’t really accuracy issues….”
There are always people accusing MEMRI of being Direfully Evil because they’re Obviously A Mossad Front, or somesuch, but has anyone actually found any history of them distorting or unfairly quoting material? If so, I’d be interested (and I’d like to see a pattern, not just a couple of random examples that could be chalked up to error). If not, I don’t care if they’re the Official Mossad Progaganda Agency, if they’re delivering accurate information.
This is a digression from your point, Hilzoy, as is my typical wont, of course. Hope that’s okay.
I remembered a thingo last year about their translating something Osama bin Laden said as: any state that supports Bush will be a target (or something); and that causing a minor firestorm about bin Laden trying to influence elections. And, allegedly, it was at best deeply unclear that that was accurate. (Obviously, Arabic doesn’t have a word that clearly means ‘state’, as in ‘Delaware’.) Not knowing enough Arabic, and having forgotten most of the teensy scraps I once knew, I couldn’t say anything authoritative about that, but I did want to say that whatever the merits of such concerns, they aren’t relevant here.
I hear Jane Fonda is doing some sort of peace thing, and Rush said something bad today. I can’t say more, because I really wasnt paying attention.
But you have made your obeisance to the lesser gods of moderation for the day, so go forth cleansed and purified.
Well, hilzoy, you have my sympathy. I watched it, too (how could I not?). Ugh.
I find it troubling that it draws such applause (even given the audience).
I’m usually right with you, Hilzoy, but in this instance, I don’t understand the furor. Everyone who has followed Galloway knows his sentiments. In this case he’s just playing to his gallery and with some uncomfortable observations about the Iraq war as well. Maybe it sounds differntly than it reads on the MEMRI site.
As to MEMRI, Abu Aardvark has posted quite a bit about them on his site, http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/
Look for the eponymous title under topics on the right of the screen.
“I’m usually right with you, Hilzoy, but in this instance, I don’t understand the furor. Everyone who has followed Galloway knows his sentiments.”
This suggests that “everyone who has followed Galloway” is a homogenous mass, whereas, of course, most people in the world who have heard something of him have only heard a little, in passing. Galloway has been acclaimed by many on the left, particularly so in America after his Senate appearance. It’s a sure fact that many who did aren’t particularly otherwise acquainted with him, his history, or his views.
But, then, as well, many will go on about the “rogue state of Israel.”
Incidentally, just providing a link is more direct than giving directions.
And having scanned through many posts, I see a lot of agreement with stuff from MEMRI, and a lot of passing denigration. You might have linked to, say, this; wouldn’t that have been more direct?
Maybe you have other links in mind, but if so, do please provide them. What’s said there is that, basically, MEMRI tends to focus on alarming stuff. Big surprise, that. Why isn’t MEMRI posting about anodyne, peaceful and charming stuff? Um, does that really need an answer?
Similarly, Abu Aardvark makes this accusation: “MEMRI cherry picks the vast Arab press….”
Shocking. They’re almost like blogs, that way, picking out things to post about, and not just reproducing newspapers and broadcasts whole. How terrible!
Is there any pattern of inaccuracy?
I’m not sure which part people are disagreeing with, so here is the transcript linked to by Crooked Timber:
Two of your beautiful daughters are in the hands of foreigners – Jerusalem and Baghdad. The foreigners are doing to your daughters as they will. The daughters are crying for help, and the Arab world is silent. And some of them are collaborating with the rape of these two beautiful Arab daughters. Why? Because they are too weak and too corrupt to do anything about it.
……It’s not the Muslims who are the terrorists. The biggest terrorists are Bush, and Blair, and Berlusconi, and Aznar, but it is definitely not a clash of civilizations. George Bush doesn’t have any civilization, he doesn’t represent any civilization. We believe in the Prophets, peace be upon them. He believes in the profits, and how to get a piece of them. That’s his god. That’s his god. George Bush worships money. That’s his god – Mammon.
Looks like Galloway is making several points here:
1) Jerusalem and Baghdad are under foreign occupation.
Agreed. They are.
2) The Arab world is silent about this.
I wouldn’t say silent, but many of the leaders of the Arab world are pretty hushed about it. For obvious reasons.
3) The Arab world is collaborating with the foreign occupation of the two aforementioned places.
“Arab world” is an overgeneralization. Obviously some of the “Arab world” is doing its best to end that occupation, and some of the “Arab world” has better things to worry about. But certainly part of the “Arab world” – for example, Kuwait – is collaborating with the foreign occupation of Baghdad.
4) The reason the Arab world is collaborating is because it is weak and corrupt.
Well, sure a lot of the Arab world is weak and corrupt. I don’t see the connection though, part of the Arab world is resisting the occupation and they are weak and corrupt as well.
5) The Muslims are not terrorists.
If he’s asserting no Muslims are terrorists he’s in nutcase land.
6) Bush, Blair & co. are the biggest terrorists.
They’re not the biggest, they have other tools. They have spread fear amongst their own populace and others to achieve political aims, but for the most part, when you’ve got the biggest military on the block, you don’t need to resort to terrorism. Unless you’re Reagan.
7) George Bush does not represent any civilization.
I’ll side with Gandhi on this one, Western Civilization would be a fantastic idea. Let’s do it.
8) Galloway and his audience believe in the prophets.
I have no idea if this is true, and I do not care.
9) Bush worships money.
I doubt Bush honestly worships anything.
So a bit of what the guy said I agree with, a lot I think is nutty, but I don’t see from that short transcript what the big deal is.
I mean really, that’s the kind of stuff that has people wanting to put you in jail now? What cowards. The people putting the forth the idea that someone should be put in jail for making a speech like that are a much larger threat to the values we hold dear than the guy making the speech is, if the above transcript is any indication.
“1) Jerusalem and Baghdad are under foreign occupation.
Agreed. They are.”
Myself, I certainly believe that East Jerusalem should be the capital of a Palestinian state.
But to declare that Jews in Jerusalem at all, or holding political sway over any part of Jerusalem, means they are “foreign occupiers” tends to suggest a belief that Israel itself is a “foreign”
“occupation,” and that while Palestinian nationalism (which I believe is valid and just) is valid, but Jewish nationalism is, somehow, not. (Mind: I’m not defending any sort of notion that anything that a Zionist desires is defensible; I’ve spent far too much of my life writing about the evils of various Likud extremists, working in Peace Now, and condemning Jewish extremist horrors, to be credibly accused of holding with any such appalling nonsense; I’m simply referring to the basic notion of a Jewish State.)
But probably I’m wrong to think so. Do please clarify your opinions about this, if you would be so kind, felixrayman. Is all of Jerusalem under “foreign” occupation?
felix: it’s worth watching the videos in their entirety. They are awful.
Is all of Jerusalem under “foreign” occupation?
Until there is a right of return, yes.
felix: it’s worth watching the videos in their entirety. They are awful.
I don’t watch TV, remember? 😉
Got transcript?
I agree with hilzoy (as usual). I hardly watch any TV any more (apart from DVDs of Buffy) but to get the full impact you have to watch.
Why, how is the delivery so different from the content that I must watch the delivery to comprehend? And no, unless it’s an NFL game…I’m not watching. TV free since last Super Bowl Sunday.
The audience reaction for one thing. Maybe it’s just my imagination but I find it chilling.
Does the truth or falseness, or propriety of what he said depend on the reaction of the audience to it? I’ll take hilzoy’s word that there is something worse to what he said than the transcript I have, but I wish someone could point me to the words he said that were beyond the pale. And not the video.
He said things I disagree with, I detailed them. What beyond that did he say that you think was wrong?
“Right of return” for who?
If you’re suggesting that every descendent of every Palestinian who used to live in an area that is now part of Israel must have a “right of return,” I assume you are aware of the fact that such a “right” would, assuming Israel remained the democratic state it is, the only state in the Mideast with elected Arab members and parties, that Israel would cease to be a Jewish State. I assume you also call upon the Palestinian Authority to mandate a Jewish “right of return” to live in peace, with full democratic rights, and rights to Jewish parties in their legislature, in Palestine, in similar fashion to Israel? (Which isn’t to ignore the varying degrees of unfair treatment of Arab citizens in Israel, which must be corrected, of course.)
And I assume you also call upon all the Arab states to allow for the return of the millions of Jewish citizens they expelled?
And I assume you are equally concerned to be sure that India and Pakistan settle their “right of return” of their citizens and descendents to where they live in 1949?
And you also are equally concerned that Russia, Poland, and Germany, make sure all their citizens have the right to return to where they were in 1944 and 1937?
And that you are equally concerned with Tibeten rights, and with Chechnyan rights, and with South African rights, and with Zimbabwean rights, and with American “Indiant” rights, and with the vast number of nationalities moved about by Stalin, and with all the rights of citizens moved about during the 20th century, right?
I mean, I’m sure you wouldn’t want to single out the Jews as the top priority, without addressing all these equal injustices, right?
I would hope so, but if you might clarify some more, please?
Do you have any familiarity with the history of Zionism as a socialist, leftist, cause, by the way?
felix, did you ever compare the transcript of Zell Miller’s attack on Kerry to the video? Or read a speech by Bush vs watching on tv? A lot is lost in b&w, outside of poetry anyway.
As innumerable people said at the time, Galloway’s Senate performance was outstanding despite the fact that he is “dodgy” (my half-sister), “a wanker” (one of my UK friends), “a prat” (another one), or “a tosser” (mine). I’m not sure what, if anything, that says.
“I don’t watch TV, remember? ;)”
“TV free since last Super Bowl Sunday.”
Interesting, but what it has to do with Hilzoy’s link to the video, I’m unclear. Have you noticed that the interwub has actually been able to transmit information that isn’t just ASCII for some time now? Was Hilzoy unclear somehow, and if so, which words were unclear?
Do you need a tv to click on the link?
(Note: on my dial-up system, using Firefox, I could only hear Arabic mixed with unintelligble mumbles, and got no picture, myself, but I’ve not yet tried IE, as the software scolded me to. But I’m not trying to use my tv to view it, either.)
Interesting, but what it has to do with Hilzoy’s link to the video, I’m unclear.
I’m sure you are.
If you have a transcript, provide one. If you have irrelevant random personal attacks, by all means, amuse me with those, too.
But really. I’ve seen one transcript, wasn’t impressed. Got another one, or is this all a tempest in a teapot?
“If you have a transcript, provide one.”
Not me, nope.
“If you have irrelevant random personal attacks, by all means, amuse me with those, too.”
Um, what? I have no idea who you are, man, woman, tall, short, pale, dark, slim, fat, tweedledee or tweedledum. Do you feel I made an “irrelevant random personal attack”, or even one of those adjectives attached to “attack” on you, and if so, where?
In other words: huh? And: wha?
What are you referring to?
Similarly, Abu Aardvark makes this accusation: “MEMRI cherry picks the vast Arab press….”
Shocking. They’re almost like blogs, that way, picking out things to post about, and not just reproducing newspapers and broadcasts whole. How terrible!
There *is* such a thing as dumpster-diving, Gary. I’m not qualified to make a judgment one way or the other as to whether MEMRI’s choice of articles for translation qualifies, but I’m willing to give Abu Aardvark a little bit more of the benefit than you apparently are.
Is there any pattern of inaccuracy?
Most of the reasoned complaints about MEMRI (although of course I’d put Abu Aardvark’s complaint in that category, so YMMV) don’t argue that there is.
Either get me the transcript of what you find so offensive or go on to your next hissy fit. Over and out.
“Either get me the transcript of what you find so offensive or go on to your next hissy fit. Over and out.”
Was that directed at me, felixrayman?
If so, is there some reason you’re uninterested in responding to my queries?
If so, why?
Oh, and if so, felixrayman, what are you referring to in writing of what I find “offensive”? What are you talking about? If so, what words of mine are you responding to?
If you’re referring to someone else’s comment, it’s very easy now to link to it. Which one were you responding to?
Gary, maybe he was referring to the snideness (“Have you noticed…”) of your 01:40. Or maybe he thinks your questions are posed in a pedantic tone to mock him. Maybe he left a flame under the beautiful empty All-Clad skillet he got as a wedding present and is short of temper.
“Gary, maybe he was referring to the snideness (“Have you noticed…”) of your 01:40.”
It was snide to wonder what “tv” had to do with Hilzoy’s link? Okay. Perhaps I should have pointed out that “tv” had nothing to do with it in some other fashion. My apologies.
Still no quotes. I am supposed to be outraged at words I have not seen. If I am supposed to be outraged at someone’s words, please quote for me the words at which my outrage should be directed.
C’mon. If there is no transcript for the words that should outrage me, make one. Obviously people here have time on their hands.
“Still no quotes. I am supposed to be outraged at words I have not seen.”
I wouldn’t know. What the frick are you talking about?
If you’d like to respond to something addressed to you, how about this?
I am supposed to be outraged at words I have not seen.
At this point, you haven’t seen them due to your own laziness. Gary has all but FedExed the tape to your home. Please, let’s not pretend you’re doing anything but engaging in avoidance for its own sake.
Is this where I get my admittance card to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, as vouched for by Josh Trevino?
Does it admit me to miniature golf, at least, too? The Miniature Right-Wing Conspiracy (As Controlled By Israel?) And maybe a soda?
And a pony?
Slart, since the carrier has been turned around, you’re welcome to putt into the wind, too. Just watch out for that windmill shot.
Felixrayman: I do believe that the video would show something else than just the transcript since a hugh part of communication is in the non-verbal part. So with just a transcript you can easily miss quite a lot.
However, I cannot see the video either since they only want to show it to you if you use the Internet Exploder and I principally refuse to be bullied into using it 🙂
FWIW: I agree completely with Anarch. Galloway is way to radical (twit might be to gentle IMHO) but his speech before congress was nevertheless brilliant.
“…but his speech before congress was nevertheless brilliant.”
It wasn’t before Congress, but a committee hearing room with a couple of Senators present, actually. It takes rather a lot for someone to be invited to speak before Congress, like being Winston Churchill, or the Prime Minister of India, in fact.
At hearings, you’re lucky if you get a couple of Senators or Representatives present, out of the 535, most of whom wouldn’t be entitled to sit at the hearing, anyway, unless they were in the particular Body, and on the particular Committee, and on the particular SubCommittee.
It’s a pretty huge difference, speaking to Congress, or some measly subcommittee hearing, with a couple of Members present.
Gary, on your list of other crimes that deserve as much attention as the expulsion of the Palestinians, I agree. The Arabs should allow Jews to return to their homes in various Arab countries and compensate those who do not choose to exercise this option (which would probably be most of the sane ones). The same goes for all the other ethnic cleansings you mention–the American Indian one is perhaps the most interesting, since the crimes against them were also committed by a democratic country. I wonder if white Americans would have favored letting Indians off the reservation if their numbers were comparable to those of whites? But surely no one wants to see a any massive crime against humanity rewarded with success. I’m being sarcastic, of course.
I don’t either favor or oppose a right of return for Palestinians–in theory it’s the obvious, just solution, but in practice most Israelis oppose it and it might result in Israel looking like Lebanon did for decades. But I am entirely in favor of people habitually and openly noticing that Israel is a Jewish state because of ethnic cleansing and that some of the early Zionists (like ben Gurion) favored this approach if circumstances permitted, just as I am in favor of people continuing to point out that the Arab world is riddled with antisemitism and that Jews were ethnically cleansed from Arab countries. In America, at least, mainstream discussions of the Israel/Palestine conflict are slanted because most people know about the terrorism and anti-semitism of the Arab world, but appear unwilling to notice the sordid aspects of Israel’s history. This is putting it mildly. For decades people repeated Israel’s cover story, that all the refugees fled voluntarily. (And presumably voluntarily allowed themselves to be shot when trying to return, as Benny Morris says happened to thousands in the late 40’s and early 50’s.) You mention Zionism as a socialist, leftist cause. That doesn’t exactly innoculate it from criticism. There were the binationalists, who did want to live side-by-side with Arabs in equality, but from reading Tom Segev, Avi Shlaim and Benny Morris, they weren’t the mainstream. Morris (who defends the ethnic cleansing of 1948) says that many or most mainstream Zionist leaders can be found expressing support for “transfer” of the Arab population from the very beginning, going back to Herzl. They were usually discreet about it–Herzl didn’t say this publicly,but favors it in his diary.
I suppose we could talk about the settlement of America as an idealistic venture and place heavy emphasis on the record of the fair treatment by the Quakers of Native Americans and point to occasional admiring comments by Jefferson about them, but it might give the wrong overall impression of how the white/”Indian”
conflict started.
The point being that yes, it’s true that the crimes of Israel are hardly unique in scale or character, but somehow there never seems to be an appropriate time to talk about them at all, unless we also talk about the fate of the Crimean Tartars and so forth.
Gary, if I say I agree with you on this thread, will you be forced to reexamine your thoughts?
I was a little surprised you didn’t mention the Jewish right of return to their ancestral homelands of millenia past, but then you’d maybe have to bring up the right of return of the various tribes the Israelites defeated in taking what was then Israel, or the right of return of Egypt to lands it had held before there ever was a nation of Israel, or…I guess it just depends how far back you want to go, and who you consider the rightful occupiers of the nation currently known as Israel to be.
rilkefan–
“Maybe he left a flame under the beautiful empty All-Clad skillet he got as a wedding present and is short of temper.”
Yeah–I’ve been thinking we need a thread on the pros and cons of various non-stick cookwares. Esp. now that Teflon is looking hazardous. Should we really just go back to seasoned cast iron, and bankrupt several industries?
Should we really just go back to seasoned cast iron, and bankrupt several industries?
Yes.
That is all.
Anarch–
sigh….
nothing kills a thread more quickly than the truth concisely stated.
A technique that could have easily shortened some recent run-away threads, for that matter….
So, slartibartfast, the idea is that you expel people, lie about what happened or just sit tight for enough decades until the people you expelled are outnumbered by their descendants, and then point to the endless number of similar crimes that have been committed since the dawn of time and you’re home free?
Makes a certain sort of sense. And of course it’s what people actually do.
As for anyone’s right of return anywhere, it never comes accompanied by a right to expel others so you get to be a majority.
Or not in theory anyway–in practice things are quite different.
So, slartibartfast, the idea is that you expel people, lie about what happened or just sit tight for enough decades until the people you expelled are outnumbered by their descendants, and then point to the endless number of similar crimes that have been committed since the dawn of time and you’re home free?
Not only that, but if the name of your country is “Germany,” you get rewarded by having billions of US dollars spent to rebuild your infrastructure after you lose a war. Oh, sure, you might have to pay a few cash reparations, but otherwise, you’re a better country when you come out the other side, and a whole bunch of your war-profiteer industries get to become major world players.
There are still Jews living today who had their property confiscated by the Nazis. I anxiously await the agitation for their “right of return,”
Is seasoned cast iron easier to keep rust-free than regular cast-iron. Because I had to cook on a cast-iron skillet when I was going through an anemic period, and was that a pain or what! Constantly keeping it dry and oiled, otherwise it would just start rusting immediately. Oy.
And I don’t want to listen or view anything either. But out of respect for Hilzoy, I did watch the video she linked to. Frankly, I don’t get what people are having vapors about? We went in and invaded a country, killed uncounted (literally) civilians, and now we’re supposed to get upset about a white guy saying that that sucks?
I wish Galloway had been around when the US invaded the Philippines.
Is this where I get my admittance card to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, as vouched for by Josh Trevino?
No.
To buttress Phil’s point, the near-total lack of interest in a “right of return” for Silesian, Sudeten and Prussian Germans; kresy Poles; Dalmatian and Istrian Italians; Karelian Finns; Punjabis of all faiths; pied noirs; and of course Jews across the Muslim world on the part of those for whom it is extremely important with regard to the Palestinians is notable. And fairly easily explicable.
Do any of those people want to go back? Are any of them currently without any home country at all? I’m asking seriously.
Amazing that you read all that into what I said, considering I didn’t say any of it.
votermom,
“I wish Galloway had been around when the US invaded the Philippines.”
That’s OK. We had Mark Twain, who’s much better at invective.
Are any of them currently without any home country at all?
I assume you refer to the Palestinians. The answer is yes, most (though not all) of them are stateless. The neighboring Arab nations found it preferable to keep them that way for several reasons. The upshot is that instead of settling into the local population (whose language and culture they shared) over the course of a generation as did the aforementioned Germans, Finns, et al., they were kept in a permanent refugee limbo. (Contrast with Israel’s treatment of the refugees it received, by the bye.) They want to go back because they perceive, rightly, that it is the only way they will ever have a country. A true pity.
When I was in Jordan, I went through some of the Palestinian “refugee camps” around Amman. They were indistinguishable, to me, from the rest of the city, except that they were perhaps a bit more haphazard.
Looks like Galloway is making several points here:
1) Jerusalem and Baghdad are under foreign occupation.
Agreed. They are.
You missed something between 1) and 2), felix. Galloway essentially said that Jews and Americans are raping the people of Jerusalem and Baghdad. What is the punishment for the crime of rape where Galloway spoke? I’m sure the Koran has a remedy or two for such an offense. Are you a dad? What would be your response be if told that your daughter was raped? I know what mine would be. How can it be interpreted any other way that Galloway is inciting Arabs to kill his own countrymen? How can Galloway be so willfully blind to not acknowledge that Muslim extremists are conducting suicide terrorist attacks almost daily? How can he say with any credibility that there are no Muslim terrorists, and how does that not taint and ruin the content of the rest of his speech?
Hil, I share your views about free speech, but when speech is used to openly encourage others to kill your fellow countrymen, the line is crossed. Galloway’s speech was seditious.
As for MEMRI, no doubt that they have selection bias (who doesn’t?), but I haven’t seen a strong case made for translation bias.
when speech is used to openly encourage others to kill your fellow countrymen, the line is crossed. Galloway’s speech was seditious.
Charles, what exactly did Galloway say that fits your definition of “seditious”. I don’t like what Galloway said, but I also tend to reach for my revolver whenever someone starts throwing out accusations of treasonous or seditious speech. Would you like to see people here and in Britain prosecuted for sedition based on nothing more than their public utterances? You make me very nervous, Charles.
What CB said (with no reservations about how awful GG is, slight reservations about exactly where the “this should be prosecutable” line falls).
That was a new experience.
GG was talking to an Arabic audience. Have you heard/read arab translations? I’m not any kind of expert here, but even I know that Persian and Arabic is much more flowery, that is, given to metaphor and imagery, than modern English. He didn’t say they were raping the people, he said the countries were being raped. Which in the case of Baghdad is exactly true, under the definition of rape as “To plunder or pillage”.
I have no opinion on the situation in Jerusalem.
What was Juan Cole’s opinion?
Would you like to see people here and in Britain prosecuted for sedition based on nothing more than their public utterances?
If the content of those utterances incites people to kill others–fellow citizens, mind you–yes. This is no different than radical mullahs in Britain propounding terrorism and jihad against fellow Britons. The right of free speech shouldn’t impinge on others’ right to live.
Am I the only one who could both hear and see Galloway saying precisely the same thing as appeared on-screen in the translation? Just curious.
For those more interested in cookware than the loon du jour, I got some Barkeeper’s Friend last night and seem to be making inroads on the surface of my skillet. Other new toys include a Le Creuset pot and a seasoned cast iron pan, so I’d welcome a cooking tool thread.
Charles, you seem to be proposing a very vague standard, a boon to the ascendant authoritarians in the war party. I wouldn’t presume to be able to draw a principled, consistently applicable distinction between seditious and non-seditious speech. Incitement is in the ear of the beholder.
Am I the only one who could both hear and see Galloway saying precisely the same thing as appeared on-screen in the translation? Just curious.
I could.
And I didn’t mean that the interpreter stuck the flowery bits in for him, I meant that GG, a talented orator, knows his audience and adjusts his rhetoric accordingly.
And while on the topic — the audince response — who else was moved by the grief in the faces at the beginning?
If the content of those utterances incites people to kill others
“Bring it on” ?
In other words, it was deliberate (as opposed to thoughtless) fomentation?
In other words, it was deliberate (as opposed to thoughtless) fomentation?
What, I can read GG’s mind? *shrug*
Look at the comments at the original Crooked Timber post. Many of them defend Galloway both procedurally AND substantively. Gross.
Sorry, SH, I don’t see the gross.
I guess I’m handicapped by spending too much of my life on the wrong (under-) side of imperialism.
Is the problem that GG is a Brit? Would it be less shocking if an ME orator spoke those words?
Brandenburg v. Ohio:
I think Galloway’s speech, as utterly despicable as it is, does not meet this test. I think it fails to meet the imminence requirement, and may well fail to meet the “directed to” requirement. I don’t think it’s an especially close case.
I realize that Britain does not have a First Amendment and is more willing to outlaw speech than the U.S. I don’t think it’s putting Britain on a path to tyranny or whatever. In a lot of ways I think their democracy is healthier than ours at the moment, for all that I disagree with their speech laws. But in this area, I think the U.S. has the better approach.
If you read the World War I era speech cases–the court upheld decade-long jail terms for fairly innocuous antiwar pamphlets. I don’t want to even take a step in that direction.
Does the Parliament have something akin to censure?
What Katherine said. This is the point where I disagree with CB (on this topic): I think being very strict about the ‘imminent’ part is essential to preserving those freedoms they allegedly hate us for.
1) Galloway’s speech was abhorrent, and I hereby withdraw my brief “good on ya” expressed after he ripped up the lame congressman and Hitchens in one go. For one brief episode, he and I had some enemies in common. But it’s now clear that he is too friendly with people who can never be my friends.
2) Speaking of brief alliances, I too support most of what Mr. Bird at 10:40.
3) Like Katherine and others, I do not agree with the part of Mr. Bird’s conclusion that the speech was seditious, if by that we mean “such as to merit state intervention”. And if we *don’t* mean that it opens you to prosecution, censorship, and the like, then we’re just slinging labels around when we say “seditious”.
4) Unlike Katherine and hilzoy, I’m not sure that “imminence” is the difference between speech that should trigger state intervention, and speech (such as GG’s) that should trigger massive public shunning, rude noises, and other informal expressions of obloquy and calumny.
I mean, how is this supposed to work? It’s okay to chant “kill the Hutus” one month before the killing starts, it’s okay one week before it starts, it’s okay one day before it starts, but–one hour before, it is suddenly seditious?
I’ve got problems with that. Even if we could agree on the correct bright-line measure for “imminence” (which I doubt), does this really reflect the right underlying analysis of what caused what? Does it really help us target the problems we are trying to address?
Say we don’t want a kettle to boil over–the imminence test seems to say that it’s okay to pile on the wood and raise the temp to 90 C; it’s okay to throw more wood on and raise it to 99 C; but if anybody puts an extra twig on and raises it to 100 C, then by gum they can legitmately be stopped.
But the last twig would not have caused the boil-over if not for the earlier fuel. In fact, their twig would not even have been “imminent”, if all the other factors hadn’t already occurred.
(Which is another general problem: “imminence” is too often a post facto judgement; if the riot *doesn’t* occur, does that mean the incitement was not “imminent”? “Imminent” to what?)
Add to this the fact that the fire that GG is fueling is *already* burning, so the imminence test seems to tell in Mr. Bird’s favor, even by K and H’s rules.
Look, I agree that some forms of speech can be regulated (“fire” in crowded theaters, etc.), and that we should be very, very careful about letting that state power expand. So we need tests–no disagreement there. I’m just not sure “imminency” does the job.
This is from Brandeis’ dissent* in Whitney v. California:
As to Galloway: terrorism will continue to occur, but will a single act of terrorism occur specifically because of this speech? I actually really doubt it.
*well, concurrence in the judgment, technically.
I mean, how is this supposed to work? It’s okay to chant “kill the Hutus” one month before the killing starts, it’s okay one week before it starts, it’s okay one day before it starts, but–one hour before, it is suddenly seditious?
To use a favorite example of mine, if Maxine Waters had screeched “No Justice, No Peace!” at a random press conference in February of 1992, it almost certainly would have done little or no harm. The fact that she did so instead at a televised press conference just after the first Rodney King police beating trial verdicts just as the streets of Los Angeles were ready to explode almost certainly contributed to the violence that broke out soon after–which is why I will always see her as having blood on her hands for the events of that week. Timing *does* make a difference.
There are idiots everywhere, and I have a hard time caring about those with neither power nor influence. Prosecuting someone like this for something like this only serves to reinforce his message.
Galloway has neither power nor influence? Not that I’m on the prosecution bandwagon…
More inspiration for a cooking (cooking disaster?) thread. Actually this is an excellent thread, dunno why I keep wanting to veer away.
I’d also note, as far as Rwanda: you have a government sponsored radio broadcast advocating genocide, which is being carried out by the government. Is this an evil that could ever conceivably be prevented by allowing the government to restrict speech? It is not. When a genocide occurs there is usually a government that is actively taking part in or sponsoring it. When pogroms or lynching occurs, there is often a government that is at the very least not adequately prosecuting people for the actual murders and beatings themselves.
You can achieve some of the same effect with hate crimes laws, which I am in favor of and do not think run afoul of the first amendment.
The imminence test is hard to apply without regard to what actually happened afterwards, but to me that’s a feature, not a bug. It is not perfect, but I cannot think of a way to draw a good line without it.
CharleyCarp–
Yeah, I think this is the right overall perspective to take here. On the other hand, our communal reaction of revulsion and disgust is part of what I think he *does* deserve in the absence of prosecution.
M. Scott Eiland–
Would Waters’ utterances at that crucial time have had the same effect if that slogan had not been in circulation, if people had not already been using this as a short-hand apologetic for violence? It was a trigger, yes, but it had its effect partly because of a lot of previous recitations of the same slogan.
Timing makes a difference, of course, but the imminence-test seems to me to propagate a legal fiction, that we can divide utterances into two classes, of noxious and innocuous. Whereas I think the noxious ones generally gain their power only with the help of a lot of previous, preparatory ones. They ain’t so innocuous after all.
So what if we hear of a riot next week in Israel, in which minutes before the riot occurs, a speaker says “GG was right–they are raping our daughters!” Or what if he doesn’t even mention GG, but just uses that charming slogan once again? Well, by the imminence test, we should conclude that his speech is dangerous, seditious, open to suppression, and so on. But apparently GG’s speech gets a free pass. That seems weird to me–at any rate, it seems like a crude distortion of the actual causal factors in play.
Maybe it’s the best we can do–maybe there’s no cleaner legal test that we can invent that will arrive at the sort of compromise we want. But it sure doesn’t strike me as a very good piece of analysis.
Brandeis, though–man, that guy could write.
I’m also inclined to err on the side of caution: for this sort of thing, dragging it out into the light is best.
Charles, you seem to be proposing a very vague standard, a boon to the ascendant authoritarians in the war party.
Donny, when did the U.S. Constitution and subsequent case law become a “vague standard” and “a boon to the ascendant authoritarians in the war party”?
I think Galloway’s speech, as utterly despicable as it is, does not meet this test.
I think the test is very much up for debate, Katherine. Galloway is a member of Parliament and a representative of the British government. He spoke his words in Syria, a terrorist-harboring and sponsoring state, a nation which Saudi extremists use to get into Iraq, and he said his piece on Syrian television. Galloway spoke of Britons and Americans raping Baghdad, that “foreigners are doing to your daughters as they will”, that the “daughters are crying for help”, that Arab nations have not done enough to fight against this “rape”, and that those Arab nations supporting a liberated Iraq are “collaborators”. Galloway not only supported violence against his own countrymen, but he articulated a sense of urgency against this “rape”. After all, these “rape victims” are “crying for help”, are they not?. The audience who heard this are the very people who could be influenced by Galloway to go into Iraq and join al Qaeda in Iraq or Sunni paramilitary death squads. Had he spoken those words to a ladies club in Chichester, that’s one thing, but saying them on Syrian national television is something else altogether. It seems highly plausible that Galloway’s speech could be a tipping point for some would-be terrorists or paramilitary thugs who would take out a few Britons with an RPG.
I’m afraid that I’m feeling rather ill today, so far, so I may not be around to chat much, but I thought I’d throw in that, having read some of Galloway’s speech now — although not a full transcript, which I’d like to see (or get the video to work properly) — before I came to any firm opinion — my inclination towards a reaction is that Galloway’s speech was typical for him, which is to say, well-done oratory that turns out to also be despicable. I would not like to see him fined or jailed or prosecuted for this; I do agree that it seems to fall on the non-immediate-riot-inducing side of the scale, barely; but I do indeed wish to see him mocked, disgraced, and tarred with agitating for the death of his own countrymen and women and those of its allies. Expulsion from Parliament might make him a bit too much of a martry, and there are, indeed, some benefits to have a spokesperson for despicable views, but seeing him constantly humiliated in Parliament and by his peers, would be fine, not that I imagine he would do other than wear it as a badge of pride.
On Israel, as I noted, I’ve been writing criticism of Israel’s wrongdoings and flaws for as long as I’ve been writing, which is about thirty-five years at this point, as well as having in the past worked with the American branch of Peace Now, and otherwise agitated and worked against the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza all that time. Nonetheless, I do this in the precise same context that I protested the Vietnam War, that I protested for Civil Rights in America, that I spoke against many acts of the Government of Ronald Reagan, and in which I speak against much of the work of the Bush Administration. It is one thing to oppose the foul acts of a government, and its wrong-doing, and another thing entirely to delegtimize the simple right of a people to have a nation, and to wish to wipe their nation off the face of the earth. All nations have unjust histories, and Earth’s history is one of unjust shifts in population. It’s right and just and proper to work to ameliorate those who have suffered from such crimes, but it’s not right and just and proper to single out the Jewish right to nationhood as the singular one on Earth to be treated by a standard no other nation and people are held to. It’s always legitimate to criticize Israel for its unjust acts when it does them, but not on a standard not applied to the history of the U.S., U.K., Russia, China, Germany, Spain, and all the rest of the world. All these nations have committed crimes against populations, and some are doing so this very minute, from Chechyna to Tibet and on around the globe. We can criticize, attack, sanction, and take all manner of legitimate steps to make clear our desire that justice should prevail in their realms, but in no case am I aware of any significant movement to disband their nations and have the population evacuate (or, to go with a bit more practical history and ongoing desire of some, have the population mostly or entirely murdered), other than Israel.
For the legitimacy of the basic right of the Jewish people to have a state, a right not one quantum less than the right of the Palestinian people, or the Tibetan people, or any people on this globe who do have a State, to be singled out as the one legitimacy to be denied at its base, and fought against, is just by no possible standard. And no one, left or right, is just to treat it otherwise.
In my view.
Okay, that was my short statement. Apologies for any lack of articulateness due to nausea and pain and blechfulness.
Gary, ditto, and best wishes for better internal weather.
Gary:
Very nicely said. And I do hope you feel better soon.
I should add for clarity: Having granted the Jewish people the right to a State of Israel, I’m fully with, and have been all my life (and conceivably a tad more actively, including working with peaceful Palestinian groups, albeit many years ago now), those who fight any and all Israeli injustice to either its Arab citizens (who yaddayaddayadda have more political rights than anywhere else in the Mideast, but who nonetheless suffer much discrimination and injustice) or the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza, who if there is any justice, will have their own, mostly contiguous, viable state, with good government and human and civil and political rights for its own population, as soon as possible (granted, some of that is rather dreamy for now). Having granted the basic issue of the Israeli right to exist and have a State, it’s perfectly fair game, and, in fact, mandatory for any just person and nation, to have at the Israeli government for any and all of its acts of injustice.
Up to the point at which any other nation is fairly taken to task for its injustices and flaws.
And now I’m really shutting up, for a while, is the plan.
Charles, you seem to be defining Galloway’s speech as seditious per se, and you don’t seem to think it important to establish a causal nexus between the alleged verbal incitement and violent acts actually incited by said speech. Correct me if I am wrong, but I get the impression that you would have the government punish inflammatory speech without proof of directly consequent inflammation. That is a dangerous power to cede to any government, and especially one with this administration’s ugly record in dealing with its critics.
Dumb question, but what keeps say Tom Delay from ending every speech, “rilkefan delenda est”, as long as there’s no causal nexus?
Don’t get me wrong, Charles. I think Galloway, sharp-tongued though he be, is a horse’s ass who’d be reduced to a blubbering infant if he actually had to live under the Sharia he seems intent on spreading to Jerusalem and beyond, but I believe that if we start criminalizing speech based solely on content, the West will have lost.
Donny – you don’t seem to think it important to establish a causal nexus between the alleged verbal incitement and violent acts actually incited by said speech.
Not to speak for CB, but I imagine that’s because, under the imminence jurisprudence discussed exhaustively above, it isn’t important. The issue under discussion is prosecuting/silencing the independent act of speech, prior to any proveable act of related violence. This can be done if such speech incites “imminent” violence or other “serious evil”. It is the issue of what defines imminence that divides Katherine and Charles; Charles thinks that the circumstances create an immediate, if general, risk, given the cultural significance of rape, while Katherine thinks that the standard is higher, requiring a more specific threat.
It is “a dangerous power to cede to a government,” but don’t look now – it was ceded long ago.
Gary–very well said, and I hope you’re feeling better.
Charles, it’s plausible that someone would join a terrorist group as a result of this speech. I think it’s actually a fair bit less likely than not; that potential jihadists would have heard the same thing and worse from many people who influence them more than the blowhard MP from Bethnal Green–but it’s not implausible. The thing is, though, in the U.S. for an incitement law not to be found to be unconstitutionally overbroad, it would have to define the offense in a way that makes it clear that the Brandenburg standard is met. This would mean that the intent to convince people to commit acts of violence (or other serious unlawful actions) and the actual likelihood of imminent violence resulting from the speech would both have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. “Plausible” is a long way away from “true beyond a reasonable doubt.”
And he did not actually make an explicit call for violence. I find the rape characterization extremely offensive, and it is plausible that it would provoke violence, because there is thought to be a duty to avenge your daughter’s rape by violent means if necessary. And Galloway knows this. But by very similar logic, anyone who characterizes abortion as the murder of children, as genocide worse than the Holocaust, etc. could be said to be inciting violence. After all, our society recognizes defense of another from imminent deadly violence as a complete defense to murder. And abortion doctors have been murdered for exactly this reason.
Now, most people who characterize abortion as murder explicitly and vehemently reject violence against clinics and doctors, and have no intention whatsoever of convincing people to murder the doctors or clinic staff they characterize as murderers and agents of genocide. Maybe Galloway’s motivations are less innocent. But I am not convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is either trying to get people killed or likely to get people killed with speech. I think it is disgusting, demagogic, destructive, worthy of utter contempt, but if I were on a jury I would vote to acquit and it would not be a hard decision.
And I cannot help but remember that some people claimed that Durbin was trying to and/or actually likely to get soldiers killed with his speech on Guantanamo that was supposedly broadcast all over al-Jazeera. Frist sponsored an amendment that would have made his speech illegal, and many Republicans called for his prosecution.
Whatever our differences, I don’t think for a moment you would have supported such a thing. But I frankly trust the administration and the leaders of Congress a lot less than I trust you. If you want to see why I’m attached to strict adherence to the Brandenburg test, and how easy it is for the government to define as a “clear and present danger” to the republic speech that is obviously not, read Schenck v. U.S., Debs v. U.S., Abrams v. U.S., Gitlow v. New York, and Whitney v. California.
Rilkefan–um, his sense of honor? Heh. Seriously: the more specific a threat is, the more likely it is to be found to satisfy Brandenburg and be unprotected. But there aren’t so many successful incitement prosecutions these days. Also, there’s a privilege from penalty for speeches made on the floor of Congress that’s close to absolute.
Donny, let me clarify. I believe Galloway’s speech is seditious, that he is a traitor and that the blood of British soldiers is on his hands for what he said. I also believe that what he’s said is not prosecutable.
Yet.
About the only recourse we Americans have is to condemn both him and his repugnant appearance on Syrian television.
“Seriously: the more specific a threat is, the more likely it is to be found to satisfy Brandenburg and be unprotected.”
“Who will rid me of this meddlesome poet?” is on the surface unspecific…
The issue under discussion is prosecuting/silencing the independent act of speech, prior to any proveable act of related violence. This can be done if such speech incites “imminent” violence or other “serious evil”.
Point taken, st, but how does one prove that violence or other “serious evil” has become imminent as a result of speech without evidence of acts actually having been incited? An ugly mood? Angry mutterings? Mean looks? If something doesn’t happen, it wasn’t imminent, was it?
That is the rub, eh? My point wasn’t that it was easy, its that discussing a “causal nexus” in this context implies that these prosecutions can only currently take place once the speech has caused evil, and that’s not true. Your good point at 4:04 is very probably why Katherine (and lots of others, including myself) believe in a very high standard of imminence. Frankly the whole thing makes me nervous, something about which, I imagine, we agree.
Slartibartfast, I apologize for my over-reaction.
Phil, are you under the impression that people who sympathize with the Palestinians would oppose making the Germans pay full reparations to Jews and all the other people they harmed? Usually people who criticize the blind American financial support (in the tens of billions) for Israel are also likely to criticize the way the Americans covered up the war crimes of both German and Japanese who were thought to be useful in the Cold War.
Sympathy for Palestinians doesn’t mean sympathy for Nazis.
The way these discussions always seem to go is as follows–
A) Someone brings up Palestinian atrocities
B) Someone brings up Israeli atrocities
C) Israeli atrocities are pronounced trivial compared to Palestinian atrocities (false) or Nazi atrocities (true) or else someone says how can you criticize Israel without criticizing literally every crime committed in the 20th Century that was worse?
By the Nazi standard, the crimes against Israel by Palestinians are also trivial, but I’ve never seen anyone make that argument. It only comes up in this context, which is odd considering how many other human rights violations can be discussed without people pointing out that they are small-scale compared to Nazi and Stalinist atrocities.
Speaking for myself and not that vast assemblage of Nazi-lovin’ leftists out there, I go on rants about this for the same reason I go on rants about other hypocritical examples of American foreign policy. In some parallel universe maybe the US supported the PLO “freedom fighters” and American politicians talk mainly about the dastardly crimes of the IDF. That would be equally irritating, no matter how trivial it all seems compared to World War II or Stalin’s Gulag.
Gary, sorry about your illness. The Palestinian right of return doesn’t mean the expulsion of Jews, unless Zionism had to mean the expulsion of Arabs. Ideally, as in the more idealistic version of Zionism, you’d have the two peoples existing side-by-side. I’m not advocating it myself because I have this nasty suspicion it would turn out badly (see Lebanon or for that matter Iraq). If that did happen I suspect it’d be the Palestinians who’d suffer more, but both sides would lose. Maybe after several decades of a democratic Palestine and Israel existing side-by-side they’d merge naturally and wonder what all the fuss was about, but that doesn’t seem likely right now, to say the least.
As for the moral legitimacy of Israel, it might be better to just say that many or most states lack moral legitimacy given how they were formed and talk about what is practical. Asking Palestinians to accept Israel’s “right to exist” sounds a lot like asking them to endorse their expulsion. It’s enough if they’re willing to accept reality as it is now. But then people on both sides (and the cheerleading sections in the US) would have to give up their claims to the moral high ground, something everyone seems unwilling to do.
Pretty much no one has a multi-generational right of return. If they did no nation would be even nearly as safe as they are now. At this point the Palestinians can exercise a right to be compensated for lost property, but asserting a right of return for descendants of those ‘expelled’ (and are we only talking real expulsion or are we also counting those who left ‘temporarily’ while Israel was supposed to be destroyed by Egypt and Jordan) is neither practical nor moral in my book.
But whoa, that is a huge distraction anyway. Even if there was a right to return, it doesn’t justify bombing a coffee shop in Tel Aviv–the kind of reaction that Galloway is likely to get out of his raping rhetoric.
[W]hen did the U.S. Constitution and subsequent case law become a “vague standard” and “a boon to the ascendant authoritarians in the war party”?
WWI. You can look it up.
I have a new favorite quote on that score, from the then-Sec of Treasury:
In connection with war bonds, Sec. McAdoo said
Galloway has neither power nor influence?
I suppose a single MP has some power, but really only to extent he is persuasive. Ditto wrt influence. Thus, my belief that GG has none (of any account) of either.
Frankly the whole thing makes me nervous, something about which, I imagine, we agree.
Agree we do, st. I have always been troubled by Brandenburg, because “imminence” is an abstraction that has no useful meaning except in retrospect. If, in the absence of ouside intervention, an event does not come to pass, it cannot be said to have been imminent. And even if there is intervention, one can never be certain that an intervening event was the cause of the non-occurrence.
Pretty much no one has a multi-generational right of return.
There are those in Israel who think a right of return lasts millenia. Depending on the ethnicity of the returnee, of course.
but asserting a right of return for descendants of those ‘expelled’ [irrelevant nonsense omitted] is neither practical nor moral in my book
You really think the Germans are immoral for allowing descendants of Jews who fled to move back to Germany? What is the basis of this alleged morality?
“You really think the Germans are immoral for allowing descendants of Jews who fled to move back to Germany?”
I think there might be a slight difference found between peacefully ‘allow’ and blowing up people in a coffee shop to ‘demand’.
“Depending on the ethnicity of the returnee, of course.”
felix thinks it’s worth pointing out to us that there are racists in Israel – perhaps he thinks it somehow is relevant to SH‘s argument. I’m going to go away and not violate the posting rules in discussing this sort of thinking.
I think there might be a slight difference found between peacefully ‘allow’ and blowing up people in a coffee shop to ‘demand’.
Now you are being incoherent. You did not say demand, you said ‘assert’. Is it immoral to assert that Palestinians do have a right of return, or that they should have a right or return, or neither, or both? And again, what is the basis of this morality. You just made it up? And does this morality also extend to the laundry list of the ethnically cleansed helpfully provided by Tacitus above?
Rilkefan: You’re implying that you think Israeli immigration policy is racist, you know.
“Jews” aren’t a “race.” Unless one is a Nazi.
What’s the Palestinian policy on peaceful Jewish citizens in Palestine, by the way? No, not the words, the actual facts on the ground.
What’s the Syrian, Egyptian, Saudi Arabian, Bahraini, United Arab Emirates, Iranian, Sudanese, Somali, and, say, Algerian, policy on the “right of return” of Jews, anyway?
If you wish to discuss “right of return,” felixrayman, might you state clearly your policy on who gets it and who doesn’t, unto what generation, under what criteria, exactly?
“Jews” aren’t a “race.” Unless one is a Nazi.
While noting that little good debate is going to result now that you have implied that rilkefan is a Nazi, it must be said that Israeli immigration policy treats it as a racial characteristic – they treat it as though it can be inherited from one’s parents. Are the implementors of that policy Nazis?
If you wish to discuss “right of return,” felixrayman, might you state clearly your policy on who gets it and who doesn’t, unto what generation, under what criteria, exactly?
First I want to know the ground rules here. It has been argued that asserting the Palestinians’ right to return is immoral. I am still trying to determine what moral basis is being used for that claim. Got any idea? In general, though, I would extend the right to all victims of ethnic cleansing, as enforcing that rule would have the effect of making ethnic cleansing unrewarding to its perpetrators in the long run.
Personally, I think no one should have the right of return. With specific reference to Israel, I think it should be announced several years in advance that it will be rescinded, and it should also be made official policy that in the event of some threat to the safety of Jews, those Jews will be allowed in. (This since one of the main rationales for the right of return I’ve heard is to protect against another holocaust. This seems completely reasonable to me, but it also seems quite distinct from the question whether any Jew, at any time, should be allowed to claim Israeli citizenship.)
I am stealing this thought from an Israeli Arab of my acquaintance.
felix: I can’t see that Gary implied any such thing.
Be civil.
“Now you are being incoherent. You did not say demand, you said ‘assert’. Is it immoral to assert that Palestinians do have a right of return, or that they should have a right or return, or neither, or both?”
I’m being incoherent, yet you imply that all methods of ‘asserting’ are equally moral? Germany allows a certain very limited number of Jews to resettle. This is quite explicable in the sense that very few Jews have asserted that Germany has no right to exist and that very few have bothered to blow up coffee shops in Germany. So surprise, I am not morally offended that Germany chooses to allow a minute number of people to resettle. A majority of Palestinians would like to see Israel wiped from the face of the earth. Their advocates regularly blow up random Israeli citizens.
The moral incoherence might not be located in the party to this argument that you believe. The reason I distinguish between peacefully ‘asserting’ what Germany allows and violently asserting what Palestinians demand is because there is a rather obvious difference between those types of assertions. If you can’t see that, perhaps the problem is with you, not me.
“While noting that little good debate is going to result now that you have implied that rilkefan is a Nazi, it must be said that Israeli immigration policy treats it as a racial characteristic – they treat it as though it can be inherited from one’s parents.”
The religious view, as well as the view of the Israeli government, in fact, is that Jewishness descends matrilineally, and that all converts are as Jewish as the next person. You, too, can be a Jew, if you like. As can, and are, people from China, India, all over Africa and Asia, and the whole world, of any ethnicity.
But make up pseudo-facts as you wish.
“It has been argued that asserting the Palestinians’ right to return is immoral.”
I suppose I could search and try to figure out who said what that led to this, but since I have no idea, and it has nothing to do with anything I said: whatever.
Just wondering: do Jews have as much right to their nation as Palestinians, or not, felixrayman?
Personally, I think no one should have the right of return.
A vexing question, indeed. There surely should be a statute of limitations on such rights. The Jewish “right of return” to the ancient homeland is a special case, driven by the singular event of the Shoah. I’m not sure, however, that there should be a permanent presumption that Jews are uniquely persecuted and should have rights that aren’t available to the countless other displaced peoples of history. The desecendants of the Byzantine Greeks, for example, have a pretty good and relatively recent claim to their capital at Constantinople, but it ain’t gonna happen, and for good reason.
felix: I can’t see that Gary implied any such thing.
Rilkefan said, in response to a remark that mentioned Israeli discrimination by ethnicity (rather than race), “felix thinks it’s worth pointing out to us that there are racists in Israel”. As no besides rilkefan mentioned race or racists before Gary’s comment, to whom was said comment directed?
“Personally, I think no one should have the right of return.”
This is problematic in terms of history, and the entire Zionist idea. Also to Palestinian nationalism, of course, as well as many others.
“The Jewish “right of return” to the ancient homeland is a special case, driven by the singular event of the Shoah.”
That made for a notable point in the face of the modern world, but it’s not actually such a biggie in the face of three thousand years of history and persecution, actually. Anti-Semitism and mass killing of Jews didn’t start in 1933. Neither did Zionism or Israel or the Jewish people.
Nor do many of us hold hope or confidence that it will end “several years in advance” of now.
Give us five hundred years or so of peaceful acceptance as a people in the world, and the idea might start to hold water. In the meantime, Jews tend to be a lot more aware of Jewish history than others, I’m afraid, and unsurprisingly. And we tend to not trust the kindness of others, since that whole thing hasn’t worked out so well as one would have hoped, overall.
I’m being incoherent, yet you imply that all methods of ‘asserting’ are equally moral?
Yes you are being incoherent. Your original statement was not a qualified one, so your original statement implied that all methods of ‘asserting’ were equally immoral. Your original statement was a blanket statement that asserting a right of return was not moral. Do you stand by your statement, or do you retract it? And if you stand by your statement, please tell me the basis of this supposed morality.
“This is quite explicable in the sense that very few Jews have asserted that Germany has no right to exist and that very few have bothered to blow up coffee shops in Germany.”
Not that we don’t have some grounds for a touch of crankiness, and also in regard to Russia, Poland, and all of Eastern Europe (from which my grandparents fled).
But it must be said that post-war German reparations were generally fair, even if I didn’t get a personal cut. (I just make do with my allowance from the world’s banks, and my vote with the Elders.)
The religious view, as well as the view of the Israeli government, in fact…
Was I speaking of the religious view? I was specifically speaking of Israeli immigration policy. What does the Law of Return say, Gary? I am not the one making up psuedo-facts here. Now, are the implementors of the policy that says anyone with one Jewish grandparent is a Jew Nazis, or aren’t they?
Just wondering: do Jews have as much right to their nation as Palestinians
All people living in the state of Israel should have equal rights under the law, whether they are Jews or not, and discrimination against non-Jews in Israel should end.
Phil, are you under the impression that people who sympathize with the Palestinians would oppose making the Germans pay full reparations to Jews and all the other people they harmed?
No, I am not. And for symmetry’s sake, I would certainly support the Israeli government being required to compensate any still-living Palestinians who were expelled from what is now Israel. Provided that compensation wasn’t used to fund the blowing up of more Israelis.
I’m not sure how I actually feel on the whole “right to exist” matter, or on who does or doesn’t deserve a state. Does every ethnic or religious subdivision in the world deserve its own nation-state? Presbyterians? The Hmong? The Blue People of Appalachia? Such a thing would seem silly and impractical. So I guess my feelings on the matter derive more from a pragmatic, poorly-thought-out and probably hypocritical combination of the “That Ship Has Sailed” and “Never Again” schools of thought.
“All people living in the state of Israel should have equal rights under the law, whether they are Jews or not, and discrimination against non-Jews in Israel should end.”
Duh. Also, water is good. Is anyone arguing otherwise?
But does the Jewish State have a right to exist? Like, you know, all the officially Christian and Moslem States, and all the other national states? Do the Jewish people have a right to a State as equally as Palestinians? Yes? No?
“All people living in the state of Israel should have equal rights under the law, whether they are Jews or not, and discrimination against non-Jews in Israel should end.”
And in the State of Palestine?
If you might cite a few examples of the allowance for Jews to live under those conditions in Palestine, or Egypt, or the rest of the Arab and Islamic world, that might be interesting. What have you had to say about that, felixrayman?
I’m forbidden by law to enter Saudi Arabia. I’d assume you’d object to that, felixrayman, but I’m not seeing much to suggest that this concerns you. I’ve probably missed your relevant missives, though.
Do you believe that, in fact, Israel is the top violater of human rights in the Mideast? If so, cites? If not, what priority do you place on human rights in which country in the Mideast? And the world?
Now, are the implementors of the policy that says anyone with one Jewish grandparent is a Jew Nazis, or aren’t they?
Just so we’re all on the same page, the Law of Return doesn’t say that anyone with one Jewish grandparent is a Jew. It says that they can claim the same right of return as a Jew. And, in fact, it says:
Just so we’re all dealing in facts and not trying to score cheap points about who is and who isn’t a Nazi or a racist. Assuming that is, in fact, everyone’s goal.
Duh. Also, water is good. Is anyone arguing otherwise?
You could probably find someone in India.
Like, you know, all the officially Christian and Moslem States, and all the other national states? Do the Jewish people have a right to a State as equally as Palestinians?
“Palestinian” is not a religion. If a state were created in the Occupied Territories, it would necessarily be multi-ethic, as around a quarter of the population is Christian.
As for whether states with official religions should be tolerated, as long as they respect the religious freedom of their inhabitants, don’t discriminate on religious or ethnic grounds, and don’t ethnically cleanse their populations, sure. At that point, what does an official religion mean, though?
And in the State of Palestine?
There’s a state of Palestine? Since when?
If you might cite a few examples of the allowance for Jews to live under those conditions in Palestine, or Egypt, or the rest of the Arab and Islamic world, that might be interesting
Pre-1940s you could find closer examples than you can now. What happened? Although it must be said that Israeli settlers in Gaza have been told by the Palestinians they can remain there if they choose to live under the local laws after withdrawal. One hopes that offer is real, and is taken up. The settlers should be allowed to stay, and they should not be discriminated against.
I’m forbidden by law to enter Saudi Arabia. I’d assume you’d object to that
To the extent that the law is based on ethnic or religious discrimination, I would object to it, of course.
Do you believe that, in fact, Israel is the top violater of human rights in the Mideast?
I haven’t heard of any prisoners being sent there by the US to be tortured, so no, I don’t believe that.
If not, what priority do you place on human rights in which country in the Mideast?
The amount of attention that I give to each country is related to the amount of my money that is being used to finance violations of human rights, as I believe that, “First, do no harm”, is a good rule to try to live up to.
“Your original statement was not a qualified one, so your original statement implied that all methods of ‘asserting’ were equally immoral. Your original statement was a blanket statement that asserting a right of return was not moral. Do you stand by your statement, or do you retract it?”
My original statement was not qualified because there is this little thing called “context”. The context of the statement was with respect to the ‘right of return’ that Palestinians assert with respect to Israel and the method that they assert it by blowing up kids in coffe shops. The context was not the ‘right of return’ I might have with respect to my childhood bicycle which is currently at my parent’s house. I wouldn’t object to the second. When you raised the German example I distinguished it rather clearly from the Palestinian example. It is not ‘incoherent’ of me to expect that you are following the rather obvious context of the discussion (Palestine was fairly directly noted a number of times in the conversation). It is not ‘incoherent’ of me to respond to your raising of another point by noticing how it is arather different case from the main topic of conversation.
Your view of the word “incoherent” seems rather incoherent. It reminds me of Vizzini’s use of “inconceivable”. “You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.”
I just went back to check to see if my original impression of the reaction of the audience to GG’s speech still stood. It does. Compare this response to some of the rabble-rousing political stuff that you see in this country. Just think if that were someone standing up here and saying that we are winning the war in Iraq and “spreading freedom.” Compare the two responses. In my opinion, the response of the Arab audience was rather restrained. When they approved, they clapped. When they clapped, I could understand how they approved of what was said. My impression was that GG is not taken all that seriously over there….and maybe should not be taken too seriously over here.
I don’t recall what exactly all the rules were, but a great many Eastern Europeans of German descent were permitted to re-settle in Germany after the Wall came down. German citizenship was long considered genetic — I believe the relevant code section actually used the word blood — rather than geographic. I was told at the time that there had to be some level of “Germanness” beyond the genetics too. The joke in the early 90s was that you had to be able to sing ‘O Tannenbaum’ and say you learned the words from a grandparent.
Rights of return are certainly complicated, but, true to type, I guess, I’d make it dependent on certain legalities: Anyone who can prove title to a specific piece of land of which they were deprived by other than a genuine transaction gets it back.
Now I understand why I wanted to divert the thread.
My original statement was not qualified because there is this little thing called “context”
I will ask again. You made a statement. The statement was that any assertion of a Palestinian right of return is immoral. You were not limiting that to a specific subset of people. Your statement was general. You said, “Pretty much no one has a multi-generational right of return”. No one. Not “suicide bombers”, not “Palestinians”, no one. You did not say, “people that blow up kids in coffee shops should not have a right of return”. You said no one should have a (multi-generational) right of return. You have been evading questions about what you said ever since you said it.
You will neither stand by your statement, nor retract it, but instead you sidetrack into irrelevancies and, yes, incoherencies. I know what the word means – I know it when I see it.
You said, “Pretty much no one has a multi-generational right of return”. You said asserting such a thing was immoral. Do you stand by that? If so, what is the basis of this moral standard? If no, retract it and say what you really meant.
Anyone who can prove title to a specific piece of land of which they were deprived by other than a genuine transaction gets it back.
I’d approve of that, I can’t believe it would be controversial – certainly not among the conservative strong property rights types. The question is if your parent was deprived of a specific piece of land, do you get it back? A great-grandparent? Some guy who may have been a blood ancestor 1000 years ago? The original 2 humans from which we all descend?
say, uh, rilkefan–how’s that Le Creuset pot working out, anyhow? I learned by hard experience that even a few light stirs with a metal whisk can leave fine scrapes in the bottom.
And, uh, how about them Mets? (eagerly trying to change topic).
The pot just arrived, haven’t had a chance to try it. I got it on sale from amazon, plus they had a deal to get a free au gratin too. But only the pot showed up. It turns out that you need to hit the button next to the free item description to actually get it, as I realized when I looked back at the page. I thought about sending the (extremely heavy) pot back and submitting a new order, but I wrote customer service first and they agreed to send me the au gratin.
gratis?
The pot just arrived, haven’t had a chance to try it. I got it on sale from amazon
They sell weed now too?
Gratis yes, grass no.
I stand by my statement that pretty much no one has an extra-legal or ‘natural’ RIGHT of return. As in some sort of moral right to return to a state against that state’s wishes. Which is to be distinguished from say a more general ‘right to life’ or what we think of a transcendent right as a human being.
That easily distinguishes the German and Palestinian cases. Germany doesn’t have Jews trying to exterminate the country, also the number of Jews who are likely to want to come back would not dramatically alter the nature of the state, therefore if Germany chooses to allow resettlement good for Germany. If it chooses not to, I don’t really care. Why? Because the ‘right of return’ is not a transcendent human right that I recognize. It falls under the category of nice things that might be ok in some situations. Which if you will inspect my argument from before, is absolutely no change.
Now that is clear, did you have a point?
As in some sort of moral right to return to a state against that state’s wishes
It falls under the category of nice things that might be ok in some situations.
So if Germany said, “Nope we don’t like Jews, sorry”, you would agree that Germany should be able to exclude Jews from being able to return there? Because if that’s the case, well, you have some quite odd ideas. To say the least.
Germany doesn’t have Jews trying to exterminate the country
Germany during the genocidal years most cetainly made the argument that Jews were trying to exterminate the country. Would you say that was a “good” argument, or a “bad” one, Sebastian? I think it was a putrid, racist argument. You approve of it? Or not?
also the number of Jews who are likely to want to come back would not dramatically alter the nature of the state
And if Germany thought the number of Jew returnees were likely to make Germany too Jewish, you would approve of restrictions on the number of Jews allowed to return? I disagree. I think that is a racist, putrid argument.
Let’s get this straight, you believe that being able to own property is a right that falls under the category of nice things that might be ok in some situations. And, you claim, you are a conservative.
“Germany during the genocidal years most cetainly made the argument that Jews were trying to exterminate the country. Would you say that was a “good” argument, or a “bad” one, Sebastian? I think it was a putrid, racist argument. You approve of it? Or not?”
There is a difference between true arguments and false arguments. The German argument was false. The argument that a majority of Palestinians want to destroy Israel is unfortunately true. Policy differences follow as do moral evaluations of the arguments.
The argument that a majority of Palestinians want to destroy Israel is unfortunately true
The majority of Palestinians want to destroy Israel? Haha. That’s….well, that’s just nutty.
Well of course it is nutty, that is why they are rather difficult to negotiate with. Or did you mean that you don’t believe it?
cite
(BTW if I were Israeli I wouldn’t be heartened by the good old days when only 43.9% of Palestinians wanted to liberate all of historic Palestine.)
Also note the “68.1% of respondents either ‘strongly support’ (38.3%) or ‘somewhat support’ (29.3%) suicide bombing operations against Israeli civilians, compared to only 26% who are ‘strongly opposed’ (16.2%) or ‘somewhat opposed’ (9.8%).”
Frankly I would think that even if the numbers were only in the high 30s that Israel would have an excellent argument to avoid the so-called ‘right’ of return.
From a 2003 poll:
But 64% still support a two-state solution (Israel and a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip), while only 12% support a one-state solution (for Palestinians and Israelis). 23% want all Palestine back to the Palestinians.
The question on whether respondents support suicide bombing has nothing to do with whether they want to destroy Israel. Clearly the majority of Palestinians do not support that goal.
But back to the more relevant issue, you claimed that any assertion of a Palestinian right of return is immoral. You did not qualify that statement or limit it in any way – quite the opposite, you clearly stated that it applied to everyone. Do you stand by that statement, or not? And if you do, what is the basis of that morality?
That question has been both asked and answered repeatedly.
Sebastian, to be fair (assuming this is a consideration), when you mention the suicide bombing tactic by Palestinians, couldn’t you also make an occasional reference to the war crimes and other human rights violations of the Israelis? The two sides have been fighting over land, and both sides have been using immoral means. Scrape away all the noble words and sentimentality that I at least used to believe about Israel and it’s just another typically sordid war between two groups with legitimate claims to the same real estate. The ethnic cleansing that occurred in 1948 was accompanied by massacres and the shooting of people who tried to return to their homes (obviously a capital offense) and the current occupation with its apartheid policies is necessarily enforced with a certain degree of brutality. The majority of the civilians killed in the past few years of fighting have been killed by the IDF, and while some of this might be “collateral damage”, the human rights groups say that in many cases it’s been due to indiscriminate firepower being used, and in some cases deliberate killing of civilians. Your notion of a “distraction” appears to mean any attempt at pointing out Israeli crimes alongside those of the Palestinians.
As for rights of return, there should be a statute of limitations on this, perhaps equal to about one lifetime, but if it is completely eliminated then it seems to be a license for ethnic cleansers to do their thing and then complain loudly if the victims employ equally abhorrent methods to try and return. Which is what happens anyway, license or not.
As for Christian, Muslim, and Jewish states, they are all bad ideas, as I would have thought any believer in the American ideal would agree. In practice we can’t go around forcing others to live by our standards–I was about to say the attempt to get Iraq to do this hasn’t worked out too well, but I don’t really think that was the Bush goal in Iraq anyway.
That question has been both asked and answered repeatedly.
It has been asked repeatedly. It hasn’t been answered. You said no one should have a right of return, but that was not the question being asked. The question was whether you stood by your claim that that any assertion, by anyone, at any time, of a right of return is immoral, and what the source of that morality is. You have ceaselessy evaded answering that question.
The question is if your parent was deprived of a specific piece of land, do you get it back? A great-grandparent? Some guy who may have been a blood ancestor 1000 years ago? The original 2 humans from which we all descend?
If you can prove it, yes. Naturally, you proof might also show that you are a co-heir, not sole owner.
(I think the statisticians have pretty well proven that anyone with any amount of European ancestry is a descendant of Charlemagne. One thing I’ve mused a bit about is whether it would be worth giving a big fat government grant to those researchers looking at the geneaolgy of early medieval Spanish kings: it’s just possible that one could end up demonstrating that GWB is a descendant of the Prophet Mohammed.)
A former colleague of mine, an American-born Jewish man, was able to reclaim ownership of a small apartment building in Warsaw in the mid 90s.
Re: Germans allowing Eastern Europeans of German descent back in — there was plenty of wringing of hands about how this would change society. Lots of fear of ‘2 million Russians sitting on packed suitcases’ and the like. It hasn’t worked out that way, but only because the tide of asylum seekers from the Third World has been a yet bigger deal.
Talk about incoherent. I have clearly said that I don’t believe in a right of return as an abstract right. Why do you then want to pin me down on whether or not the right of return is immoral? It doesn’t exist.
Now if you want to ask me if asserting a non-existant right by bombing children in a coffee shop is moral, I will clearly answer that it is not. And I have answered so.
If you want to ask me whether moving back to Germany if Germany allows it is moral, I will clearly answer that it is. And I have answered so.
If you wanted to ask me whether or not bombing Germans in coffee shops so you can move back to Germany is ok, I would clearly say no.
If you want me to say that forcibly removing from their homes is bad, I will happily do so.
If you want me to say that people living there 40 years later should be forcibly removed from what is now their homes I will generally say no.
The problem is that you are attempting to pin me down to an explanation of an abstract right that I HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED I DO NOT BELIEVE IN. Since I don’t believe in it, it is tough for me to map about the exact contours of how it should work because I don’t believe in it. You want to talk about an abstract ‘right of return’ because you do not want to talk about the specific factual situation which makes the Palestinian assertion of that alleged right so pernicious. There is no reason for me to answer in the abstract because the abstract right does not exists as far as I am concerened. Which leaves me with a specific factual question about people living together or not. A specific question which you are desperate to avoid.
If Palestinian’s had a demonstrated desire to live at peace with Israelis, I would be engaged in an entirely different calculus instead of contemplating the foolishness of having people (many never having lived in the area to be ‘resettled’) move in right next to the people whom they have expressed a desire to murder.
There is no abstract right of return that I recognize. As such I don’t see a need to try to analyze at that level of abstraction because the right doesn’t exist.
None of this is new to my argument. You could have easily discerned this a full day and many posts ago.
I should add that my colleague was born in the US in the 1960s.
Also that it is well known that GWB — like a great many people in the Anglosphere (and like George Washington before him) — is not only a descendant of 12th Spanish kings, but also of a 15th century mayor of Toledo, whose daughter went to England as a lady-in-waiting of a Spanish-born queen, and married a lesser English noble. I think there has been some suggestion that she may have had some small measure of Moorish ancestry.
And no, I don’t think this gives GWB a right of return to Spain. Although if a trade of some kind can be arranged, I’d be willing to negotiate . . .
I have clearly said that I don’t believe in a right of return as an abstract right. Why do you then want to pin me down on whether or not the right of return is immoral? It doesn’t exist.
I did not ask about whether the right of return was immoral. I asked whether you stood by your earlier statement that asserting a right of return was immoral in all cases, and I asked what the basis of that alleged immorality is. You still haven’t even come close to answering that question. You are still being evasive.
Now if you want to ask me if asserting a non-existant right by bombing children in a coffee shop is moral, I will clearly answer that it is not
You stated, without qualification, that asserting that right was immoral in all cases. Do you stand by that statement, or not? If so, what is the basis of that immorality? Are Jews that assert that they should have a right to return to Germany being immoral, or aren’t they?
The problem is that you are attempting to pin me down to an explanation of an abstract right that I HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED I DO NOT BELIEVE IN
I am trying to pin you down on a statement that you made that strikes me as being quite ridiculous, and you are refusing to either stand by or retract that statement.
“As for Christian, Muslim, and Jewish states, they are all bad ideas, as I would have thought any believer in the American ideal would agree.”
Not this one.
I think the “it’s a people as well as a faith” aspect of Judaism mucks this up. I think a majority of people who talk about protecting Israel as a Jewish state have very different motivations from people who want to make Egypt into a pure Islamic state or who talk about protecting America’s identity as a Christian nation. There is not a desire to get as many people as possible to follow the 613 mitzvot and the rest of orthodox teaching, or profess and live by the theological tenets of Judaism. Plenty of Jews identify as Jews and don’t believe in God. It’s not a proselytizing religion. It never has been. The desire to keep Israel as a Jewish state is less about a desire for religious orthodoxy than it is about the survival of a people and a culture who have been through hell on earth over and over again.
(Contrary to what Gary said, I don’t think it would have happened without the Holocaust.)
In that sense, Israel’s citizenship policies have a lot in common with a lot of European countries, which make nationality/ethnicity rather than birthplace the main basis for citizenship & give few opportunities for non-nationals to naturalize.
Now, I don’t like those policies, I think they’re both immoral or stupid. But I think there is a threat to Israel if it just gave citizenship to Palestinians that’s just orders of magnitude different from the threat to European countries from adopting an American-style immigration model.
(The corollary is if you’re not granting them full citizenship you are obligated to allow them to form their own state.)
And, you can convert to Judaism. On one level that’s like telling non-citizens they have to convert to Christianity to become U.S. citizens; on another level it’s like the normal demands of the naturalization process. (The Orthodox conversion requirements, which require a much greater level of practice from converts than from people with Jewish mothers to be recognized as Jewish, raise some problems with the latter analogy.)
Maybe it was a bad idea, maybe they should have gone for a binational state from the start. I don’t think it would have worked, based on the track record of multinational states, but maybe it was worth trying. But God, do you know what they had just lived through? Don’t you find the impulse for believing that they would never be safe without their own country at least a little understandable? In any case that ship has sailed. If a one state solution was ever possible, it is no longer so.
So I’m with Phil I guess, a not-fully-formed, probably somewhat hypocritical combination of “never again” and “that ship has sailed.” Best I can do, though.
If a one state solution was ever possible, it is no longer so.
This, I think, is unduly pessimistic. One thing we should all have learned from the past 20 years is that much of what looks impossible today will become inevitable later. OK, all generalizations, including this one, are false. Still, though, we have no idea at all what the world is going to look like in 20 years.
Felixrayman, the statement I made was:
This is not a personal statement about all possible assertions of the non-existant (in my opinion) right of return.
Your response was:
This is changing the subject. I made no blanket statement about the morality of anyone at any time asserting a non-existant ‘right’. I made a statement about the Palestinians and their particular method of assertion.
You have repeatedly made incoherent assumptions from that statement. I have repeatedly clarified. You have repeatedly insisted that I have not clarified. At this point I can’t imagine what you want from me.
I leave it to our intelligent readers whether or not I have tried sufficiently to respond.
Pretty much no one has a multi-generational right of return. If they did no nation would be even nearly as safe as they are now.
“Pretty much no one” does not mean “Palestinians”. “No nation” does not mean “Israel”. You made a blanket statement about every one and about all nations. The second statement doesn’t even make sense if the context is limited to Palestinians.
I leave it to our intelligent readers whether or not I have tried sufficiently to respond.
Thank you, and you haven’t.
You made a blanket statement about every one and about all nations.
One that did not, however, say anything about morality. The mention of what would not be “moral” occurred in the last sentence, where the topic is fairly clearly the Palestinians, not all nations.
Oops. 14th century mayor of Toledo. And the daughter’s employer was the wife of John of Gaunt. Still doesn’t give GWB a right of return to Castile, Belgium, or England.
CharleyCarp–
No, but it would be pretty cool if it could be revealed that GWB is the Hidden Imam. Wouldn’t *that* put the cats among the pigeons!
Seriously, though, I always thought it would be a master-stroke if Bush would back up his claim that this is not a war on Islam, by converting to the Islamic faith. Conversion rites to be administered by Ayatollah Falwell.
Sunni or Shia?
heh, are you trying to make him negotiate with himself?
I was just concerned that your otherwise excellent idea could actually make things worse by breeding resentment among the disfavored denominations. Maybe Bush can become Sunni and he can recruit Cheney to convert to Shi’a, and their odd-couple partnership can set an example for the worldwide Muslim community about setting aside denominational differences.
Huh? You mean the Sunnis should be the incompetent, half-wit sock-puppets of the Shia all over the world? I don’t think *that* proposal is going to go down too well.
Heh, I didn’t think about that — good thing I’m not in charge.
The mention of what would not be “moral” occurred in the last sentence, where the topic is fairly clearly the Palestinians, not all nations.
It’s certainly not clear to me, due to what Sebastian called “this little thing called ‘context'”. Two sentences of the three sentence paragraph are undeniably universal statements, and the third does not clearly qualify who he is talking about when he claims that asserting a right of return is not moral. I have been trying to get him to clear that up, but he won’t. We know that Sebastian believes that:
1) Palestinians have no right of return.
2) Jews have no right of return to Germany.
3) Palestinians who blow up people in a coffee shop are not moral to assert a right of return.
What we don’t know is whether Sebastian thinks that:
4) Palestinians who assert a right of return only by peaceful means and who wish to peacefully coexist with Israel are not moral. It appears from his other comments that he does not acknowledge that such people exist.
5) I am immoral because I assert that Palestinians should have a right of return.
6) Jews that assert a right of return to Germany are immoral.
7) I am immoral because I assert that Jews should have a right of return to Germany.
So hopefully he can clear things up rather than evading and obfuscating.
You better have a darn good point with these questions because thus far it appears to be a huge waste of time.
4. They exist but there aren’t enough of them to form policy as if they were an overwhelming amount.
5. You aren’t immoral to assert that Palestinians have a non-existant universal right of return (so long as you do so peacefully–I don’t want you to take this as a blanket license) you are merely wrong.
6. Jew don’t have a universal right of return to Germany. If Germany has decided to extend such a right as part of their legal process, Jews are welcome to exercise their options under that process.
7. See number 5.
Whew, got that out of the way. Strangely I think all of that was obvious from my other comments, but if not, I await the deeply insightful point that required hours and multiple posts for that clarification.
They exist but there aren’t enough of them to form policy as if they were an overwhelming amount
And the ones that exist are or are not moral to assert a right of return?
SH, it’s “existence”. In other exciting news, the inner surface of my skillet is looking pretty good – maybe a couple of tiny pits or imperfections, but good enough to try to sauté and deglaze something toothsome.
rilkefan–
great news about the skillet. Just remember to use wood or nylon spatulas. Was Amazon the best price for Le Creuset, or just otherwise convenient?
Oh–and were you correcting Mr. Holsclaw’s use of “non-existant”? Yeah, maybe it’s interference from the extent/extant pair.
Amazon sorta claims to have the best prices. And as I was spending family and friends’ generous wedding gift money, I didn’t feel the need to do any off-site comparing, given the excellent service I’ve always gotten from amazon. I did learn something interesting – the pot was available for $190 from amazon directly and for $170 from a vendor, so amazon sends you by default to the vendor’s on-site page when you search for the pot. But amazon’s running a $20 discount program on direct purchases, plus giving away the (nominally) $70 gratin dish, so it was worth that much poking around on the site. Plus I broke down and got their credit card for an extra $30.
Never liked wooden spoons/spatulas – I get a bit of the blackboard effect from them. And I haven’t had a metal spatula in my kitchen since I started owning non-stick pans in grad school.
There’s much I could respond to that I’ll reserve to either another time or not at all, but about this: “(Contrary to what Gary said, I don’t think it would have happened without the Holocaust.)”
I did not say that the founding of the Israeli State, as recognized by the UN, would have happened without the Holocaust.
What I said was this: “That made for a notable point in the face of the modern world, but it’s not actually such a biggie in the face of three thousand years of history and persecution, actually. Anti-Semitism and mass killing of Jews didn’t start in 1933. Neither did Zionism or Israel or the Jewish people.”
I’ll stand by that. But since I apparently was unclear, I’ll try to rephrase by saying that I was trying to address the fact that the Zionist movement was a 19th century movement, reflecting a desire of the Jewish people going back millenia. And not “millenia” in the sort of vague, almost non-existent, fantasy, sort of way that it tends to mean to Americans, but in the sort of “we know what we’ve been doing each century, in tremendous detail, because we’ve been writing books about it through-out all this time, and we, many of us, anyway, pay a lot of attention to our history, even if we’re atheists” way.
And that history, of course, is one, alas, of anti-Semitism hither, thither, and non. To many Jews, 1492 isn’t primarily thought of as when Columbus sailed, but as when Spain kicked us all out, or converted us at the point of the sword or slaughtered us. We have the blood libel started in England in the back of our mind. We celebrate our time in Babylonia and the probably not entirely historically correct story of Haman. And so on and so on and so on. My point was that the Jewish movement to restore a nation-state neither grew out of the Holocaust (Shoah), nor was that a tipping point for the Jews, in that desire. That it was for the rest of the world — well, for the leaders who told their UN ambassadors to vote for the recognition, and those who agreed with that, at least — is undeniable. It simply wasn’t what I was talking about, is all.
Okay, this too.
“In that sense, Israel’s citizenship policies have a lot in common with a lot of European countries, which make nationality/ethnicity rather than birthplace the main basis for citizenship & give few opportunities for non-nationals to naturalize.”
Yes. And maybe that’s a bad idea. But my problem arises when there’s a campaign to make Israel drop such a policy first, while no other nation, of the many nations (possibly the majority of nations on the planet, even), is called upon to do so.
I’m all for changing the Jewish nature of Israel. As soon as we’ve had, say 400 years or so of no anti-Semitism in the world, so we know that we’re truly safe. When that happens, sure, there’s no need for a Jewish State any more.
Of course, I’d also like a pony. (Actually, not so much; but figuratively speaking.)
Meanwhile, my outlook, like that of many Jews, is infected with a touch of pragmatism, and a notice of the fact that quite a darned few number of people state clearly that they’d like to kill ASAP for no other reason than that I am a Jew.
It’s the sort of thing that focuses one’s mind, and that tends to lead to identification with one’s fellow threatenees, no matter one’s views on religion, or the existence of a God.
What I want to know is why is it that it’s become such a leftist cause to be most concerned with the migration of people, forced and ugly as much of it was, that took place in Palestine/Israel in 1948, but the cause of returning all the Jews who were expelled from the Mideast countries at the same time isn’t, and neither is the far vaster forced migrations and slaughters that took place in what was then India and now is India and Pakistan, in the same time frame. Why is that? Where are the marches and faithful lefists such as felixrayman against the slaughters of Moslems and Hindus, and calling for the end of the Islamic State of Pakistan? (Not that I have the least interest in supporting such a latter cause, myself, mind.)
I’d like to see Israel return to being a “light unto the nations,” myself, but neither at the risk of ending its own existence, or the lives of most of its citizens, nor in the sense of being some sort of martyr to justice in a way that is strangely undemanded of any other nation.
Not that Jews aren’t used to being singled out. It’s just that we’re a bit tired of going along with it, if you’ll allow me to project that a fair number of other Jews would agree with this sentiment.
And, y’know, yes, I feel that the Palestinian people have absolutely as damn much right to a nation, and to justice. (But, yes, also, do Palestinians have vastly more political and civil rights in Israel than in any other Arab State? No, that’s not good enough at all, given many injustices in Israel, but contemplating the question, well, gee. Somehow the “apartheid state” has elected Arab members of Parliament [the Knesset]; funny, that.)
“Meanwhile, my outlook, like that of many Jews, is infected with a touch of pragmatism, and a notice of the fact that quite a darned few number of people state clearly that they’d like to kill ASAP for no other reason than that I am a Jew.”
That should have read “they’d like to kill me ASAP for no other reason,” etc.
They’re pretty chipper about it, incidentally.
I have to take this back: “But, yes, also, do Palestinians have vastly more political and civil rights in Israel than in any other Arab State?”
I intended, and it should be substituted as my Intended Statement, please, this to read “…do Arab Israelies have….”
“Palestinians” is probably defensible in that sentence — if anyone would care to suggest a country in the region with better protection of law of Palestinian rights in practice, I’d be interested — but not what I had in mind. The issue of people who desire to have their own nation, and who deserve it, having political rights in another is a fairly complex one.
What I want to know is why is it that it’s become such a leftist cause to be most concerned with the migration of people, forced and ugly as much of it was, that took place in Palestine/Israel in 1948, but the cause of returning all the Jews who were expelled from the Mideast countries at the same time isn’t, and neither is the far vaster forced migrations and slaughters that took place in what was then India and now is India and Pakistan, in the same time frame. Why is that? Where are the marches and faithful lefists such as felixrayman against the slaughters of Moslems and Hindus, and calling for the end of the Islamic State of Pakistan?
You haven’t read what I have written Gary. I have made it perfectly clear that I oppose discrimination on grounds of ethnicity or religion. I oppose ethnic cleansing, no matter who does it. And if you scroll up, you will see that I am in favor of the victims of ethnic cleansing being able to return to their former homes, no matter what their religion is, or where their former homes are.
I have also made it perfectly clear why I pay more attention to events in Israel than I do to other countries in the Middle East. You will also search in vain for positive things that I have had to say for the government of Pakistan.
I’ve explained this to you before, I will explain it to you again. I work for a living. Taxes are taken out of every paycheck I get. Some of the money that is taken out of my paychecks is sent to Israel, with little factual oversight on how it is spent. I think the behavior of Israel towards the Palestinians is wrong. I think it’s beyond the pale. And as I am subsidizing that behavior, I feel the need to speak out, and I do.
Yes lots of other countries take actions with which I disagree. If the money I pay in taxes is subsidizing those countries’ behavior, you would be doing me a service by pointing it out to me, and I would thank you for that.
But for the most part, your rant comes off as a classic example of the fallacy of tu quoque.
This sort of thing tends to be some of us’s background, by the way.
Incidentally, although I have been recently revealed as ananti-Semite, I’m inclined to mention…, oh, frak, I had a point, and my I’m-afraid-it’s-Alzheimers melted it away.
But if anyone wants to go to Mars, see here, please.
It’s safe to say that anyone reading this is fully aware of the centuries of oppression suffered by Jews at the hands of everyone. There are plenty of us, though, who also react to the acts of Israel as FRM does: for a number of reasons, we hold Israel to the standard to which we would hold ourselves in the 21st century. The fact that other people are worse now, or that we have ourselves been worse in the past is not mitigation. And judged by that standard, Israel has failed* on a number of occasions.
Expressing this opinion is often met with an accusation of anti-Semitism. Maybe it’s justified in some circumstances, although I’d wager that the accusation — like hating America or hating Bush — is made much more often than warranted.
A perfect reason to avoid any further discussion of the I/P conflict — or at least to adopt the suggestion offerted on a prior thread that each utterance in this endless repetition be numbered, and we just recite numbers.
*Maybe the failures would be palatable if they worked, but for a decade the primary goal of the terrorists — prevention of negotiated peace — is accomplished by Israel’s reaction to terrorism.
“It’s safe to say that anyone reading this is fully aware of the centuries of oppression suffered by Jews at the hands of everyone.”
Possibly not, possibly not so fully. I wouldn’t dream of thinking I was “fully aware” of the history, myself. I’m well aware, instead, of endless tales and stories and histories of what I don’t know about it. My own impression is that I barely grasp a small bit of it. I read new informative stuff most every month.
The fact that many folks conclude and think they are, in fact, “fully aware,” is one of the things that, in fact, bothers me and others.
I tend to feel similarly about the history of racism in America, and a lot of other stuff, to be sure.
Sorry, I meant to link to my anti-Semitism here, not that it isn’t all fun.
I read new informative stuff most every month.
A policy with which I can agree.
One would hope it’s one with which we can all agree.
Fair point, Gary. ‘Reasonably aware’ is what I meant. On reflection, a better formulation would have been ‘sufficiently aware to appreciate the point’ and I guess I can appreciate that even this is presuming too much in some cases.
Still and all, I don’t think any details about pogroms in the 19th century, forced conversions in the 15th, etc etc etc excuses the failure to build the Wall on the international boundary. Or the failure to offer compensation to owners of land expropriated in Israel proper in 48-49. To me, it cuts the other way: surely no people should be better fixed to recognize the fallacious nature of the ‘they abandoned their homes freely and of their own accord’ story.
The 67 border is not a reasonable barrier route now, given the reality of towns along the border and the necessity of a buffer. However I’m all for eventual territorial exchange in the context of a peace treaty, or lacking that good behavior from the PA. I suggest that every month there’s no terror attack on Israel, the barrier should be moved inwards one meter towards the eventual permament line, and out one meter per attack. At the end of the process Israel should hand over an area equivalent to the 67 territories at the few percent level – but that end can’t be any time soon given the facts SH notes and the lack of a strong polis to receive the land.
Gary, while I more-or-less agree with what you’ve written here, be careful with this:
That way lies madness. It’s the flipside of the pro-war contingent’s “Where are the ANSWER marches against Saddam’s brutality?” nonsense. You can try to get to the bottom of people’s principles without resorting to that kind of demagoguery.
Katherine, I can’t find much to disagree with in your post. As a practical matter I think something like the Geneva Accord with a non-demographically threatening very limited right of return for Palestinians would be the best achievable solution to the conflict.
That said, the Geneva accords aren’t on the table. The big problem with treating the right of return as a non-issue or worse, as equivalent to a call for genocide against the Jews is that it takes the deepest, most emotional and basically legitimate (even if not achievable) demand of the Palestinians and takes it off the table right from the start. It’s fundamentally a slap in the face of the Palestinians to treat it that way, and a convenient way to slant the negotiations so that any bone the Israelis are willing to toss the Palestinians can be described as generous.
I jump into these argumentsbecause in the US the public discussion is heavily stacked against the Palestinians. On the occcasions when I’ve discussed this subject with friends in real life, in the majority of cases they seem to have a view of the conflict that you find in James Michener’s “The Source” (I might also cite Leon Uris, but I haven’t read any of his books). They see the Palestinians and the Arabs beaing 90 percent of the blame and to the extent that Israel has done anything wrong, it’s the fault of a few extremists that most Israelis condemn. Then I read the revisionist Israeli historians (not that one should have to rely solely on them, but until they said it nobody took the Palestinian side of the story seriously) and find out that, in fact, things have always been a very murky gray on both sides. As I’ve said earlier, the idea of forced transfer was part of mainstream Zionist thinking from the very beginning and it was one of the more idealist early Zionists (Ahad Ha’am) who wrote (in the early 1890’s) that Jewish settlers treated the Arabs with hostility and cruelty. As for recent history, for every killing of an Israeli civilian through some despicable act of terror, you can find Israeli killings of Arab civilians, sometimes by plane and sometimes in those face-to-face situations which for some reason many think are worse. When this is pointed out, it doesn’t seem to make any difference with some people. They continue to talk about suicide bombings alone, as though those are the only atrocities that occur or perhaps the only atrocities that have any moral significance. The liberal press is often the worst offender–when Israel invaded the West Bank in the spring of 2002 to suppress suicide bombing and killed hundreds of civilians (though “only” 22 in Jenin), one writer at the New Yorker came up with what he thought was an appropriate historical analogy from US history. Not the vicious atrocities committed by whites and Indians against one another. No, the IDF was like the Union Army occupying the South and the Palestinians who resisted, terrorists or not, were like the KKK. That’s moral clarity, I suppose.
Gary is right that it is wrong to single out Israel’s ethnic cleansing among all the others that have occurred as the one case that has to be rectified, but while that one-sidedness is the problem in many other countries, that’s not the main problem with the debate in the US. The problem is that we pretend to be an honest broker and yet persist in telling the story as mostly good against mostly evil when this is simply not the case, as though the way to fight antisemitism is to tell lies in the other direction. And we’ve been funding much of what has been going on, so our lies matter more than most.
BTW, on the comment that the IP debate is always the same thing and that we should just number the arguments, how is that different from most political debates? People say the same things here on almost every issue over and over again and speaking for myself, I’m not sure I’ve had an original political thought in years. When intelligent design came up a few days ago, I said the same darn stuff I’d said in some earlier thread months ago. Maybe some sort of general storehouse of political arguments should be constructed and we can assign numbers to them all. I wonder what endless political debate pi would represent? At least it wouldn’t repeat itself.