Israel At Sixty: Same As It Never Was
I often refer to the Israel lobby as the "status quo" lobby because, frankly, I view it as advocating very little beyond the status quo. Its entire raison d'être seems to be to ensure that everything stays just the way it is.
True, the lobby pays lip service to the two-state solution and Israeli-Palestinian peace, but no more than that. If you attend its conferences, you can watch the audience sit on its hands when ritualistic endorsements of peace are offered but jump to its feet hootin' and hollering when the Arab bashing begins.
Oh that status quo! Don't engage Hamas. Don't insist on a settlement freeze. Don't push on roadblocks. Don't promote negotiations.
Don't do anything, in fact, except bash Palestinians, and anyone who has a kind word for them, at every opportunity. And, above all, keep Congress and the Presidential candidates in line. That's it.
It doesn't pain me to point to the failures of the lobby. It is, after all, just a conglomerate of organizations.
But the State of Israel is something else. It is infinitely more important than the lobby or any other pro-Israel organization here. The survival of the Jewish people hangs on its fate.
Just over sixty years ago, the institutions that now constitute a nation of seven million were nothing more than quasi-official entities controlling no territory. And not long before that, what is today Israel was primarily a bunch of Europe-based organizations squabbling over the fine points of Zionist and socialist ideology. Not long before that it was just an idea in the heads of visionaries and prophets like Theodor Herzl who understood that without a Jewish state, Europe's Jews would face a catastrophic fate. The catastrophe occurred before the state was created. Instead of being established to avert that catastrophe, it was established in response to it.
But Israel is a state now, and a powerful one. Nonetheless, it remains a state that must overcome numerous challenges if it is to continue to flourish. That is why it cannot behave as if it is a diaspora Jewish organization.
But that is precisely how Jerusalem handled the Jimmy Carter meeting with Hamas. The Israeli government has every right not to like former President Carter. It can choose to ignore his role in securing the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty - which saved more Israeli lives than any action by any President except, perhaps, the 1973 arms airlift authorized by Richard Nixon.
But considerations of liking and disliking particular personalities should not be allowed to get in the way of statecraft. The job of the Israeli government is to provide for the security of the Jewish state. That security will only be achieved through the combination of a strong military (which, thankfully, Israel has) and diplomacy geared to achieving peace.
It simply makes no sense to refuse to hear what those who choose to talk to Hamas learn from their meetings with its representatives. Carter offered to help secure the freedom of Corporal Gilad Shalit, an offer the Israeli government rebuffed (but which the Shalit family, not surprisingly, welcomed). In fact, the Israeli government gave every impression that it would not even welcome Shalit's release if secured by Carter.
What sense does that make? Everybody knows that Israel is involved in indirect negotiations with Hamas on a prisoner exchange. Why not use Carter to achieve the soldier's freedom?
Frankly, I had thought that Hamas might free Shalit just to embarrass the Israeli government and to send a message about what can be achieved through engagement with Hamas, rather than isolation of it. But Hamas didn't produce the soldier. Apparently, even the strategic gains it would have realized from that gesture do not outweigh its animosity toward Israel and Jews. Better to keep their hostage than achieve a semblance of legitimacy.
It only demonstrates why Israel wants nothing to do with them and why Palestinian moderates are terrified at the prospect that Hamas will eventually take over all of Palestine.
But you don't have to like Hamas, or view it as anything more than a bunch of terrorist thugs, to believe that Israel needs to get off its ideological high horse and deal with the reality that Hamas is a force that is not going away any time soon.
Even at the height of the Cold War, when Stalin was not only developing the hydrogen bomb but busily plotting the extermination of Russia's Jews, the United States dealt with the ugly reality of a Stalinist superpower. Israel dispatched Golda Meir as its first ambassador to Stalin's court -- and no doubt wisely used its embassy in Moscow as a good listening post to the benefit of Israel and the west at large.
There will be those who say that we had to deal with Stalin because he was the legitimate leader of a nation. But he was a monster and his regime was utterly illegitimate. He did, however, represent an ugly reality that had to be dealt with.
So does Hamas. Using third parties to find out what Hamas needs to stop inflicting terror on Israel would represent not selling out to the terrorists but finding a means of neutralizing them.
Israel's founders would have understood that. Theodor Herzl actually negotiated with the leading anti-semite in Czarist Russia (an instigator of pogroms) to help secure a Jewish state. He told this guy that Zionism would benefit Russia because it would rid the Czar of a trouble-making radical minority. Knowing the stakes, there was no one Herzl would not deal with to gain the Jews a piece of territory they could call their own. (Needless to say, Herzl, who was willing even to accept Uganda as a Jewish homeland, would be horrified by Jews today who jeopardize the entire State of Israel in order to hold on to West Bank settlements).
In any case, Herzl and the other pioneers thought big. Israel's current policymakers seem to think only in terms of negative soundbites i.e. calling Carter names while ignoring ways to exploit his efforts.
Pretty pathetic. At least, the USA is not the only country working overtime to prove Darwin wrong.
Comments (46)
Bill Moyers' piece on Pastor Hagee is really revealing...
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03072008/watch.html
kind of scary...
April 25, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel has powerful friends in Washington (but Palestinians have rockets).
WASHINGTON, April 26 - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Friday that he failed to achieve any progress in Middle East peace talks with U.S. President George W. Bush and he is returning home from Washington with little to show for his visit.
"We demanded the Americans implement the first phase of the road map that talks about the cessation of settlement expansion," Abbas said, expressing disappointment the U.S. has not exerted more pressure on Israel to stop. "This is the biggest blight that stands as a big rock in the path of negotiations."
Israel is pushing forward with controversial building projects on disputed land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and has so far refused to evacuate illegal settlement outposts, release Palestinian prisoners, halt military incursions, and dismantle roadblocks that severely disrupt daily life.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/978049.html
So much for Annapolis.
April 26, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
April 26, 2008 2:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remember how there used to be a lot of Germans saying this for a while?
Why do you have to assume all these guys are incorrigible?
They likely have needs: power, a sense of purpose, and a deep attraction to nationalism.
But this is what diplomacy is about. We were getting close, believe it or not. Bush managed to squander decades of progress in a few short years.
There is a peaceful solution to the middle east. The vast majority of citizens in the area don't just wish it, they crave it, they NEED it.
US foreign policy can help. Let's not give up on diplomacy. It's the only choice. Another war is NOT an option.
April 26, 2008 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
April 26, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are beyond belief.
April 26, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ writes:
Frankly, I had thought that Hamas might free Shalit just to embarrass the Israeli government and to send a message about what can be achieved through engagement with Hamas, rather than isolation of it. But Hamas didn't produce the soldier. Apparently, even the strategic gains it would have realized from that gesture do not outweigh its animosity toward Israel and Jews. Better to keep their hostage than achieve a semblance of legitimacy.
MJ, you'll have to explain what "strategic gains" Hamas would have realized. I'm not convinced the Olmert government would have been greatly embarrassed by the release of Shalit and even if it were, I doubt the embarrassment would be great enough to change anything substantial. So embarrassing the current government doesn't seem to rise to the level of a strategic gain, and I doubt that the PR benefits of releasing Shalit would have been significant, since "the lobby" that dominates discourse on this issue has no interest in rehabilitating Hamas. Shalit gives Hamas a negotiating chip for the release of their own prisoners in Israel. Giving up that chip without getting something concrete in return might be noble, but it would certainly not help Hamas achieve any significant goals. By attributing Hamas's decision to its "animosity toward Israel and Jews," you seem in fact to be standing up and applauding the Palestinian bashing with the rest of the lobby you are ostensibly condemning. If Hamas is just a hate group, then why would anyone negotiate with them? Israel would be right not to. But Hamas is a real political movement that opposses the Jewish state not just on the basis of hate (though there certainly is hate and I don't want to pretend there isn't) but also because they believe that the creation of a Jewish state on land inhabited by a vast Arab population was unjust. Peace will come to Israel and Palestine only when we begin to recognize that major Palestinian organizations--including Hamas--have legitimate grievances and concerns. As long as we keep describing them solely as hate groups, peace is impossible.
April 26, 2008 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
In other words, peace will come to Israel and Palestine when a Jewish state is destroyed.
April 26, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe. It seems to me that defining oneself or one's state based on things like ethnicity, religion, or race is a bit atavistic, isn't it?
April 26, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Get used to the Jewish state of Israel.
Peace will come to Israel and Palestine only when we begin to recognize the Jewish state of Israel.
April 26, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, the vast majority of the world recognizes Israel as an independent country that is Jewishg by choice. Of course, if it wants to be recognized as a true democracy it will have to eschew religious definitions in favor of whatever the will of it's people wants (which will likely still emphasize Jewish culture) but that's a separate issue.
We are very close to the Palestinians and to most states in the Middle East recognizing Israel if only Palestine is recognized and proper reparations to the Palestinians are paid.
And that's just it... we're very close now to a solution. But folks on both sides are going to have to bend and Israel, which has a lot more power than Palestine, is going to have to bend first.
April 26, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
April 26, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor, you say "Um, the vast majority of the world recognizes Israel as an independent country that is Jewishg by choice." It is in fact Jewish by choice of the Jewish Agency. UN Resolution 181 (which partitioned Palestine) called for a very specific democratic procedure which included both Arabs and Jews in electing a Constituent Assembly to develop a constitution for the two new states. (The relevant language of the resolution is appended below.) After Resolution 181 was passed, however, the British failed to uphold their responsibility to organize this democratic process. Taking advantage of the void, the Jewish Agency unilaterally declared what the government would be in the Jewish state without including the large Palestinian population of that state in the decision-making process (the Palestinians were 45% of the population even in the Jewish area--they were about 65% of the population overall). Supporters of Israel tend to ignore this--but the undemocratic nature of the Jewish Agency's actions disenfranchised the Arabs and certainly was a legitimate reason for the Arabs waging war in 1948.
Here's the relevant text:
The Provisional Council of Government of each State shall, not later than two months after the withdrawal of the armed forces of the mandatory Power, hold elections to the Constituent Assembly which shall be conducted on democratic lines.
The election regulations in each State shall be drawn up by the Provisional Council of Government and approved by the Commission. Qualified voters for each State for this election shall be persons over eighteen years of age who are (a) Palestinian citizens residing in that State; and (b) Arabs and Jews residing in the State, although not Palestinian citizens, who, before voting, have signed a notice of intention to become citizens of such State.
Arabs and Jews residing in the City of Jerusalem who have signed a notice of intention to become citizens, the Arabs of the Arab State and the Jews of the Jewish State, shall be entitled to vote in the Arab and Jewish States respectively.
Women may vote and be elected to the Constituent Assemblies.
During the transitional period no Jew shall be permitted to establish residence in the area of the proposed Arab State, and no Arab shall be permitted to establish residence in the area of the proposed Jewish State, except by special leave of the Commission.
The Constituent Assembly of each State shall draft a democratic constitution for its State and choose a provisional government to succeed the Provisional Council of Government appointed by the Commission. . .
April 27, 2008 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Atavistic? How so? What is it upon which you believe most states in the region currently define themselves -- and have done so historically and consistently -- other than ethnic identity (see League of Arab States) and/or religious doctrine (see Organization of Islamic Conferences)?
April 27, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's atavism too. And most of us look at it that way, right? There's constant criticism of Islamism in the press, for instance. Why, though, are we expected to think of Jewish-centrism as less atavistic than Islamo-centrism or Arab-centrism? They're the same thing. Why is Israel's Jewish state supposed to be celebrated while Islamic states are widely condemned? It seems like a pretty large double standard to me.
April 27, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I fail to see this blanket condemnation of Islamic or Arab states. In fact, we commonly express and acknowlege "The Arab World." I submit that the double standard you decry is advanced not by Zionists but by those who would deny the legitimate expression of Jewish national rights in Israel, as per common practice everywhere throughout the region -- indeed, as it is common throughout most of the world -- and Jewish identity in general, preferring to deconstruct Jews down to bare religious constructs.
April 27, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, MJ offers up a steamy bowl of skewed reality.
How can he say the status quo still exists, when Gaza is now run by Hamas, because Israel pulled out? The status quo absolutely does not exist. Most Israeli's believe the unilateral pullout was a mistake at this point.
MJ also must have missed all the headlines from Carter's visit. He asked Hamas a very simple question (in writing so there could be no misinterpretation). Their response was that they would agree to a peace deal voted on by the Palestinian people in a referendum. Before Mr. Carter's plane had even touched down back home, Hamas was already denying they had agreed to such a thing. The Egyptians don't trust them any more than the Israeli's which is why they are keeping Gaza sealed from their side of the border. The most Hamas has offered is a 10 year truce, which if you study the Koran is a classic tactic used by Muhammed as the prelude to the next war -- it's not a permanent peace at all.
Even if they did talk to Hamas, you've got at least 4 other radical groups running their own foreign policy there. Is Israel supposed to make a separate peace deal with Islamic Jihad as well?
As screwed up as our foreign policy may be, one can only be grateful MJ's not in a position to influence it.
April 26, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure he will be in a position to influence our foreign policy in the future Obama administration. Therefore, people who agree with Carter and Rosenberg should vote for Obama, everybody else should vote for Clinton or McCain.
April 26, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
BrookD writes:
This is real straw-man stuff. The Palestinians in Gaza voted Hamas into power to represent them - they did not vote into power "at least 4 other radical groups." BrookD clearly has no interest in seeking a change to the status quo reqardless of whether or not it might lead to a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
There is a trivial counter-example for BrookD - the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein, the political wing of the Provisional IRA, participated in the talks creating this agreement and the Provisional IRA has started the process of disarming. The Real IRA on the other hand has rejected the agreement. As Wikipedia puts it:
The logical extension of BrookD's argument is that the British and Irish Govenments should not have negotiated the Good Friday Agreement that finally brought an end to the conflict in Northern Ireland because there existed "radical groups running their own foreign policy there."
Sense and sensibility brought peace to Northern Ireland - there is no future for pride and prejudice in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. But that is precisely what BrookD wants - no future just a continuation of the present.
April 26, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me remind you. Israel left Gaza a few years ago. There is nothing prevents Gazans from building a peaceful prosperous society. There is no need for negotiations. Just stop fighting Israel. So, Colore Oscuro, once again why do you hate Palestinians so much that you encourage them to fight Israel?
April 26, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
tnathan seeks to remind us that:
Israel did not leave Gaza - it removed the Israeli "settlers" from the Gaza Strip. Israel remains the occupying power of The Gaza Strip, an occupying power that completely controls all access to the Gaza Strip, an occupying power that invades the Gaza Strip at will, an occupying power that has no hesitation and no doubts as it wantonly kills and injures innocent Palestinians. Over the years the number of innocent Palestinians killed by Israel dwarfs the number of Israelis killed by Palestinians.
tnathan continues:
April 26, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
April 26, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel shares control over access to Gaza with Egypt and the Palestinian Authority, and does not control access to Gaza completely.
April 27, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
utter silliness. Israel left, it reentered, it left, it will reenter at will. Israel forces Gazans into abject poverty and semi-starvation. Do you deny this? No surprise that they fight back. And you say they simply should capitulate?
May 12, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be more inclined to say red herring fallacy, or possibly slippery slope (if we negotiate with Hamas, next thing you know we will have to negotiate with the town barber...)
The reason why I might not say it is a Straw Man fallacy is because in a Straw Man fallacy you distort the opponent’s actual position to such an extent that it becomes untenable. Not quite sure there is a distortion of position rather than presenting a whole different position which is untenable (having to negotiate with an endless number of other groups. As you say, none were legitimately elected by the people). That is more the red herring type argument. But they are very similar types indeed
April 26, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Colore Oscuro,
April 27, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first paragraph above is Colore Oscuro's quote. The second paragraph is my response. My html tags failed me, apparently.
April 27, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
that's only a logical extension if you believe the IRA and Hamas are liberation movements with a common objective. Hamas represents a culture of death and cultural genocide and teach their children that Jews are subhuman. Overlay this with radical Islamic theology and they are nothing like the IRA.
I go back to MJ's example of Stalin. Yes, we talked to him and made agreements -- and he broke almost every one of them. The end result was tens of millions of Europeans living in virtual slavery for 50 years. I take a completely different historical lesson away from that than MJ.
April 27, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rosenberg is a perfect example of why diplomacy NEVER succeeds in resolving real conflicts. The man is incapable of learning ANYTHING.
April 26, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are wrong. Diplomacy can succeeds in resolving real conflicts. Let me repeat, Rosenberg is not talking about diplomacy, his mission is to help Hamas PR effort. He knows what's he is doing.
April 26, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Nathan
Hamas has a pretty bad reputation in the US. What with being called a terrorist organization every time its name is mentioned does not help.
I see no harm in MJ trying to boost Hamas' ratings a bit here in the State, given that they are so low. Perhaps it might help in any future negotiations.
April 26, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
@Rosenberg
You say
"Needless to say, Herzl, who was willing even to accept Uganda as a Jewish homeland, would be horrified by Jews today who jeopardize the entire State of Israel in order to hold on to West Bank settlements"
But Herzl thought
In Altneuland Herzl did not foresee any conflict between Jews and Arabs. The one Arab character in Altneuland...is very grateful to his Jewish neighbors for improving the economic condition of Palestine and sees no cause for conflict. All non-Jews have equal rights, and an attempt...to disenfranchise the non-Jewish citizens of their rights fails...
"Altneuland" was written primarily for the world, not for the Zionists...In his diary he wrote that land in Palestine was to be gently expropriated from the Palestinian Arabs and they were to be worked across the border "unbemerkt" (surreptitiously), e.g. by refusing them employment. Herzl's draft of a charter for a Jewish-Ottoman Land Company (JOLC) gave the JOLC the right to obtain land in Palestine by giving its owners comparable land elsewhere in the Ottoman empire. According to Walid Khalidi this indicates Herzl's "bland assumption of the transfer of the Palestinian to make way for the immigrant colonist."
So apparently Herzl was every bit as dumb and dishonest as you are.
April 26, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
@Rosenberg
Here's Ben-Gurion (who knew a bit about reality):
According to Zeev Sternhell[1] Ben-Gurion's 'intentions to which he adhered throughout the rest of his life' were well described by a declaration he made in December 1922:
[...] Our central problem is immigration ... and not adapting our lives to this or that doctrine. [...] We are conquerors of the land facing an iron wall, and we have to break through it. [...] How can we run our Zionist movement in such a way that [... we] will be able to carry out the conquest of the land by the Jewish worker, and which will find the resources to organise the massive immigration and settlement of workers through their own capabilities? The creation of a new Zionist movement, a Zionist movement of workers, is the first prerequisite for the fulfillment of Zionism. [...] Without [such] a new Zionist movement that is entirely at our disposal, there is no future or hope for our activities...
According to Sternhell 'This concise, concentrated, programmatic and important speech, contained not a single word about equality, justice, universal values, or the creation of an alternative society. Only one objective was mentioned and all the energy, strength and capabilities of the young movement were directed toward achieving it.' Ben-Gurion was committed almost exclusively to building a Jewish state.
In the epilogue of 'Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs' Teveth evaluates Ben-Gurion's policy towards the Arabs up to 1936 as follows:
A careful comparison of Ben-Gurion's public and private positions leads inexorably to the conclusion that this twenty-year denial of the conflict was a calculated tactic, born of pragmatism rather than profundity of conviction. The idea that Jews and Arabs could reconcile their differences through class solidarity, a notion he championed between 1919 and 1929, was a delaying tactic. Once the Yishuv had gained strength, Ben-Gurion abandoned it. The belief in a compromise solution, which Ben-Gurion professed for the seven years between 1929 and 1936, was also a tactic, designed to win continued British support for Zionism. The only genuine convictions that underlay Ben-Gurion's approach to the Arab question were two: that the support of the power that rules Palestine was more important to Zionism than any agreement with the Arabs, and that the Arabs would reconcile themselves to the Jewish presence only after they conceded their inability to destroy it...
Ben-Gurion had a realistic view of the strong attachment of Arab Palestinians to the Palestinian soil. In 1938 he said: 'In our political argument abroad we minimize Arab opposition to us. But let us not ignore the truth among ourselves. [...] A people which fights against the usurpation of its land will not tire so easily.' According to Flapan, Ben-Gurion's assessment of Arab feelings led him to an even more militant line on the need to build up Jewish military strength: 'I believe in our power, in our power which will grow, and if it will grow agreement will come...'....
In other words the disagreements between Ben-Gurion and Zhabotinsky were tactical and personal. On the most important issue - how to deal with Arabs - they were in complete agreement.
Nothing substantial has changed in the subsequent 75 years.
April 26, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
tnathan -
Why do you hate Israel so much? In post after post you repeat the same offensive nonsense . You have no intention of participating in a rational discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Instead, you seek to close that discussion down by posting dozens of posts full of innuendo and slander. You are not a participant in these forums you seek instead to vandalize them.
This rhetorical tactic is so common in any discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian coflict on the web it almost seems to come out of a playbook for Likudnik dead-enders. Question. What can I post if I am too stupid to make a good argument why the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories should continue? Answer. Post more than anyone else on the thread and make sure that your posts are full of innuendo and slander. By doing this you will hide the comments of those who are genuinely interested in a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
This tactic, so common in the United States, of allowing only a Likudnik voice to be heard in the debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has caused immense damage to the State of Israel. It has led directly to the moral and legal failure that is the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories. It is however a strategy, that through demographic reality, will lead to the destruction of the State of Israel. There is nothing the Palestinians can and will ever be able to do that will destroy Israel militarily but continued use of Likudnik tactics will inevitably destroy Israel - not this year, not in ten years but over time Likudnikism will destroy Israel.
A change in American attitutes to Israel is already evident. The publication of the Mearsheimer-Walt article and book was a major blow to the Likudnik dead-enders as witnessed by the howls of protest put forward by the likes of Alan Dershowitz on the Harvard website and Martin Peretz at The New Republic (indeed he complained about them again this week). And we see that change in the writings of Eric Alterman and pretty much all the high profile center-left blogging community. And then again we see it here at a mainstream political website which in no way could be described as being hostile to Israel with posts critical of dead-end Likudnikism from M.J. Rosenberg who again could not be described as being hostile to Israel.
So, tnathan, once again why do you hate Israel so much that you vandalize any and all rational discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
April 26, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
April 26, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great response, tnathan! Brilliant! So instead of using your posts to merely insult MJR (as pointed out, to evade any rational discussion of Israeli-Palestinian issues) - when challenged, you simply widen your net of derision to include "Every one" of the commenters on the entire blog?
Maybe you should send Josh Marshall an email or something to alert him to this fact: that one of his TPM blogs has turned into a hotbed of antisemitic hatred and prejudice!
I know it's probably a stretch: but you really ought to think about considering the possibility that criticisms of Israeli policy just might be motivated by some other factor than unreasoning "hatred". Just maybe.
April 26, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that asking questions like the following:
is a any rational discussion of Israeli-Palestinian issues.
I'm sure many people consider their hate of Israel "reasoning hatred"
April 27, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
tnathan -
You suggest that my writing
is not a "rational discussion" even as you deliberately ignore that I ended that sentence with the rationale for the question, vizHowever, in a response to jlidell you made clear why vandalism is your only rhetorical tool. In that response you wrote:
You admit you have no clue, so you satisfy your desire to participate in these discussions by exposing your cluelessness in vandalism - in the intellectual frustration of the hooligan. You accuse M.J. Rosenberg of making facts up when you are the one who fabricates mistruths, innuendo and slander. You waste everyones time here with all this vandalism - but in trying to prevent rational discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict you hurt Israel. So, tnathan, you have answered my question why you hate Israel so much - you have no clue. Thank you for your answer.
April 27, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone may have made this point already but:
Don't insist on a settlement freeze
This is NOT maintaining the 'status quo' -- it is a dynamic situation that, from the standpoint of peace and Palestinian rights, is steadily worsening.
I do agree, however, that we must look at the wrongs by the VARIOUS sides of the situation in the region, even as we recognize that the ONUS of making peace between the state of Israel the Palestinians lies mainly with Israel.
It never ceases to amaze me that, as long as this situation has been in crisis (at least 40+ years since the post-67 war occupation began), NO one, not wealthy Arab states like Kuwait and the UAE, not the US/NATO/European Union ... has stepped forward to really push, at a cost of maybe 1% (ONE LOUSY PERCENT) of the Iraq War, or of what the Persian Gulf War I cost, to finance a substantial and sustainable development of areas such as Gaza. Surely water purification powered by wind/solar energy, and other base-line projects would both alleviate much suffering and set the empowering basis of an economically viable Palestinian state.
Although morally perverse, Israel has a logic (the logic of attempting 'constructive eviction' of the Palestinian people) to what it is doing -- they do NOT want to see economic development of the kind I've outlined in Palestine. But Kuwait and the UAE? The notion that they just want the situation to fester to provide a political scapegoat in Israel could be an explanation, politically incorrect though it may be. But what about the European Union? They are NOT in any way in Israel's pocket, and a few hundred million dollars a year -- miniscule compared to their budgets -- from each of the MAJOR European economies plus additional monies from the others could go a long way. (The same goes for Cuba, where such a development program could probably even be self-financing through some limited notion of ownership, with a limitation both in time and in proportion of the repatriation of profits to only the amount in real Euros originally invested in Cuba).
I never cease to be appalled at the priorities of those with power over the fate of humanity
April 27, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
tnathan - Instead of taking pot shots at comments and commentators you don't like - how about you outlining how you see the Israeli/Palestinian conflict gets resolved. Do you have the guts to put something on the table for discussion?
April 27, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no clue. M.J. Rosenberg has no clue. The difference between us is that I’ll willing to admit that I’m clueless. I also don’t make up the facts like he does. I don’t mind clueless people offering stupid or naïve plans about resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I mind if they just make facts up. I also mind when clueless Rosenberg wants his plans to be adopted by the next president and forced on Israel.
April 27, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
tnathan - This is a cop-out. You have VERY strong opinions about I/P issues that you are against. You feel free to state that positions put forth by commentators are "stupid or naive". Are you afraid to put forth your own positions for fear of being called stupid or naive? It is intellectually dishonest for you to claim you have no clue. You have a "fire in your belly" for Israel and it seems impossible that you have not staked out a position on conflict resolution.
I suspect the reason you do not state your position is that you realize that it is incompatible with Western Democratic ideals. In other words, I suspect your position is the same as my relatives in the settlements and a position I heard Kadima member Ze'ev Boim advocative at shul in Ariel. That is the Palestinians will NEVER have a state but only autonomous "reservations" without voting rights. Is this your position too?
April 28, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I share view of most Israeli as well as American Jews who want to see a safe and secure Jewish state of Israel. along with peaceful Arab state. I don’t know how to get there. People like M.J Rosenberg never address issue of security. For them Israeli are evil monsters, if they just end the “occupation” there will be a paradise. I believe that such thinking is stupid and naive.
April 28, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
The first paragraph above is Colore Oscuro's quote. The second paragraph is my response. My html tags failed me, apparently
April 27, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to suggest that at some point in a focus on Israel, we think about why America is so involved with the conflict. Not that it is a bad thing, but that it a very unique thing for American history.
May 10, 2008 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Over the course of history, states come and states go. That's just the way it goes. Ur is gone. Assyria is gone. The Mayan Empire is gone. The Aztec and Inca Empires are gone. The Soviet Union is gone. The Jewish people survived 2000 years without Israel (the 1940s notwithstanding) and thus can survive without Israel. Eventually the United States of America will be gone, but that doesn't mean its people will all die as it goes out of existence. Nation states come and nation states go. Not apocalyptically necessarily (sorry, Evangelic supporters of Israel), but often with a whimper. But they go away and become the dust of history. Let's not insist that anything goes to ensure their survival.
May 12, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink