Powerful Pro-Israel Sentiments
Most significantly is the campaign of J Street, the self proclaimed "political arm of the pro-Israel pro-peace movement." Pointed out earlier this week at TPM cafe, they have started an online ceasefire petition that argues that a ceasefire is politically and morally the right move for Israel. They also provide answers to frequently asked questions about being pro-Israel during this campaign in Gaza.
Also From M.J. Rosenberg at TPM Cafe: "Ceasefire Now!"
And Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic:"The Moral Responsibilities of Israeli Soldiers"
You're not Hamas. You're better than Hamas. So act it. [...] So when you operate, operate with the children in mind. It's a burden Hamas has placed on you -- it's no joy to fight an enemy who hides behind his children. But that's what you're facing. And when you come across scenes like the one described in this Washington Post story, help the children.
You can protect your country and be the moral superior at the same time. Ruthlessly target those responsible for anti-Israel attacks. But do everything possible to reduce civilian casualties, especially among children. And help the innocents of the other side whenever possible. That's how you earn the trust of international public opinion.
The United States has no interest in Israel. Let them conduct this immoral war without our money or weapons.
January 10, 2009 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
They are our client state...where have you been?
Of course, we have an interest!
January 11, 2009 3:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Of course, there are very powerful big picture reasons to side with Israel."
There are?
January 10, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I mean there are powerful reasons to support the existence and importance of Israel. Supporting the deaths in Gaza is a different thing which I would assume few would do, but there are a lot of people - like those quoted above - who are still pro Israel and want to see a ceasefire because it is the best option for both sides morally and politically.
January 10, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I ask this because it's a question that I've tried on folks before and I rarely get a convincing answer. What are the powerful reasons to support the existence and importance of Israel? For example, our policy towards Cuba is crazy and totally influenced by Cuban-American voters, but at least you can say that Cuba is 90 miles from the US and we've had an expressed policy since the Monroe Doctrine of protecting our hemisphere from external interference.
I ask this because until you can state the practical value of the relationship, it's difficult to evaluate policies and priorities. To me, Israel has become this great priority distorting obsession. Just look at the Congress this week. This country is going to hell and the first thing they do is pass resolutions about Israel.
January 10, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congress' rush to draft pro Israel language this week was odd considering all that needs to get done. But that is a separate issue from whether or not Israel has the right to exist.
There are a lot of different reasons to support Israel. First of all, from the perspective of the United States, they are our strongest ally. That means they often support our actions, and they have one of the strongest armed forces in the world. That is probably one of the main reasons you see the right supporting Israel so much.
For me its much more personal. As a Jewish person, Israel symbolizes my safety in the world. I understand why that might not sound convincing to someone who is not Jewish, but it really makes a lot of sense to Jews. It has been only sixty years since the Holocaust. In the past, Jews have gone much longer without being targets of violence. It would be a mistake to assume that Jews will not be targeted again in the future only because they are accepted in most western nations now. So Israel, the tiny sliver in the middle east, is a place that Jews can flee to safety if something like that happens again.
So whether or not you think those answers are convincing is your own choice. But they are very powerful to me and are the basis for why I will always support Israel's existence.
But, of course, that does not mean excusing all of their actions. In cases like what is happening in Gaza now, that is nearly impossible to do.
January 10, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
For me its much more personal. As a Jewish person, Israel symbolizes my safety in the world.
This is an illusion. Israel does not make you safe. It's is the chief producer of antagonism toward the Jewish people in the world. It is a country built on a permanent campaign of dispossession, and that makes it disrespected and held in contempt: publicly, by many, and privately, by many, many more who nevertheless do Israel's bidding because they have no political choice.
One thing Israel has never learned to produce over the years is good will. In fact its store of previously existing good will is rapidly being exhausted, and its protective political machine in the US becomes each day a hollow shell held up by hot air and cynicism. When I was younger, there were a number of Israelis who were extremely popular in the West: Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, Abba Eban, Moshe Dayan, and Israel cut a sort of dashing, heroic figure in the world. Name an Israeli leader who now possesses the same allure.
It's also a very tiny country. Do you honestly think that if there were a renewal of pogroms and the rest around the world, and the powerful governments of the world turned against Israel, that Jews could actually "flee to Israel" and be protected there? That's a pipe dream.
Your safety in this world depends on the same tenuous factors mine does, not on Israel.
January 10, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You wrote:
Right. No world-wide sentiments of anti-semitism before the creation of Israel. Thanks for the reminder.
I suggest you go back and get a gander of this clip. Unfortunately, it's comedy lies in the fact that's its timeless (in all the pairs he discusses).
January 11, 2009 3:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Presently, I think bluebell is correct. Very broadly speaking, ethnic tolerance has continuously improved.
January 11, 2009 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very broadly perhaps.
January 11, 2009 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you clearthinker; you emboldened me. I just didn't have the courage to respond to this comment which I read yesterday, which coming from my friend DanK, knocked my socks off. Funny, or not, yesterday, I took my 2-year old in her stroller to synagogue, and there were two police officers stationed in front our modest house of worship in the middle of Manhattan. It usually doesn't even phase me anymore. Folks who loathe Israel can assert that my two-year old and my fellow congregants need police protection because of Israel. Sure. And history is no guide to anything.
And, no, I am not condoning the scope of Israel's response or defending America's relationship with Israel, so those of you who continue to believe that the world's last anti-semite died in a bunker in Berlin in 1945 can spare me your explanations. 2,000 years of Jew hatred and today animus towards Jews is largely the result of Israel? Sure.
January 11, 2009 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
It sure doesn't help.
Also, quit with the Bushesque strawmen. You are disingenuously linking liberals who support the human rights of Palestinians with anti-semitism.
"Some people believe X (reactionary belief)" in no way buttresses your beliefs. The fact that hate crimes against Muslims spiked after 9/11 is real. So is a spike in anti-semitism when Israel bombs schools and hospitals. They are pre-existing historical trends reinforced by negative behavior.
The fact is that Israeli violence is justified as American while other forms of violence are rebuked. This cognitive dissonance is intolerable. The fact is that the peace movement's attitude to Palestinian suffering is akin to that of Tibetan suffering. To invoke nebulous charges of bigotry cheapens the valid concerns of peace in our times.
January 11, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
See my response below.
January 11, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
"You are disingenuously linking liberals who support the human rights of Palestinians with anti-semitism".
No I am not. I believe that there are people throughout the world who detest Israel but who are not anti-semitic. I believe there are people who don't detest Israel and are not anti-semitic but who detest what Israel is doing now. I also believe that it's absolutely ridiculous to strike 2000 years of history and to submit that that history is immaterial and beside the point, and that but for Israel there would not continue to be rampant anti-semitism in the world. Fortunately, in light of the existence of the State of Israel, what I submit cannot be tested. But I am not the inventor of the concept of pretext.
January 11, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice to have an exchange with you again, Bruce!
Yes, I was surprised that Dan made his comment, but not surprised by the comment itself. Too often discussions at TPM tend to be focused on the day's headlines without long historical context.
So many things forgotten like:
The notion of "nation-state" in the region isn't even 100 years old yet. Previously (like 500 years) it was a vast area of population settlements of people with similar ethnic backgrounds.
In 1945, Jews were 1/3 the population in the area. Not all that tiny. Why? because Western nations (including the US) didn't want Jewish immigration.
Egypt controlled Gaza from 1948 until 1967.
The Arab League loves the Palestinians about as much as the Western world loves the Jews.
Lastly: Israel is a client state of ours. Saying that makes things uncomfortable, of course, because it implies we get benefit from our alliance with Israel -- which, of course, we do.
Indeed, the client state aspect is clear from today's NY Times where it's reported that the US rejected the idea of helping Israel go after Iran.
I am almost certain that you and I don't agree on everything associated with this topic -- but once again, I really appreciate your measured, historical view of the issues.
January 11, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
What was Greece in 1821? What were Alabama and Florida in 1830? What was Italy in 1858, the Dakotas in 1860, what was Albania in 1903, what was Tajikistan in 1917, Ukraine in 1924, what was Taiwan in 1943, what was Kirin in Burma in 1945, what was Tibet in 1949, what was Xinjiang in 1955, what was Bhutan in the 60's, and Irian Jaya and East Timor and Chechnya and Belgian Congo. Places too uncivilized to comprehend - fortunately a good paternal chaperone to escort them into civilization was found in most every case. The Palestinians should consider themselves lucky to find someone who would introduce the concept of the nation-state to them. After living under the Ottoman Empire for so long, this was the moment of reprieve they must have dreamed of for so long.
January 11, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are switching arguments on me! I never said Israel had no "right to exist". You brought in that language. Israel has no more and no less right to exist than any other nation.
Israel is our strongest ally?? The UK is our strongest ally closely followed by Canada and Australia. When did Israel ever come to the defense of the United States? What practical benefit is our alliance with Israel to me?
I do not object to Jews lobbying in support of Israel, but I have to admit that it does gall me to hear American Jews claiming that the United States must support Israel so that American Jews will have somewhere to flee! I respect that you may see the logic there but it makes no sense to me as an American taxpayer (though the way things are going fleeing to Canada wouldn't be a bad idea if they'd take me in).
I repeat I have no wish to threaten Israel's existence. I just can't figure out why it became the obligation of Americans to guarantee its existence. If Israel wants to lobby for statehood, we could consider such an unconditional guarantee.
I got the same answer from you that I usually get when I ask this question. I always get the answer that I should support Israel because American Jews want me to and because Israel is important to you. No one ever tells me why Israel is important to ME. If Americans ever figure out that they aren't getting anything in return for their support of Israel, support could evaporate because if there is one character trait we do share with Israelis it is that we are above all interested in what is good for ME.
January 10, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel is our client state in the area. It serves as a possible base of operations, we trade intelligence with them, during the Soviet era, we got a look at a lot of military equipment captured from the Arabs by the Israelis. It has served as a reliable western-style base of power in the region for 60 years (consider the shifts in power in the neighboring Arab states over those years).
Richard Nixon was one of the biggest anti-semites to hold power in the US in the last 50 years. He wasn't for Israel because of the Jews (who he knew, weren't voting for him anway).
January 11, 2009 3:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll second the question about Israel being our "strongest ally". Against what? Against whom? Aside from Tripoli in the early 1800's, the US didn't have a beef with the Moslem world until the 1940's, and all of that was over Israel. We supported Israel in the Arab-Israeli War, 6-day war, in the Yom Kippur War, in the recent bombing of Lebanon and the latest flare-up in Gaza, and negotiations from Carter to Clinton to Bush. All of this at great monetary and political expense. The only serious act of help I can think of by Israelis was blowing up Hussein's potential nuclear facilities. Typically the big help from Israel is in "restraint" in not doing something that would hurt our interests, typically resulting in more foreign aid. There may be more Mossad moles in Islamic countries than CIA agents, but it would be infinitely easier for us to gain support if not for our unyielding support for Israel despite some pretty over-the-top Israeli actions over the years.
Israel owes us big time - we don't owe Israel. It's time we start calling in the IOU's to demand responsible, ethical and constructive behavior in building towards peace. 60 years of "the mean Palestinians are picking on us with stones and the occasional mortar, meaning we have to go raze another 10 villages and annex 10 more with our jets and tanks" is just too much. The Goliath in this battle is Israel, and while the David certainly isn't guiltless, demanding the oppressed be squeaky clean ethical while the oppressors get a complete bye is turning into a criminal equation. Having a larger version of Gitmo as the Gaza strip doesn't make it ethical, but turning this penal colony into a civilized rights-endowed community will take a lot more work than closing Gitmo, and it will require Israels serious effort, not just this disgusting farce of recurrent brutal retaliation.
January 11, 2009 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desi:
First off, there were no "nation-states" in the region until after WWI where the winning powers carved up the Ottoman Empire. At that time, the US was trying to get a seat at the table. FDR got one with the Saudis. Motivation from our end? Oil, of course.
Second, until 1990, the Middle East was a proxy war between the US and the USSR. That's is very obvious -- and that is the reason for the ties to Israel historically.
Third, Israel does owe us -- and that's the reason why they didn't attack Iran when we wouldn't back the effort (see the NY Times today).
There has been a continual ebb and flow of events in the region... with the highs like Camp David and Oslo moving in the right direction, and the current hostilities being a relative low. I believe much of the world's interest in the area will drop when there is little oil left -- then the area is most about shipping lanes.
January 11, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'd suggest there was plenty of interest in Jerusalem back during the Crusades and at the time of Saladin before oil was a crucial issue, and I don't expect this to change anytime soon. Angola was a proxy war as was Afghanistan as was Granada, though Russia initially supported the Jews - specifically Zionists - in Israel in 1944-1953 (kibbutzes were a pretty Communist concept in themselves). Our Israeli ties related to Saudi oil post-WWI?
January 11, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You asked about the US-Israeli alliance. I gave you some facts that (a) we were tied into the area for natural resources before Israel (thereby showing that our interest in Israel might be an extension of those policies) (b) the US showed no special, particular interest in Jerusalem before the 20th century, (c) and that the Mid East was a proxy war (you asked "against whom?")
I have no idea why you brought up the Crusades (hundreds of years before the US was formed) or other proxy wars. You are correct that the USSR considered the Arab League transgression in 1948 an illegal act. In fact, one can argue that because Israel become a western leaning democracy, it was the Soviets that switched strategy by supporting the Arabs -- to carry out their proxy war.
January 11, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
egadz!
January 11, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Might be an extension"? Pretty thin argument there. I noted the Russians were Israeli supporters at first and simply not involved before WWII. Hardly the proxy war to justify all that existence - after the fact utility perhaps, but considering the oil was elsewhere, mostly painful and irrelevant. You thought that all this would go away without the question of oil, and I noted that the question of control of Palestine existed for a millennium without oil.
January 11, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sheesh: "might" was put in there for sarcasm.
As far as the US is concerned: if you want to conflate US foreign policy with that of 1200 AD Rome, that's your business.
The evangelical interest in this region as part of US policy is a relatively recent phenomenon (say 20 years or so) and it's difficult to prove how much of it drives policy nor if it will have any lasting effect with Obama now in office.
Apparently you aren't aware that much of the Arab world were client states for the USSR. It's true the USSR backed the formation of Israel... but it should also be clear to you where the Arabs got their backing from by 1956.
January 11, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do we know how many people are civilians? I've heard that those civilian counts basically just count any fighting age man as a non-civilian.
As a 28 year old guy, I don't find that particularly comforting.
January 10, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any dead civilian who is female, juvenile, or over 60 was a human shield.
Any dead male civilian over the age of 13 and under 60 was a fighter.
See how easy it is?
January 10, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are too late,
1/3 of the civilian casualties have been children. Today Olmert has announced an escalation in the Gaza offensive and told the Palestinians in Gaza 'to brace themselves.' How are the children of Gaza going to 'brace themselves' as they descend even further into a living hell.
Stop the talking for a minute and look at the graphics of shrinking Palestine:
http://www.mystudydate.com/pg/blog/Martini/read/1082/the-shrinking-map-of-palestine
My five year old grandson would tell me there is something very wrong here.
January 10, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
What would your grandson say about this map?
It's so much harder to put a complex problem in context when it's in your own backyard, isn't it?
January 11, 2009 3:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obfuscation.
January 11, 2009 5:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clearthinker - Without condoning American behavior, past or present, toward Native Americans, they at least have citizenship and total freedom of movement. When will Palestinians recieve the same?
January 11, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, let's take a look at US History:
Native Americans were not included as citizens by the 14th amendment.
It wasn't until 1924 that Indians were recognized as citizens.
So 1924 - 1866 = 58 years (and that doesn't even count the time before the Civil War).
The situation, of course, is not the same as the US literally broke the back of the Native Americans, overwhelming them militarily... and even then it took decades.
What the Palestinians need now, more than ever, is a Palestinian leader like Nelson Mandela or Anwar Sadat to pitch the case world wide. Such a leader would immediately have the backing of a large portion of the Israeli population.
I suspect, though, that the problem is that Hamas can't produce such a leader because, in the end, they aren't organized like that.
Just as the Haganah attacks needed to be restrained by a David Ben Gurion, the Palestinians needs some similar figure to restran Hamas.
At that point, you would find world opinion shift rather dramatically.
January 11, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
We support Israel because of JerUSAlem.
As a Judeo-Christian nation, we are not willing to let Israel, the birthplace of Christianity, fall at the hands of nonbelievers.
It's as if we are protecting the foundation of what we currently understand about Christ and God's love for his people.
Even though Jews don't accept our concept of the Messiah, Israel accepts it because it needs the relationship (re:money/weapons).
If we let the Israel fail, who are we as a Judeo-Christian nation?
It would be like Muslims allowing the West to take out Mecca.
It can't happen.
January 10, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you mean "Judeo Christian" nation?
Our nation was founded on the separation of church and state. That is the law!
We currently have many, many law-abiding citizens who are Muslims, Hindus, practice Native American spiritual traditions, and who follow no religion but sincerely care about their fellow person.
It promotes bigotry to make statements which are contrary to our Constitution.
January 11, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Naturally I did not mention every religion, but I meant to include a phrase including any other religion or spiritual tradition, such Sinto, Taoism, Buddhism, and so on.
January 11, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, brother... Shinto!
January 11, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can understand the dilemma for "pro" Israel folks. Note the quotation marks are because it's very hard to understand what it means to be "pro" Israel at this point. Is it really "pro" Israel to enable or excuse the self-destructive behavior we've witnessed over the last days? (Not to mention the destruction to the Palestinians.)
At any rate, there are a couple of other very well done articles published recently that I thought you might want to add to your list:
Daniel Levy's "Five comments on the Gaza crisis and what to do," published here at TPM, and Gideon Levy's "The Time of the Righteous" in Haaretz. (I found the latter article through a link in one of MJ's other articles - it's really an amazing article.)
January 10, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Recommended Wordie!
Also The Nation has many articles by Neve Gordon and other Israelis who are against the Gaza offensive and yet pro-Israel.
Also a diary from an Oxfam worker in Gaza.
January 10, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of us have our dilemmas; those who do not in this particular situation, as in most matters of foreign affairs or in life, are ignorant, foolish, or just not being honest with themselves.
January 11, 2009 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought this poster wrote that he supported Israel's existence and its right to defend itself, but that its supporters must call Israel out at times like this. The post is recommended, and I share the poster's sentiments and I applaud his courage to speak out in the current environment at the Cafe, and in other havens of the know-it-all, left-leaning intelligentsia.
I didn't think that he was telling others that the United States had to support Israel. That's a different issue. But if folks don't think that the United States shouldn't support Israel, then they should lobby to cease it, and they should cease hiding behind the centuries-old canard that the Jews are in control and prevent them from effecting what they deem to be their civic duty.
Each and every Senator--even Russ Feingold--and virtually every Congressman rose in support of Israel this week. Because of Jewish control? Or could it be that people who hate Israel no matter what it does or who just, in good faith, believe it is inappropriate to support Israel, are great writers, but not so great in rallying their fellow Americans to stand behind their hatred of the Jewish State at times like this.
January 11, 2009 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just to be clear, I know that folks like, for example, bluebell, oppose our support for Israel because of her good faith belief that it's not our business. She might not approve of Israel's conduct at the moment, but I respect bluebell's generic aversion to America's role in supporting Israel and generally getting involved in the affairs of other nations.
January 11, 2009 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Bruce, I couldn't keep Obama from supporting FISA and the bailout and continual funding of the war in Iraq (and the coming escalation in Afghanistan). And that's supposedly my side of the aisle. Of course I'm ineffectual in getting the American public to see my way in anything - I'm a self-proclaimed progressive Democrat. Meaning I'm 3/4 of the way to irrelevance.
January 11, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you give Obama a chance in the White House -- you know, at least a day -- before writing off the whole process?
You've been bellyaching about him ever since the primaries. Your candidate (Hillary) is strongly pro-Israeli -- still is. If she had won, do you think the response would have been any different?
The country will always tend to be in the center where the monied interests lie. Sometimes a little more to the left, sometimes a little more to the right. But if you are hoping that someday we will end up like Sweden, you've doomed yourself to a lifetime of disappointment. The majority simply don't want that.
January 11, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for interpreting the will of the majority for me. So the majority wanted a surge in Afghanistan? Retroactive immunity? A continuation of defense in the name of Robert Gates? An anti-gay preacher speaking at the inauguration? A $700 billion bailout with no strings or records attached? More tax cuts for the wealthy as our way out of the abyss?
Obama has gotten much much worse since I first started "bellyaching" (education choice? intelligence choices? (except Panetta) surgeon general?), and yes, I'm quite able to bitch about Hillary, but she at least voted against FISA and tried to push in homeowner assistance in the bailout.
One of the mantras of the Bush years was "Gore would have been worse". Didn't agree then, don't agree now. Time for Obama to prove himself, and his staff choices are already part of the process. If he can swallow thread and shit out gold, well I'll be happily surprised. Anyway, 9 days to go so I don't have to hear the "he's not in office yet" wine.
January 11, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to call you to the carpet. To use the image of Tom Joad without recognizing the obvious plight of the displaced is ironic.
Pro-Israel sentiments need their proper context. To support a nation's existence should not lead to military co-dependency and apartheid.
Additionally, why the straw men? Who here has blamed the Jews for US military support of Israel? The fact is that there are several factors behind support of Israel:
Narrative: The US media plays into ethnic and religious bigotry through definitively linking terrorism to Islam. There is no larger discussion of terrorism, especially state terrorism.
Evangelical: A sizeable portion of the US supports Israel because of end-times fetishism.
Diplomatic: Israel is seen as our sole ally in a hostile region. To speak against them is akin to betraying a best friend.
Financial: The military/industrial complex has a deep and abiding business interest in the region. This same complex has tentacles in every Comgressional district. This creates a political bottleneck that sustains hawkish rhetoric and actions.
There are other interests, but none of them are because good lefty writers make bad activists. That is facile. You should know that the Pentagon has long since taken over our political and media apparatus. You should also know that much of our support for Israel is hardly benign... And in fact makes the situation worse.
So come off it.
January 11, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
"To use the image of Tom Joad without recognizing the obvious plight of the displaced is ironic".
Right. My friend, I have hundreds of posts at the TPM Cafe, and dozens on the current crisis in the Gaza Strip. My name is Bruce S. Levine, from New York, New York. If you want to judge me for this or that post that's up to you. I've been used as a prop for the self-serving anonymous self-righteous poster before and it bothers me not. Cheers.
Bruce S. Levine
New York, New York
January 11, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
And, furthermore, don't mess with my avatar. For the record, I didn't choose it; my brothers and sisters at the Cafe chose it for me in a contest I hosted for charity. So phooey on you.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/avatar-time.php
January 11, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not a know-it-all leftist. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
January 11, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Phooey on you"? Hah, just goes to show you, the 21st-century Teamster is not your father's Teamster. :-) Carry on.
January 11, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop making fun of me. :) I hate getting involved with this kind of stuff and I'm trying to catch my breath. Unlike work, this forum doesn't allow you to write things and put them away to calm down for a rereading before transmittal. I got up this morning, posted some stuff and perhaps I should've reflected a bit, and now I'm in this shooting match. Hopefully, this is another case of two people talking past each other.
For the record, I was at temple this morning and we had an amazingly spirited, and even kind of a loud debate over bagels and lox after services. In that forum I am on the "side" that is challenging Israel. Alas, where is home? Kansas, or I guess, since I'm Joad, perhaps Oklahoma or somewhere between there and Sacremento?
So be it. I haven't had the chance to comment on your blog on the Times' report, but will try to do later. Fascinating and scary stuff, and I'm glad you posted on it.
January 11, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not anonymous. There is a very clear trail of crumbs that leads to a valid identity.
Your reponse is to take refuge in identity. How silly. You also have scolded lefties while burnishing your credentials. You think isolationism is a valid concern while others are anti-semitic. In other words, you muddied the waters. Additionally, you insult me and doff your cap.
Self-righteous or not, I think I have valid points, as opposed to your straw men.
My name is Eric McClure. I live in San Diego. Who I am and who you are have little bearing on truth. And the truth is that in this discussion you have engaged in specious attacks, regardless of your overall credentials.
January 11, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if that's the best you can do, then so be it. I stand by my dozens of carefully crafted comments on the crisis in Gaza, in which I have been critical of Israel for its specific conduct, candid in confessing an ambivalence on what is right or wrong in this instance, and baffled by those who say that Israel has the right to defend itself, but. . .
I did not bring up anti-semitism; it was brought up and a statement was made, to which I replied. As so many before you, you posit in lockstep that it is taboo to respond to the cookie-cutter assessment that there is no such thing as anti-semitism now that Hitler is dead. I don't play by those rules, but still, contrary to your assertion, I did not attack anybody except you for attacking me. I attacked an idea that I thought was ridiculous even though it is included on the standard lefty greatest hits album on how the world must be viewed. Enjoy the music.
January 11, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eloquent, Bruce.
So much racial tribalism is ingrained our our culture that often people -- people who are even more enligthened than the norm -- don't recognize it. This is not, of course, limited to how the majority looks at the Jews... but also the Blacks... the Natives... etc.
January 11, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eloquent? Thanks CT, but I hardly think so. I've enjoyed reading the colloquy between you and Des, however. It's just like ole' times!
January 11, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I seriously doubt that your complaint is apt. Tom Joad was worried about the displaced AND the downtrodden.
He was also a fictional character. His creator referred to Israel as, “an incredible texture of human endurance and the tough inflexibility of human will power.”
Food for thought.
January 11, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stenbeck said that? Interesting. Thanks for that chicken; I will ponder it.
January 11, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
More interesting is East of Eden where the main character debates God's commandment to Cain to depart from Eden and the debate over Timshel and man's rule over sin - going between "shalt" and "do" (order) and finally settling after some meditation on the interpretation "thou mayest rule over sin".
Perhaps the instruction to find the right way and the right choice within rather than without applies here as well.
January 11, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Must you always be more interesting?
January 11, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Soothing bwakfat's feathers....
January 11, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, perhaps chicken scratch to your food for thought.
January 11, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that Israel has done itself no favors in becoming a client state of the US. Military aid promotes military government. Israel is a militant religious state with a conscript army. All solutions tend towards militance. This excludes diplomacy and reason.
You have a nation that receives billions in annual military aid. This nation is free from international rebuke because the US has UN veto. Add a history of targeted repression and genocide against their race and you have a recipe for fiasco.
The core problem is not whether or not Israel has a right to exist... The question is how Israel should exist. I don't believe it is ethically justifiable to exist through violence and intimidation of its neighbor. I don't believe it is justifiable to sustain a program of apartheid that relegates another race to second class ghettoes. It is not justifiable to starve children. And it is abhorrent to blame the victim for your atrocities. The fact that children are being sacrificed should awake all the sons and daughters of Abraham that something is fatally wrong.
Our military entanglements in the region must be replaced by diplomacy based on international human rights.
January 11, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
To add:
Sons and daughters includes those from Ishmael as well as those from Isaac.
January 11, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like your inclusion of all sons and daughters of Isaac. That makes it clear that the Israelis and the Palestinians are brothers and sisters. Indeed, I believe that there is no way to tell via DNA analysis.
I so agree with your repudiation of violence and intimidation. A stronger party always has more moral responsibility vis a vis a weaker party. People are gonna jump in and disagree with this but it goes all the way down the line from people in authority over others (like parents toward children) to nations which have total authority over a population, such as in Gaza. With authority comes great responsibility.
I feel for all the people involved in this conflict. As bslev says above, if you are not torn and conflicted in situations like this, there's something lacking in your humanity.
I myself would call for the cessation of arms sales - to both sides. We've got to stop arming people!
January 11, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can't say I agree with you, TheraP. It's not authority, it's tribalism.
Humans are organized about tribes. Just take a look at the "factions" that have formed on the TPM boards -- and that is in cyberspace!
A short surveying of European history shows similar tribalism, over both ethnic and religious ideology.
I suggest this Star Trek clip gets at the issue most clearly -- literally in black and white.
It appears to me that if we can't show a mastery of our own selves on something as unimportant as an Internet forum, it's ridiculous to expect different behavior from others where the stakes are higher and the history is longer.
January 11, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not forget that Christians come from Jews and are also sons and daughters of Abraham.
Of course, these sons and daughters slaughter themselves over religious wars as well: Catholic v Protestant. To an outsider they are about as different as Sunni and Shiite are to most of us.
January 11, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Germans and Italians and Russians and Filipinos are Semitic? Who woulda guessed?
January 11, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget the Asian Christians. And Christians from India go back nearly to right after the time of Christ!
Semites all, I guess!
January 11, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Hong Xiuquan is especially interesting even if not so old.
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Chinese-Son-Taiping-Heavenly/dp/0393315568
January 11, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
We've nearly covered all bases now! Kudos!
January 11, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amusing how the exact same posters who constantly talk about universality and DNA differences can't grasp the big picture... and show hostility to boot.
Again: if someone on an Internet connection can get that type of emotional reaction from you, then you need to consider your calls of "peace" to those half-way across the world in the proper context.
Want to know why those people can't master themselves? It's the same reason you have problems mastering yourself.
January 11, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who was talking about DNA and universality?
January 11, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/brbuchwal/2009/01/powerful-pro-israel-sentiments.php#comment-3337149
January 11, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ironically, you consider all Jews Semites, when, in fact, there is a strong European mixture in there as well associated with the Diaspora.
Indeed, most of those Jews immigrating to Transjordan were of European descent. Nonetheless, you can continue to call them Semites if you wish.
January 11, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quick, send a note to Haaretz: "Israel flooded with faux Semites, West Bank new homeland for disgruntled white Europeans". In which case Ibiza might have been the safer choice, can skip that poser Bar Mitzvah stuff and just head to the bar. (Have to come up with a bad pun for the Bat Mitzvah).
January 11, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Third, Israel does owe us -- and that's the reason why they didn't attack Iran when we wouldn't back the effort (see the NY Times today)"
Ummm... had nothing to do with our refusal to sell them the bunker-busting bombs they required?
January 11, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it did. That's one way of getting our message across.
January 11, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
So did they decline to bomb Iran because they 'owed us' as was your original statement, or because they didn't have the materiel provided to them?
January 11, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both. Before any major military action in the Mid East, Israel is well aware they better have the US's tacit approval.
January 11, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that Ben is saying that Israel is our strongest ally in the Mideast, not that it's our strongest ally anywhere.
January 13, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink