Anti-Israeli hypocrisy
Crossposted from jesselava.com.
The other day I had a post entitled "Israel's hypocrisy" that took the Israeli government to task for assuming the right to play by different rules than everyone else. That remains my stance.
But there's more than one hypocritical government in the Middle East. So, too, are those that have been assailing Israel for expelling Palestinians from their homes decades ago even though 800,000 Jews throughout the Middle East suffered the same fate in the 20th century. An op-ed in today's New York Times calls this phenomenon the exodus that Obama forgot to mention. It's an important reminder that there's no single good side and no single bad side in the ongoing conflict between Israel and, indeed, the rest of the Middle East.
The ability of both sides to blame each other is partly what makes the conflict so intractable. But perhaps it might also make resolution possible. For if each side recognizes that it bears culpability for the oppression and bigotry and bile of the last 60 years, the seeds of peace might have a chance to grow.
Update: In retrospect this post may come across as a bit banal, or even saccharine, given my final point that "both sides need to blah blah blah." However, in the public debate on this particular issue, there don't seem to be that many folks that bother to call bullshit on both Israel and its Arab antagonists, however obvious it should be that neither camp has much intellectual consistency to boast of. President Obama, however, is doing that, in a way that no previous American president has -- while also insisting on empathy. It remains to be seen whether he'll have the stomach to maintain this posture, but so far, he should be commended for it.
The other day I had a post entitled "Israel's hypocrisy" that took the Israeli government to task for assuming the right to play by different rules than everyone else. That remains my stance.
But there's more than one hypocritical government in the Middle East. So, too, are those that have been assailing Israel for expelling Palestinians from their homes decades ago even though 800,000 Jews throughout the Middle East suffered the same fate in the 20th century. An op-ed in today's New York Times calls this phenomenon the exodus that Obama forgot to mention. It's an important reminder that there's no single good side and no single bad side in the ongoing conflict between Israel and, indeed, the rest of the Middle East.
The ability of both sides to blame each other is partly what makes the conflict so intractable. But perhaps it might also make resolution possible. For if each side recognizes that it bears culpability for the oppression and bigotry and bile of the last 60 years, the seeds of peace might have a chance to grow.
Update: In retrospect this post may come across as a bit banal, or even saccharine, given my final point that "both sides need to blah blah blah." However, in the public debate on this particular issue, there don't seem to be that many folks that bother to call bullshit on both Israel and its Arab antagonists, however obvious it should be that neither camp has much intellectual consistency to boast of. President Obama, however, is doing that, in a way that no previous American president has -- while also insisting on empathy. It remains to be seen whether he'll have the stomach to maintain this posture, but so far, he should be commended for it.
Advertisement
It is, indeed a mess, and in no way cut and dried one way or the other. I wish the administration well as it attempts to navigate through the mine field.
Missed you this weekend on my post...Check it out if you get a chance.
June 9, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
While it is good to keep the historical background in mind, it should of course be kept in the background. There was no nation-state of Israel in times of yore. The Holocaust is not justification for conduct today even if one holds it as justification for the formation of Israel as a nation.
So how does playing the immoral equivalency game of pointing out alleged hypocrisies help move us forward?
I think Obama could have pulled off a one sentence gentle criticism of his hosts in his speech, in a forward looking manner. Some might say he was building bridges so that it was not the time or place to raise the issue your link discusses. Does one insult the host when visiting?
June 9, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, I did not comment on whether Obama should have brought up this point in his speech. I simply pointed it out.
As for how noting hypocrisies could help move us forward, I made an argument about that in the last two sentences of the post (pre-update).
June 9, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does one insult the host when visiting?
Pointing out hypocrisies is not the same as getting the hypocrites to admit them!!
Do you have an opinion re Obama and this "point" you mention?
June 9, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does one insult the host when visiting? This ain't tea and crumpets in the countryside; this is geopolitics. The question is what impact such remarks would be likely to have. To be honest I don't have much of an opinion one way or the other about whether Obama should have made this particular point in his Cairo speech.
June 9, 2009 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
eds,
I don't know about "yore," but once upon a time there most certainly were kingdoms of Israel and Judea.
June 10, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
obama also didnt mention the war crimes israel committed against the people in gaza.
i am all for bringing everything to light.
where is the nyt front page story about that?
why does the media block out the death and suffering in gaza?
lets see it all and my guess the debate will be far different then who is always the poor victim .
the whole thing is a joke to anyone who cares and is aware of what actually goes on in the middle east.
June 9, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
He did say the Palestinians were living in a state of humiliation, and Gaza was a cage. And he said the occupation could not stand. The point seemed to get across.
June 9, 2009 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
In 1944 and '45 the Russians treated the Germans about as badly as human beings can treat others. Forget to mention 1941 and 1942 when the German treatment of the Russians was even worse, and the Russians look like animals. Remember and the Russians like to be imbued with the righteous wrath of God.
See whether you can understand what I'm talking about without further explanation. I don't think so. You're about as dumb as they come.
June 9, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uncalled for. Get rid of the personal attacks. And quit playing games to see whether someone can read your mind as to what your subsequent sentences would be. Make your points clearly and without guile or bile.
June 10, 2009 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I made my point clearly; history matters. Any clear-headed person can understand it. But how do you reach the others?
June 10, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of history, I'll bet there aren't two liberals on the planet who know anything about this, and none who can accept it at face value.
They'd all have to say "Yes, but..." and then start screaming, like JadeZ, about how awful the Jews are.
So modern liberalism, I'm afraid, is a mental illness, and should be so treated by the helping professions. They could all it "Rosenberg syndrome" and fill tomes with its symptoms, causes, and preferred treatments. Why not? The "helping" professions are mostly bullshit anyway, and this would provide much needed work in a difficult time.
June 10, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not sure what your point is, but as one who lines up solidly liberal I'll bite.
I don't need to argue that the settlement project is a violation of international law, or is otherwise antithetical to human rights. I argue that it was and remains impractical, if not just plain stupid, to make national policy of a real estate venture on lands that no national leadership has yet shown any intention of annexing.
The settlement policy taken to its logical conclusion now leaves the current generation of Israelis with the ugly choice of removing much if not all of the non-Jewish communities of the territories, either by physical expulsion or political disenfranchisement, or absorbing them into the Israeli electorate with the risk of their voting Jewish national self-determination in Israel out of existence. Zionism has always made much more sense as a political movement than a messianic religious cult.
June 10, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am of ths opinion that both sides like the status quo. Israel serves as a rallying cry for extremists. Extreme Likudniks justify apartheid due to the threat of terror. Arab states use Israel to distract their populations from the very real problems in their own back yards. For terrorists, Israel is a recruiting tool. For the DOD, Israel is the largest purchaser of armaments.
Who suffers? Israelis and Palestinians who exist under discrimination and existential violence.
Obama has to thread the needle and ride the tiger. The needle
Is peace via a faulty 2 state solution. The tiger is the defense contractors and OPEC nations that prefer the current state of affairs. My doubts are only exceeded by my hopes.
June 10, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I agree completely. It is in the interests of elites on both sides of the rhetorical war to maintain the status quo. But as you mention, we have to exclude the actual people of Israel and Palestine to be able to use the term "both sides" there.
June 10, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The expulsion of Jews from the M.E. didn't start until the European fanatics started bombing Palestinians and British troops, before the Holocaust.
June 10, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink