Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   The Unmaking of Israel (Robert Wright & Gershom Gorenberg) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=7158)

Bloggingheads 11-07-2011 10:56 PM

The Unmaking of Israel (Robert Wright & Gershom Gorenberg)
 

Wonderment 11-08-2011 01:08 AM

Zionism...
 
...is a 19th century philosophy that came to fruition in the 20th century and that will collapse of its own internal contradictions in the 21st.

The "long view" is not what Gershom suggests in his optimism about a 2-state resolution. The long view favors a 1-state solution. In a decade or two the "fantasy land" will be 2-state, not 1-state. Netanyahu is an anachronism, and so is Abu-Mazen. Oh, and so is Gershom. The next generation of Israeli and Palestinians will create a nonviolent secular post-Zionist state of all its citizens from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.

Parallax 11-08-2011 05:25 AM

inconsistency?
 
I have not watched the video yet but the two snippets below the video really caught my eye:

Gershom: The one-state solution is “fantasy land” (04:36)
Gershom: Israelis and Palestinians will sink or swim together (06:08)

In my opinion the two state solution is dead, and even those who still argue for it admit that with each passing day it gets less likely. A single secular nation is inevitable as sooner or later almost all Palestinians will demand citizenship rights instead of a new state.

Florian 11-08-2011 08:18 AM

Re: Embarrassing Leak
 
There was a report in the French press today that a conversation between Obama and Sarkozy about Netanyahu was overheard, through some technical fluke, by journalists:

Sarkozy: I can't stand him. He's a liar.

Obama: You're fed up with him, I have to deal with him every day.

But Obama apparently also chided Sarko for supporting the Palestinian bid in the UN.

Graybeard 11-08-2011 09:41 AM

Re: Zionism...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 230688)
The next generation of Israeli and Palestinians will create a nonviolent secular post-Zionist state of all its citizens from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.

I wish I could believe that.

apple 11-08-2011 09:53 AM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Parallax (Post 230690)
In my opinion the two state solution is dead

Fine, then Arabs don't get anything. Perhaps paying the Arabs to leave for Jordan would be the best solution.

With respect to the price taggers: hang whoever is involved in criminal activity related to price tagging, because it's terrorism. In the short term, it might increase retaliation against the Arabs, eventually, they'll get the message. I can't get worked up over the torching of a mosque, since it's a useless building to begin with, but some of the price taggers are actually targeting the means by which Arabs make a living, which is unacceptable. Hang them and compensate the Arabs.

apple 11-08-2011 09:54 AM

Re: Embarrassing Leak
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 230694)
There was a report in the French press today that a conversation between Obama and Sarkozy about Netanyahu was overheard, through some technical fluke, by journalists:

Sarkozy: I can't stand him. He's a liar.

Obama: You're fed up with him, I have to deal with him every day.

But Obama apparently also chided Sarko for supporting the Palestinian bid in the UN.

This will help Sarkozy and hurt Obama, because most French people sympathize with the Arabs to begin with.

Funny that the 'left-winger' Obama chided the 'right-winger' Sarkozy for supporting (yet) an(other) Arab state.

opposable_crumbs 11-08-2011 10:28 AM

Re: Zionism...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 230688)
...is a 19th century philosophy that came to fruition in the 20th century and that will collapse of its own internal contradictions in the 21st.

The "long view" is not what Gershom suggests in his optimism about a 2-state resolution. The long view favors a 1-state solution. In a decade or two the "fantasy land" will be 2-state, not 1-state. Netanyahu is an anachronism, and so is Abu-Mazen. Oh, and so is Gershom. The next generation of Israeli and Palestinians will create a nonviolent secular post-Zionist state of all its citizens from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.

Young Israelis seem to be more nationalist and isolationist, in stark contrast to the global movements which are very visible at the moment. They look increasingly Westwards to the US. A secular but isolated nation, with a history of putting down the natives, and a secular society which contains a high profile liberal Jewish identity, one which is largely celebrated rather than harassed by conservatives, not always the case in Israel.


There was an excellent piece in the Daily Beast which interviewed Moshe Dayan's widow. Were she 35 rather than 95, she would have been called naive or even a traitor.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...ts-course.html

opposable_crumbs 11-08-2011 10:35 AM

Re: inconsistency?
 
There is a certain inescapable irony in the word settlement.

Many Israelis hate them, but feel compelled to defend them. I think a popular movement directed at an internal boycott of the settlements is the best anyone can hope for, but that is a messy affair in itself.

The seperation wall and the settlements in East Jerusalem clearly show what Israel wants. What's left they will offer the natives, and expect to be thanked too.

Florian 11-08-2011 11:43 AM

Re: Embarrassing Leak
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by apple (Post 230697)
This will help Sarkozy and hurt Obama, because most French people sympathize with the Arabs to begin with.

Funny that the 'left-winger' Obama chided the 'right-winger' Sarkozy for supporting (yet) an(other) Arab state.

I don't know about the French people, but 110 députés from both the majority and the opposition wrote a letter of protest to Sarkozy asking him not to recognize the Palestinians' right to representation in the UN.

Sarkozy, in any case, only asked the UN to allow the Palestinians to have "observer" status.

Raghav 11-08-2011 12:28 PM

Re: The Unmaking of Israel (Robert Wright & Gershom Gorenberg)
 
Bloggingheads is usually pretty good at providing balance, but have we had anyone from the center of the Israeli political spectrum since Shmuel Rosner? The other Israeli commentators are pretty good, but almost all of them -- Gershom, Daniel Levy, Eric Yellin, Dimi Reider, Bernard Avishai -- are firmly on the left. I'm not asking for a right-winger for "balance" (most of the Palestinian contributors aren't hard-liners either); I'm just saying that we're not getting the mainstream Israeli position defended by someone sympathetic to it.

Here's my suggestion: Yaacov Lozowick. I don't know if he'd be willing to do one, but he prides himself on reflecting the "sensible center" of Israeli politics. I think he'd provide a point of view most non-Hebrew-speaking Americans aren't exposed to as often as they should be.

Sorry for going meta. I'll try to think of something sensible to say about this diavlog.

stephanie 11-08-2011 12:38 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Parallax (Post 230690)
A single secular nation is inevitable as sooner or later almost all Palestinians will demand citizenship rights instead of a new state.

On what is this based? Simply faith that in the future no one will care about nationalist concerns and (a different issue) that secularism will win out?

miceelf 11-08-2011 12:57 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 230704)
On what is this based? Simply faith that in the future no one will care about nationalist concerns and (a different issue) that secularism will win out?

Because human beings will always choose the most humane and rational approach, particularly in dealing with other groups where there is a long-standing history of mutual grievances and violence.

BornAgainDemocrat 11-08-2011 01:17 PM

The Role of the Orthodox Rabbis
 
As far back as Gush Emunim it has been clear that so-called "Orthodox" interpretations of Jewish law have been fundamental in justifying these kinds of outrages in connection with the occupied territories. Yet, the secular left, of which the Israeli intelligentsia is largely composed, never challenges them on the basis of the texts. Strange irony that: intellectuals refusing to argue about the meaning of some texts!

Back during the Zionism is Racism controversy at the UN I actually converted to Judaism (reform) after reading up on the history of that faith and of the Zionist movement. "Convert" might not be quite the right word: I went down to the local synagogue and announced that I was "already a Jew." That didn't go over too well at first but I was so persistent and outspoken that my Rabbi, Abraham Feinstein, finally announced in public that indeed I was a Jew. I guess I had Chutzpah.

Anyway, I wrote up my review of the Pentateuch and the Talmud, including all the responsa literature pertaining to the issue prior to 1948, in an article entitled, "The Torah and the West Bank." My readings were strictly literal in the most absolute sense, and the logical conclusions I was forced to arrive at might surprise you.

I wish I could put this essay online but I don't know how. Interested readers (among whom I hope Gershen Gorenberg will be included) will find it in the 1987 summer issue of the journal Judaism, published by The Jewish Congress (if memory serves).

Ray in Seattle 11-08-2011 01:31 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
A bit puzzled, Bob asks at about 26:00 "What would it take to untangle the mess?". Has the liberal side of the discussion really become this absurd? Bob, it's a war. One side wants to destroy the other that is slowly losing the ability to defend itself. The rest is political theater.

opposable_crumbs 11-08-2011 02:02 PM

Re: The Role of the Orthodox Rabbis
 
It's been my understanding that the creation of Israel in 48 was opposed by the majority of Rabbis on theological grounds, while a few tossed in political objections too.

But I was surprised to hear that this view was common even after 48 and persisted for around 20 years according to one Jewish guy I spoke to. How the orthodox/ultraorthodox seeming combine this rejection of nationalism while underpinning occupation is beyond me.

opposable_crumbs 11-08-2011 02:05 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 230707)
A bit puzzled, Bob asks at about 26:00 "What would it take to untangle the mess?". Has the liberal side of the discussion really become this absurd? Bob, it's a war. One side wants to destroy the other that is slowly losing the ability to defend itself. The rest is political theater.

When have the Palestinians ever had the ability to defend themselves?

Ray in Seattle 11-08-2011 02:11 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 230709)
When have the Palestinians ever had the ability to defend themselves?

I think you forgot the sarcasm thingy ;-)

stephanie 11-08-2011 02:13 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 230707)
A bit puzzled, Bob asks at about 26:00 "What would it take to untangle the mess?".

Bob was referring to Gershom's view that a 2-state solution is possible by asking how that could be given the existence and growth of the settlements in the territory that would be part of the Palestinian state and the lack of political will to either stop the growth now or, presumably, to abandon the settlements or force them to move.

I don't think Bob was puzzled, I think he was making an argument or expressing his reasons for thinking that Gershom was being too optimistic or unrealistic in thinking 2-state remains a viable option. (I agree with Gershom, pretty much on everything covered in the diavlog, but I didn't think Bob's view was hard to understand or unreasonable at all.)

Quote:

Has the liberal side of the discussion really become this absurd?
What is the liberal side to which you are referring? Both Bob and Gershom would seem to me to be on the liberal side.

Quote:

Bob, it's a war.
I don't see this as responsive to the discussion. Can you be more specific?

Quote:

One side wants to destroy the other that is slowly losing the ability to defend itself. The rest is political theater.
Which side is which and, again, what does this have to do with the specific discussion that Gershom and Bob were engaged in, in particular at 26:00?

stephanie 11-08-2011 02:16 PM

Re: The Role of the Orthodox Rabbis
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 230708)
It's been my understanding that the creation of Israel in 48 was opposed by the majority of Rabbis on theological grounds, while a few tossed in political objections too.

But I was surprised to hear that this view was common even after 48 and persisted for around 20 years according to one Jewish guy I spoke to. How the orthodox/ultraorthodox seeming combine this rejection of nationalism while underpinning occupation is beyond me.

I don't think it's about a rejection of nationalism. My understanding is that orthodox rabbis weren't zionists because God was supposed to bring about the reinstitution of Israel. But that ultra orthodox types may have eventually come to view the situation differently given the change in events doesn't seem all that strange. 2 Jews, 3 opinions and all that.

stephanie 11-08-2011 02:22 PM

Re: The Role of the Orthodox Rabbis
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat (Post 230706)
"Convert" might not be quite the right word: I went down to the local synagogue and announced that I was "already a Jew." That didn't go over too well at first but I was so persistent and outspoken that my Rabbi, Abraham Feinstein, finally announced in public that indeed I was a Jew. I guess I had Chutzpah.

If you haven't, you (and anyone else) should really read The Gilgul of Park Avenue by Nathan Englander. It turns out to be available online, as it was published by the Atlantic. It's also in the collection For the Relief of Unbearable Urges.

Ray in Seattle 11-08-2011 03:05 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 230712)
Bob was referring to Gershom's view that a 2-state solution is possible by asking how that could be given the existence and growth of the settlements in the territory that would be part of the Palestinian state and the lack of political will to either stop the growth now or, presumably, to abandon the settlements or force them to move.

I was making a sideways comment for effect. (That will teach me ;-) I was trying to make the point that everything that liberals discuss about the war are parts of the narrative that the Palestinians promote to gain support in world opinion against the "evil Zionists". It's political theater that ignores the reality - there are people dying unnecessarily in a (usually) slow war of aggression by the Arabs against the Jews of Israel. It's been going on since 1947 and it has never stopped nor have its goals changed.

Liberals prefer to accept the pleasant narrative (rather than the slow and vicious Arab war of aggression) as the reality. They believe that peace is just then a matter of giving the Arabs the incremental victories they demand along the way - and expecting Israel to get over it. They have deep discussions dissecting every nuance of the "injustice" of having colonial settlements on "one's land", for example. This began when the N. Vietnamese counselled Arafat to frame the conflict as one of Western Colonialism against poor indigenous Arabs - rather than the frame of honor bound Arabs ridding the ME of the sons of pigs and dogs by genocide or ethnic cleansing - which understandably was meeting with some negativity in the West. (That also answers opposable_crumbs question as to when the Palestinians gained the ability to defend themselves.)

And they do that even though the Arabs have always said in Arabic (and now openly in English in many cases) that,

1) they would never accept one Jew living in their new state that the liberals would give them,

2) that they would never give up their "right of return" to Israel even when they had their own state,

3) that they would not allow their Palestinian refugees citizenship in their new state

4) and finally that accepting a state of their own would only be a rest stop along the path of ridding the ME of Jews.

Believe it or not I've always considered myself a liberal. And so I've always believed that people who try to get their way by starting multiple wars of aggression and intentionally killing civilians whenever they have the chance should be strongly opposed militarily (Article 51 of the UN Charter) by all peace-loving people (like me I believe) rather than "understood". I could even relax those views if there was some extenuating circumstances, some moral justification for their "resistance". Like if their "oppressors" actually tried to conquer them by wars of aggression to take their land at some time in the past. But that never happened, did it?

Raghav 11-08-2011 03:06 PM

Re: The Role of the Orthodox Rabbis
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 230708)
It's been my understanding that the creation of Israel in 48 was opposed by the majority of Rabbis on theological grounds, while a few tossed in political objections too.

But I was surprised to hear that this view was common even after 48 and persisted for around 20 years according to one Jewish guy I spoke to. How the orthodox/ultraorthodox seeming combine this rejection of nationalism while underpinning occupation is beyond me.

This point of view didn't disappear 20 years ago: it's still pretty common in large parts of the haredi sector. The nature of the anti-Zionism varies, from Neturei Karta people who meet with Ahmadinejad, to Hasidic groups like Satmar and Toldos Aharon (whose anti-Zionism is mainly restricted to rhetoric and refusing money from the government), to Litvaks like Rav Shach, who opposed secular Zionism and settlements in the territories while still participating in Israeli politics. (Many of his followers, who live in the West Bank for economic, not ideological reasons, engage in complicated mental gymnastics to justify their own settlements. But they're good at mental gymnastics.)

The Haredi point of view isn't surprising, given the secular, leftist, and often stridently anti-religious views of the Israeli establishment in 1948. In addition, the haredim in Europe were an amazingly quietistic society into the 20th century. (Even during World War II, almost all Jewish resistance came from secular Jews.) Zionism was seen as a provocation to the nations.

Sulla the Dictator 11-08-2011 03:09 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 230705)
Because human beings will always choose the most humane and rational approach, particularly in dealing with other groups where there is a long-standing history of mutual grievances and violence.

And history shows this is a mistake. To disarm in the face of a hostile enemy, whose leadership cannot control its militants, is suicidal.

The only foundation for lasting peace is strength.

opposable_crumbs 11-08-2011 03:09 PM

Re: The Role of the Orthodox Rabbis
 
The Ultra-Othrodox still have an uneasy relationship with Zionism. The first of them joined the World Zionist Organization only last year and many still seek exemptions from serving in the IDF. I think it's access to the Western Wall and potential access to the sites beyond the Green line which is driving them Eastwards, while harbouring no affection for the State itself. It is a region made of such marriages. Hopefully someone more informed can set me straight on this.

miceelf 11-08-2011 03:14 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 230717)
And history shows this is a mistake.

Perhaps you missed the sarcasm. I was speaking tongue in cheek. It's really hard to convey irony on the internet.

Sulla the Dictator 11-08-2011 03:15 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 230719)
Perhaps you missed the sarcasm. I was speaking tongue in cheek. It's really hard to convey irony on the internet.

In that case; LOL. :)

opposable_crumbs 11-08-2011 03:17 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 230715)
I was making a sideways comment for effect. (That will teach my to try being clever :-)

Don't stop trying. I'm hoping that the rest of the post was sarcasm.

Ray in Seattle 11-08-2011 03:22 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 230722)
Don't stop trying. I'm hoping that the rest of the post was sarcasm.

That's appreciated ;-) Please don't think I'm calling anyone immoral or stupid who disagrees with me. I just find the different conclusions that intelligent well-meaning people can come to when faced with the same evidence - as holding powerful clues about how brains work.

Wonderment 11-08-2011 03:31 PM

Re: Zionism...
 
Quote:

Young Israelis seem to be more nationalist and isolationist, in stark contrast to the global movements which are very visible at the moment. They look increasingly Westwards to the US
.

Don't forget 20% (and growing) of young Israelis are Palestinians. Israel needs more integration and intermarriage. As two-state continues to fail and fail and fail more, smart hopeful people will have nowhere to look but towards desegregation and full democratic rights for Palestinians in the WB and Gaza.

Quote:

There was an excellent piece in the Daily Beast which interviewed Moshe Dayan's widow. Were she 35 rather than 95, she would have been called naive or even a traitor.
Moshe Dayan's daughter was a prominent leftist Knesset member. I think her name is Yael. Israel is not lacking in liberal cosmopolitan Jews. The key problem is getting both Israeli Jews and Palestinians out of their bubbles and interacting to build peace together -- not at the Abu Mazen/Tzipi Livni level, but at the grassroots. The "Apartheid" wall is a perfect symbol of what needs to come tumbling down.

opposable_crumbs 11-08-2011 03:32 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
I put the differences down to political culture when Americans speak about Israel/Palestine conflict in the manner you did earlier. I think there is something in Liberals and Conservatives having different ways of thinking (Conservatives value loyalty, where Liberals value fairness etc) but in this instance, I really don't think Americans get to see or even explore the reality. The conversation has strict limits, so to say that Israel was a colonial project or Zionists used terrorism is out of bounds, despite what evidence one may bring. Even exploring things like the 67 war are an almighty slog, never mind 48 and earlier.

Wonderment 11-08-2011 03:32 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

A single secular nation is inevitable as sooner or later almost all Palestinians will demand citizenship rights instead of a new state.
The sooner the better.

Raghav 11-08-2011 03:35 PM

Re: The Unmaking of Israel (Robert Wright & Gershom Gorenberg)
 
I'm struck by the fact that Robert apparently finds it hard to imagine what would be "Jewish" about an Israel with separation of religion and state. Would he find it hard to see what's "Korean" about North and South Korea, or what would be "Scottish" about Scotland if the SNP got its way? Or, for that matter, what would be "Palestinian" about a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza? The secular Israeli politician Tommy Lapid once ranted that as a Hebrew speaker who lived in the Land of Israel, he was the most Jewish Jew who had lived in the last two thousand years, certainly more Jewish than a Yiddish-speaking Satmar Jew who lived in Brooklyn.

As Freud wrote in the preface to the Hebrew edition of Totem and Taboo:
Quote:

No reader of this book will find it easy to put himself in the emotional position of an author who is ignorant of the language of holy writ, who is; completely estranged from the religion of his fathers—as well as from every other religion—and who cannot take a share in nationalist ideas, but who has yet never repudiated his people who feels that he is in his essential nature a Jew, and who has no desire to alter that nature. If the question were put to him: “Since you have abandoned all these common characteristics of your countrymen, what is there left to you that is Jewish?” he would reply: “A very great deal, and probably its very essence.”

stephanie 11-08-2011 03:41 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 230715)
I was making a sideways comment for effect.

You cited a specific comment, so I think it was reasonable of me to assume what you were saying related to that specific comment, the context, and the diavlog. It seems as if you are now saying it didn't.

Quote:

I was trying to make the point that everything that liberals discuss about the war are parts of the narrative that the Palestinians promote to gain support in world opinion against the "evil Zionists".
That makes no sense. We had a discussion between two liberals, neither of whom I think fit your framework here. Moreover, one of them -- Gershom -- described himself as a liberal Zionist. While Gershom was speaking as an Israeli, I think it's obvious that being a liberal and a Zionist (if not a liberal Zionist in many cases) is extremely common in the US.

I also think it's weird to keep describing the discussion as about "the war" when there's no current war unless you are using the term in a loose way. There is a situation that is the outcome of past wars and lasting hostilities, including terrorism and an occupation due to the non-existence of an settlement of the land dispute.

Quote:

It's political theater...
The discussion of the possible ways to settle the land dispute/occupation is political theater?

Quote:

Liberals prefer to accept the pleasant narrative (rather than the slow and vicious Arab war of aggression) as the reality.
I don't think the situation as described by Gershom (the more optimistic one) or Bob is "pleasant." You seem to be ignoring the diavlog entirely for some odd strawman about "liberals."

Quote:

They believe that peace is just then a matter of giving the Arabs the incremental victories they demand along the way - and expecting Israel to get over it.
How does this relate to what was said in the diavlog? What "incremental victories" are people demanding that the Arabs get? You mean a Palestinian state (the 2 state solution that Gershom thinks is possible and which is the long term assumed resolution by the US, at least officially)? Or citizenship in Israel for Palestinians currently in the occupied territories (the 1-state solution, which -- for the record -- I do not see as realistic).

Quote:

They have deep discussions dissecting every nuance of the "injustice" of having colonial settlements on "one's land", for example.
Did you not listen to the diavlog? The discussion was about practicalities, not colonialism. There was no suggestion that Israel lacks a right to exist. The fact is that a situation currently exists that needs to be resolved. At least, that's Gershom's point and what Bob clearly believes, and I think Gershom in particular is probably right. Remember, whether you agree with him or not, his focus is on what's in the longterm best interest of Israel. Assuming that anyone who took the position he does is anti-Israel is obviously a strawman.

Wonderment 11-08-2011 03:43 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

What is the liberal side to which you are referring? Both Bob and Gershom would seem to me to be on the liberal side.
Why is Gershom on the liberal side? He supports an ethnic state for Jews at the expense of Palestinians.

He is a Jew born in the USA in freedom who graduated from UC Santa Cruz and then emigrated to Israel, taking free ethnic citizenship ahead of the hundreds of thousands (now millions) of dispossessed Palestinians. He served in the army that demolished homes (the original Price Tag operation), tortured, defended Settlements and rounded up activists. He has benefited his whole adult life from the Settlement regime. How is that liberal?

I like Gershom. He's a brilliant guy and an honest journalist. Making Aliyah to Israel is just something that's considered legitimate and virtuous among Diaspora Jews everywhere. It's drilled into our impressionable brains from an early age. But let's not pretend it's not a buy-in to the Occupation and the oppression of Palestinians.

stephanie 11-08-2011 03:44 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 230719)
Perhaps you missed the sarcasm. I was speaking tongue in cheek. It's really hard to convey irony on the internet.

I thought it was obvious, if that puts your mind at any more ease re your ability to communicate.

It is sometimes hard to convey tone, though, or to understand it properly in others.

miceelf 11-08-2011 04:01 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 230731)
I thought it was obvious, if that puts your mind at any more ease re your ability to communicate.

It is sometimes hard to convey tone, though, or to understand it properly in others.

Oh yeah?

Get bent!

;-)

Ray in Seattle 11-08-2011 04:03 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 230729)
I also think it's weird to keep describing the discussion as about "the war" when there's no current war unless you are using the term in a loose way. There is a situation that is the outcome of past wars and lasting hostilities, including terrorism and an occupation due to the non-existence of an settlement of the land dispute.

Yes, I guess firing thousands of rockets and mortars into a neighboring state, promising to kidnap (more of) its citizens and hold them for ransom and planting explosives on the Israeli side of the border is just a "situation" that needs to be "negotiated".

Quote:

The discussion of the possible ways to settle the land dispute/occupation is political theater?
Have you noticed that the "discussions" have been going on for decades. And during that time,

1) The Palestinians have never accepted or even seriously counter-offered any of several Israeli offers to settle even when those included a Palestinian state.

2) The Palestinians only engage in negotiations when enormous international pressure from several major nations allow no way out.

3) The Palestinians have never approached Israel on their own in any attempt to settle the conflict peacefully - nor have they ever said they wished to do that.

4) The Palestinians have consistently used the failure of the offers (by their rejection of them )to start new phases of heightened armed conflict against Israel.

5) They are further from a "settlement" than at most times up till now.

The reality is stark and obvious. How anyone can see the "discussions" as more than political theater is beyond me. The West just refuses to believe it's on Candid Camera.

stephanie 11-08-2011 04:11 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 230730)
Why is Gershom on the liberal side?

I think you know well why Gershom would be considered on the liberal side, but are trying to frame the issue so that supporting solutions other than your current preferred one are all not liberal. So it's worth pointing out that I reject the idea that a 2-state solution is non-liberal or that the only morally acceptable solution is the 1-state one. Among other things, I don't believe the desire of the various parties to have their own state is invalid or inherently representative of views so retrograde as to be irrelevant, and I am not as convinced as you that one-state is workable, anyway, let alone that we could assume that it would remain a secular constitutional democracy.

I also reject the idea that him immigrating to Israel or serving in the army is evidence against him being a liberal.

stephanie 11-08-2011 04:13 PM

Re: The Unmaking of Israel (Robert Wright & Gershom Gorenberg)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Raghav (Post 230728)
I'm struck by the fact that Robert apparently finds it hard to imagine what would be "Jewish" about an Israel with separation of religion and state.

I didn't actually think he found it hard to understand this. I thought he was just being a journalist and getting Gershom to flesh out and explain the position.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.