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)

Ray in Seattle 11-09-2011 04:39 PM

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

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 230884)
Now, clearly there is a small minority in the left here and a larger number in the left (and more generally spread in the rest of the population) in various other countries who do have views more like the ones you are referring to, but equating them with "liberalism" or the diavlog seems weird and yet another example of way that both extremes want to make the discussion untouchable somehow. To refuse to acknowledge that there might be views other than their own that are worth a hearing.

It's probably true that we each draw that line in different places. The important word in my premise is non-conscious. That means it directly affects one's behavior through its emotional potency but it may not exist as a conscious belief that one could reflect upon or might be required to defend logically to others.

And so people find pleasing intellectual narratives in the meme-space to justify their behavior - such as their conclusions about who are the good and the bad guys in the Arab / Israeli conflict. And they may not realize at all that the behavior they are justifying is caused by something else entirely. It all just seems like what we call "critical thinking".

I assume I am just as likely to engage in this self-deception as anyone else. And so I explain my views as clearly as I can and I invite others who disagree to give their best effort at showing me where I'm wrong - as I did with ledocs and opposable_crumbs earlier. I'm interested in your opinion too. I'd especially like to hear where you (or others) think I am wrong on something at the higher levels of cause regarding the overall conflict - and of course your reasons for that. That's because I know if I am wrong about the core issues of right and wrong then I'm probably wrong about the rest of it.

Sulla the Dictator 11-09-2011 04:47 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 230900)
Zimababwe was big news certainly in Europe, but small on oil I suppose, though military action was a hot topic for quite some time.

Absolutely nothing came of it. In fact, with all this gibberish the European left babbles about arresting GW Bush or Don Rumsfeld if they visit European countries, Mugabe was allowed to visit Rome without any incident.

Quote:

The Balkans did lead to intervention,
And intervention led to non-Serb Balkanoid victory; which led to the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Serbs. Where is their right to return to Croatia? Or Bosnia? Or Albania?

Quote:

but Dafur which has lots of Muslims has not.
No reason it should; the world didn't even care about Darfur when the Christians and Animists were being annihilated. I wouldn't support the use of one American military asset in the place now.

Quote:

Israel is a central issue for lots of converging reasons and 3 billion little green ones, means it will be for some time.
Which has nothing to do with the Europeans or the UN, only us. So why is the UN so concerned with the matter? Because of the Arab League, and because from 1970 to 1990, the Soviet Union agitated on their behalf as well.

Florian 11-09-2011 04:48 PM

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

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 230902)
And so people find pleasing intellectual narratives in the meme-space to justify their behavior - and they may not realize at all that the behavior they are justifying is caused by something else entirely. It all just seems like what we call "critical thinking".

You probably think, with an expressions like meme-space, that you are saying something profound and interesting. But a meme is nothing but cultural cliché, a platitude, une idée reçue, in short your specialty.


Quote:

I assume I am just as likely to engage in this self-deception as anyone else. And so I explain my views as clearly as I can and I invite others who disagree to give their best effort at showing me where I am wrong - as I did with ledocs and opposable_crumbs earlier. I am very interested in your opinion too. I'd especially like to hear where you (or others) think I am wrong on something at the higher levels of cause regarding the overall conflict - and of course your reasons for that.
You are self-deception incarnate.

opposable_crumbs 11-09-2011 04:49 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
It's hard not to see past the colonial aspects of Israel's creation for much of the world outside North America, and that's why placing the analogy on someone's home turf can bring certain parallels to light. You say that you support the Jewish cause which is fine, but do you also support paying the price for it too - giving away half your nation to recent immigrants.

It's just one of the ironies that those who support Israel so strongly are often opposed to native immigration across their own borders. I don't mean to aim that at you, but as a general point. Certainly no nation was welcoming to the ravaged Jews of Europe in 1948, so it is has always struck me as a little rich when these same countries condemn the natives of Palestine for reacting just as they would.

ledocs 11-09-2011 04:50 PM

Re: The Unmaking of Israel (Robert Wright & Gershom Gorenberg)
 
RayInSeattle said (henceforth RIS, short, perhaps, for risible?)

Quote:

Let's see you distill your rambling statement above into a clear one-sentence premise. And then let's see you logically justify it in as few words as possible.
You thought my post was rambling? It was much shorter than your own.

The "premise," as you call it, is that Israel has been expanding settlements and the territory it controls in the West Bank for a very long time, it has been expanding in East Jerusalem, and it has done so in defiance of UN Resolution 242 and of stated US policy. There is nothing to justify here. These are facts, well known to everyone.

I had an interchange not too long ago with someone calling himself bbbeard. His claim was that UN Resolution 242 has a clear meaning with respect to the territories from which Israel is expected to withdraw, except that he never stated what that clear meaning is. And he kept referring to one of the drafters of 242, Lord Caradon, as though Caradon were God's prophet on this issue. Except that it then turns out that Caradon himself thinks that Israel is in violation of 242 with respect to the settlements.

Ray in Seattle 11-09-2011 04:52 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 230905)
It's hard not to see past the colonial aspects of Israel's creation for much of the world outside North America, and that's why placing the analogy on someone's home turf can bring certain parallels to light. You say that you support the Jewish cause which is fine, but do you also support paying the price for it too - giving away half your nation to recent immigrants.

It's just one of the ironies that those who support Israel so strongly are often opposed to native immigration across their own borders. I don't mean to aim that at you, but as a general point. Certainly no nation was welcoming to the ravaged Jews of Europe in 1948, so it is has always struck me as a little rich when these same countries condemn the natives of Palestine for reacting just as they would.

It helps to start with a quote from the person you are addressing. That, or start the comment by addressing them by name. I would not want to ignore something you directed to me.

opposable_crumbs 11-09-2011 04:56 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 230903)

Which has nothing to do with the Europeans or the UN, only us. So why is the UN so concerned with the matter? Because of the Arab League, and because from 1970 to 1990, the Soviet Union agitated on their behalf as well.

Really? Not the fact that Partition was planned and passed at the UN, not the fact that Britain was heavily implicated in administrating this mess, not the fact that the failure of the European powers to safe guard Jews is the reason why so many Europeans now hold two passports and speak Hebrew but have no parents, nothing to do with oil, or religion, or nuclear arms meeting at a very crossroad, and nothing to do with an blind superpower desperate for a road to Damascus moment.

opposable_crumbs 11-09-2011 04:58 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 230908)
It helps to start with a quote from the person you are addressing. That, or start the comment by addressing them by name. I would not want to ignore something you directed to me.

I was replying to the preceding comment in the thread, which was Stephanie's.

Ray in Seattle 11-09-2011 05:16 PM

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

Originally Posted by ledocs (Post 230906)
RayInSeattle said (henceforth RIS, short, perhaps, for risible?)The "premise," as you call it, is that Israel has been expanding settlements and the territory it controls in the West Bank for a very long time, it has been expanding in East Jerusalem,

Actually, Israel controls far less territory in the West Bank (where it now controls a small percentage of what it did in 1967) and in Gaza (where it now controls no territory at all). But I think your main point is . .

Quote:

and it has done so in defiance of UN Resolution 242 .
I have searched both the extensive Wiki article and the UN text of S/RES/242 and can not find the term settlements. Can you show me where this is mentioned? Or can you show me where S/RES/242 says that Israel can not control territory on the West Bank or Gaza?

Quote:

and of stated US policy
Whether or not Israel is "in violation" of US policy - Israel is a sovereign nation and UN member. Its policies are not necessarily the same as US policies.

Quote:

There is nothing to justify here. These are facts, well known to everyone.
Begging the question is not much of a scholarly way to make an argument.

Sulla the Dictator 11-09-2011 05:35 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 230909)
Really? Not the fact that Partition was planned and passed at the UN

You again gloss over the fact that the partition was rejected by the Arab League and the nascent political groups that could claim to represent the Trans-Jordanians. If a deal is offered, and rejected by a party, the deal is no longer operative.

Quote:

not the fact that Britain was heavily implicated in administrating this mess,
And they offered an equitable solution, which the Arabs rejected.

Quote:

not the fact that the failure of the European powers to safe guard Jews is the reason why so many Europeans now hold two passports and speak Hebrew but have no parents, nothing to do with oil, or religion, or nuclear arms meeting at a very crossroad, and nothing to do with an blind superpower desperate for a road to Damascus moment.
None of which would implicate Britain, obviously, who not only safeguarded its own Jews but sacrificed many of its subjects in chastising the Europeans who did not.

Florian 11-09-2011 05:40 PM

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

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 230915)
Actually, Israel controls far less territory in the West Bank (where it now controls a small percentage of what it did in 1967) and in Gaza (where it now controls no territory at all). But I think your main point is . .



I have searched both the extensive Wiki article and the UN text of S/RES/242 and can not find the term settlements. Can you show me where this is mentioned? Or can you show me where 242 says that Israel can not control territory on the West Bank or Gaza.



Israel is a sovereign nation and UN member. It's policies are not necessarily the same as US policies.



Begging the question is not much of a scholarly way to argue.

And asking foolish questions like yours is not something that scholars do either.

How you could read (an article on) Resolution 242 without noticing that it stipulates "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" and then have failed to understand that "withdrawal from territories occupied" might mean---almost certainly did mean--that Israel could not control the occupied territories, let alone settle them, is a mystery to me.

opposable_crumbs 11-09-2011 05:42 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 230918)
You again gloss over the fact that the partition was rejected by the Arab League and the nascent political groups that could claim to represent the Trans-Jordanians. If a deal is offered, and rejected by a party, the deal is no longer operative.



And they offered an equitable solution, which the Arabs rejected.



None of which would implicate Britain, obviously, who not only safeguarded its own Jews but sacrificed many of its subjects in chastising the Europeans who did not.

I was answering why the UN / Europe cared so much. The role of Britain, in Europe and in Palestine, would naturally make it very interested in events.

ledocs 11-09-2011 05:46 PM

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

Actually, Israel controls far less territory in the West Bank (where it now controls a small percentage of what it did in 1967)
This is pure sophistry. You are referring to territory in the West Bank that Israel acquired by force of arms in June, 1967, some of which has been relinquished. So you have elided the meaning of "1967." As for whether UN 242 refers to "settlements," I don't see why such a reference would be expected. Clearly, Israel has not withdrawn from territories on which are settled Israeli citizens subject to the Israeli state, territory that is controlled by the state of Israel and its military. So those settlements fall perforce under the purview of 242, and the question is whether Israel has a legal right to control those territories.

I'm not interested in continuing. I had this argument already, with bbbeard. You can look it up.

opposable_crumbs 11-09-2011 05:51 PM

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

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 230915)
Actually, Israel controls far less territory in the West Bank (where it now controls a small percentage of what it did in 1967) and in Gaza (where it now controls no territory at all). But I think your main point is . .



I have searched both the extensive Wiki article and the UN text of S/RES/242 and can not find the term settlements. Can you show me where this is mentioned? Or can you show me where S/RES/242 says that Israel can not control territory on the West Bank or Gaza?



Whether or not Israel is "in violation" of US policy - Israel is a sovereign nation and UN member. Its policies are not necessarily the same as US policies.



Begging the question is not much of a scholarly way to make an argument.

Israel's own legal advisors at it's Foreign ministry concluded that the settlements were illegal when the policy was first being formed. They suggested that a temporary military settlement would be legal though, so civilians where effectively uniformed and shipped to the new settlement. Which is a bit of a thorn in the side to those who say the settlements are both legal and an entirely private enterprise divorced from the state and thus not falling foul of the Geneva Conventions.

The stuff about Israel having less control over the West Bank is not really an accurate characterization. That control is outsourced to the PA as I understand it, Israel has certainly not ceded any of it, and the wall would give a big 10 foot high hint as to what it wants.

stephanie 11-09-2011 06:00 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
I assume this is directed to me, but am feeling too lazy to switch into threaded to see for sure. It would be considered a friendly act if you would quote a bit for those (like me) who don't read in threaded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 230905)
It's hard not to see past the colonial aspects of Israel's creation for much of the world outside North America, and that's why placing the analogy on someone's home turf can bring certain parallels to light. You say that you support the Jewish cause which is fine, but do you also support paying the price for it too - giving away half your nation to recent immigrants.

See, this is the problem with charged terms or analogies like "colonialism." I think they mask what is actually being said, as they divert into a discussion of what "colonialism" is and why it's bad and whether this case is bad in the same way.

You seem to want to reargue the existence of Israel and if that's the case there's really nothing to talk about. Like the US (which, yes, can be attacked in its initial settling if one wants to), Israel is there and has a right to exist. No one reasonably thinks the solution is for Israel is go away or for its population to move to the US or Europe or become citizens of Jordan. Not that some people don't say that, but it's not a reasonable position.

But okay, I'll consider your analogy. You compare Israel's existence to "giving away half your nation to recent immigrants." Like I said, I don't think that's a valid comparison. Under your scenario, one pictures a country "Palestine" that is controlled by the Palestinian Arabs and which is forcibly taken away by another and given to "recent immigrants" -- with, I note, how recent not stated. Presumably you acknowledge that human populations move, so there is some point at which the recentness is bad and some point at which it's less bad?

Anyway, while I can understand a Palestinian conceptualizing the situation that way, I don't think it's accurate. There wasn't a country controlled by the Palestinian Arabs. There was the Ottoman Empire, which included territories in which the majority population was Arab, including that which became the British Mandate, and of course the Mandate. There was immigration by Jews into the area for historical/religious reasons and due to their desire to leave the situation they were in (similar to the reasons people immigrated to the US) and to have a land in which they would not be in such situations (a homeland).

Eventually, there was violence by the zionists against the British and demands by both the Jews and Arabs for independence and after various events the partition and UN resolutions and war and more UN resolutions and so on. I don't see in this any stealing of land that we must assume as the property of the Palestinian Arabs in general in the creation of Israel. That is not to deny the need to pay reparations for or in some cases return specific pieces of land obtained improperly from specific citizens. Nor is it to deny that the Palestinians could quite understandably feel upset about what happened or think the specific division of land resulting from the partition was unjust and something that they shouldn't have to agree to.

Calling it "colonialism," though, seems to equate the process of moving to and settling land with the grasping of land by a foreign government. And in this case the land in question was colonized by others at the time the Zionists started promoting settlement. (Of course there were some Jews there already, but I admit the numbers were small.)

Quote:

It's just one of the ironies that those who support Israel so strongly are often opposed to native immigration across their own borders. I don't mean to aim that at you, but as a general point.
Way too general a claim, IMO. I see no reason to assume it's true and it certainly wouldn't have been true until quite recently, with the right's conversion to ultra-zionism. (Again, this may be due to the growth of Christian zionism, but I tend to see it as having a lot to do with 9/11.)

Quote:

Certainly no nation was welcoming to the ravaged Jews of Europe in 1948, so it is has always struck me as a little rich when these same countries condemn the natives of Palestine for reacting just as they would.
Nor were they welcoming to the refugees of the '30s and '40s prior to that. But that's one reason why I think the desire of the Zionists for a homeland is not to be dismissed as irrelevant or unnecessary. One of my issues with the anti-Israel position that you seem to be portraying is that it so often seems to ignore that the Jews, the Zionists, were the primary actors. It's not a bunch of European countries plus the US deciding what to do with the Jews, as you seem to suggest.

(Natives of Palestine seems to imply a different political situation than existed, again, as well as suggesting that the Jews simply showed up in '48, as opposed to the 1880s and after.)

stephanie 11-09-2011 06:13 PM

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

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 230902)
It's probably true that we each draw that line in different places. The important word in my premise is non-conscious. That means it directly affects one's behavior through its emotional potency but it may not exist as a conscious belief that one could reflect upon or might be required to defend logically to others.

I am not certain what you are saying here, so correct me if I'm not understanding correctly.

You seem to be saying that liberals, whether they know it or not, admit it or not, are influenced by their unconscious view that Israel should not exist. Based on this, you feel justified in dismissing any "liberal" view on the question, including those expressed by me, by Gershom and Bob, probably Obama, etc. (We can set aside the fact that many here would apparently be horrified at my classing the views of Gershom, myself, and Obama as liberal on the issue. I'm going to take a broad view -- based on what you are objecting to -- and include as liberal any views that are critical of the settlements and desire a 2-state solution with borders along the lines of -- although not identical to -- the '67 borders and resolution 242.)

Now, when you insist that whatever I say I really am influenced by my unconscious agreement with a quite different viewpoint that I, in fact, strongly disagree with, you've made conversation impossible. It's also rather condescending at best to tell me my real beliefs are other than what I think they are. This is significantly more problematic when you direct such a claim at all the Israelis (like Gershom) who have views at least as "liberal" or more so on the question.

Ray in Seattle 11-09-2011 06:18 PM

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

Originally Posted by ledocs (Post 230923)
This is pure sophistry. You are referring to territory in the West Bank that Israel acquired by force of arms in June, 1967, some of which has been relinquished. So you have elided the meaning of "1967."

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Quote:

As for whether UN 242 refers to "settlements," I don't see why such a reference would be expected. Clearly, Israel has not withdrawn from territories on which are settled Israeli citizens subject to the Israeli state, territory that is controlled by the state of Israel and its military. So those settlements fall perforce under the purview of 242, and the question is whether Israel has a legal right to control those territories.
Israel does control the West bank. It has effective, if not de facto control, of all of it. I don't dispute that. Your the one who brought up the question of how much territory Israel controlled. I was only trying to respond fully to your concerns.

Israel is not required to withdraw from those territories because S/RES/242 clearly requires that to be done as the result of direct negotiations between the parties - negotiations which have not concluded. Can you show where the resolution says otherwise?

Further, there is no date mentioned in S/RES/242 beyond which - if no negotiated agreement is reached - Israel must relinquish control over the territory it currently maintains. Again, I'm open to contrary evidence if you have some.

Quote:

I'm not interested in continuing. I had this argument already, with bbbeard. You can look it up.
I'm surprised you lasted this long ;-)

stephanie 11-09-2011 06:26 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 230766)
Wouldn't something like that be the first step? Do you think it's likely? Why not?

You seem to be saying that the occupation cannot end unless the Palestinians come forward and say "we were wrong in everything, very sorry, any borders you like are great." Clearly, this is not realistic and not what we usually demand in negotiated peace settlements. Hell, many in the US freak if we -- from a position of strength -- acknowledge any past mistakes, and yet you demand that a group still basically involved in a struggle see the whole thing from their opponent's POV. That's not realistic.

Also, of course, there's a problem of who speaks for the group.

Quote:

Specifics that are several times removed from the overarching cultural causes of the war are just ways to confront people publicly who disagree with one's ideological views. I'm more interested in the actual causes of the conflict that might lead to a better understanding of how to end it and they are usually at a higher level than those "specifics".
The actual causes of the conflict is that two groups of people claimed the same land. Now, some within both groups acknowledge that the other has a right to a state, even those people debate what the terms of the border, of various disputed areas should be, and others in both groups don't think the other has a right to a state at all. Of course, one of these groups is a lot stronger than the other and has an existing state, so the claim that it shouldn't exist currently is far less of a threat, whether or not a Palestinian state is created. Indeed, the biggest existential threat to Israel, I'm afraid, is the failure to create a separate Palestinian state and what may occur as a result. But I admit this is just my view, that aspect is the business of the Israelis.

Ray in Seattle 11-09-2011 06:30 PM

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

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 230927)
I am not certain what you are saying here, so correct me if I'm not understanding correctly.

You seem to be saying that liberals, whether they know it or not, admit it or not, are influenced by their unconscious view that Israel should not exist. Based on this, you feel justified in dismissing any "liberal" view on the question, including those expressed by me, by Gershom and Bob, probably Obama, etc. (We can set aside the fact that many here would apparently be horrified at my classing the views of Gershom, myself, and Obama as liberal on the issue. I'm going to take a broad view -- based on what you are objecting to -- and include as liberal any views that are critical of the settlements and desire a 2-state solution with borders along the lines of -- although not identical to -- the '67 borders and resolution 242.)

Now, when you insist that whatever I say I really am influenced by my unconscious agreement with a quite different viewpoint that I, in fact, strongly disagree with, you've made conversation impossible. It's also rather condescending at best to tell me my real beliefs are other than what I think they are. This is significantly more problematic when you direct such a claim at all the Israelis (like Gershom) who have views at least as "liberal" or more so on the question.

You take my comments way too personally. I was not referring to you at all. I was talking about tendencies in humans who hold ideological positions on anything. And I was suggesting that some liberals - not all liberals - are in that category. I base that on some liberals who have admitted to me that they really believed those things - and that it took them some time to realize it. Also, I have held ideological positions that I came to realize were based on much deeper beliefs than the one's I recognized and used to justify them to others. A belief may be objectively correct or not regardless of where it comes from in ones psyche. So, I know it is possible and it does exist.

I do not think you believe that Israel should not have been created - based on the few dozen comments I have read. I was talking about human nature - not you.

I realize this is a socially dangerous place. I am not an underhanded person. I try hard to write my comments to say exactly what I believe to be true and for no other reason. I take people at their word unless they prove to be deceptive. You can test my consistency. I'm not here to do cultural combat.

Ray in Seattle 11-09-2011 06:43 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 230932)
You seem to be saying that the occupation cannot end unless the Palestinians come forward and say "we were wrong in everything, very sorry, any borders you like are great."

No, I was not saying that. I was offering an example of what someone might say who honestly regretted their past actions and wanted to make a new start toward improving things. I was showing the contrast between that and the reality of the Arab position. In short, I believe that the huge contrast shows that the Arabs believe as much as ever that it is their right and duty to eliminate Israel and its Jews from the ME. And as long as that is true Israel would be signing its death warrant to end the occupation.

The facts are that Israel as a state has not once in its existence attacked an Arab state or militant group for non-defensive reasons. And not once have an Arab state or militant group attacked Israel for defensive reasons - because Israel has never committed aggression against them (in the international law sense of the term). I realize that doesn't fit the common liberal narrative but it does fit the reality.

opposable_crumbs 11-09-2011 06:49 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 230925)
I assume this is directed to me, but am feeling too lazy to switch into threaded to see for sure. It would be considered a friendly act if you would quote a bit for those (like me) who don't read in threaded.

Yes it was directed at you, and thanks for your detailed answer, a lot of which I personally find fault with. Ultimately I received no answer to my analogy despite it's faults.
Quote:

See, this is the problem with charged terms or analogies like "colonialism." I think they mask what is actually being said, as they divert into a discussion of what "colonialism" is and why it's bad and whether this case is bad in the same way.
I don't really understand this point. It seems pretty obvious to me that Israel was a colonial project, Herzl himself was not nearly so shy. It was a state set up by Europeans, at the behest of Europeans and largely for Europeans. And I think it is right to examine that aspect of it's being when debate around the topic both denies this reality while at the same time borrowing the same tropes from the colonial period when speaking or acting against the natives.

I don't think it is unfair for the native populations to take exception to Israel's creation, despite not having a country, a flag, or an anthem. As for the right to exist, I don't know of any country which has this right. That's not to say I support the destruction of Israel, but until these aspects of it's creation are acknowledged and both it's Arab and Jewish ancestry is respected, the native Arabs will be seen as no more than a nuisance and the Jews will be seen as usurpers.

I say all this because there is a rather twisted discourse on this, where the Arabs are some how the interlopers and Jews in Washington demonstrate in Native American head dresses as a means to silent dissent by pointing to America's treatment of it's native people. This might be dismissed as fringe view but it is one that is eerily close to some of the views of Mike Huckabee and Herman Cain.

So statements like "No one reasonably thinks the solution is for Israel is go away or for its population to move to the US or Europe or become citizens of Jordan." doesn't quite hold true if you are a Palestinian (Hukabee made comments to that effect regarding Palestinians) and one can't help but think that sense of chauvinism comes from.


Quote:

But okay, I'll consider your analogy. You compare Israel's existence to "giving away half your nation to recent immigrants." Like I said, I don't think that's a valid comparison.
Wasn't that effectively the offer that was made to the Palestinians? My analogy includes Black Americans who are as old as any American, as well as those who might have been first or second generation.

Quote:

Anyway, while I can understand a Palestinian conceptualizing the situation that way, I don't think it's accurate. There wasn't a country controlled by the Palestinian Arabs.
I'm aware of the history, but not having a country would seem to make the parallels to colonialism more apparent I would have thought, not less so.

Quote:

Nor were they welcoming to the refugees of the '30s and '40s prior to that. But that's one reason why I think the desire of the Zionists for a homeland is not to be dismissed as irrelevant or unnecessary. One of my issues with the anti-Israel position that you seem to be portraying is that it so often seems to ignore that the Jews, the Zionists, were the primary actors. It's not a bunch of European countries plus the US deciding what to do with the Jews, as you seem to suggest.
Have you come across the letter from King Abdullah of Jordan written in '47 ?
http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/kabd_eng.html
Thanks for you time and thought out answers.

opposable_crumbs 11-09-2011 07:00 PM

Re: The Role of the Orthodox Rabbis
 
You might enjoy, though that is the wrong word, this Vice article on Orthodox Jews who tune in and drop out, even though you aren't a hippy. I'm not one for druggy literature but I found it an intriguing insight into a sub-culture I would otherwise thought was nearly impossible to exist. Maybe it has parallels with the Amish who cut loose for a year before deciding which path they want take in life.

http://www.vice.com/read/magic-jews-205-v15n9

Wonderment 11-09-2011 07:23 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
I'm going to take another shot at why 2-state is NOT pragmatic. Even though my one-state view is a minority one among Israeli Jews, it's a majority view among Palestinian and Israeli Arabs, and I think it's actually the most pragmatic approach. I will only sketch a couple of details of the argument and I'll probably do it clumsily, but my point is to concur that one-staters need to make and win the pragmatic argument, not merely the moral one. A resolution of the conflict has to be doable.

Quote:

My problem with the one-state solution includes many more pragmatic concerns, and similarly my view that it's far too limiting to define as a liberal only those who come around to your rather idealistic (and IMO unworkable) views on the question far too narrow a definition.
The Settlements are already well beyond the tipping point of withdrawal. Everyone has pretty much recognized that fact on the ground since the Sharon government made its half-assed attempt at "disengagement" (i.e, dismantling the small and unsustainable Gaza Settlements.) A 2-state deal would have to be drawn around the current WB Settlements, which is unacceptable to Palestinians. Under 2-state, Jews won't leave and Palestinians won't let them stay. Non-starter.

Also, consider that 2-state has never been acceptable to Palestinians. Don't be mislead by what Abu Mazen says. He cannot deliver a referendum-based acceptance of a 2-state deal under even the most "generous" Israeli offer imaginable. No Israeli offer can come to terms with Right of Return for Palestinians, and no Fatakh boss can sign away inalienable Palestinian rights on the refugee question. In other words, even if Abu Mazen and Tzipi Livni sign an agreement with the blessing of the Pope, the EU, President Romney/Obama and neighboring Arab States, that still doesn't end the conflict.

There was a window of opportunity when you still could have dismantled all the Settlements, created a land strip between Gaza and the WB, internationalized J-lem, absorbed a few hundred thousand refugees into Green Line Israel, and paid off the other refugees with reparations, passports to the USA, the EU and Jordan/Egypt. But that train left the station a long time ago, and the railroad is now closed forever.

In other words, there is no conceivable deal, and talk of such by people like Abu Mazen and Gershom just leads to more frustration and impasse. Impasse is bad for Israel (isolating the state a la South Africa), and of course it's far worse for Palestinians.

Even a Palestinian state recognized at the UN does nothing to address the problem. Recognition is good for Palestinians because it's an organizing platform and further isolates Israel as intransigent and oppressive, but it's not a game changer.

The only PRACTICAL step forward is to go back to the drawing board. The old Palestinian demand (Jews go home!) is ridiculous and counterproductive (Helen Thomas notwithstanding). But Palestinians can and ought to (in my view) stay put and demand the right to vote. (Semi-joke: If they are secular, they ought to convert to Judaism and get their free Israeli Jewish ID cards).

Palestinian suffrage will not occur overnight. It may take generations. I'm nobody to tell Palestinians how they should proceed, but a nonviolent secular suffrage movement seems way more pragmatic to me then continuing to bang their heads against the two-state wall and getting nowhere, which will only lead more violence (Gershom's idea of gradual progress struck me as ridiculous.)

miceelf 11-09-2011 07:31 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 230937)
The only PRACTICAL step forward is to go back to the drawing board. The old Palestinian demand (Jews go home!) is ridiculous and counterproductive (Helen Thomas notwithstanding). But Palestinians can and ought to (in my view) stay put and demand the right to vote.

Do you seriously not believe that once Palestinians have the right to vote "Jews go home" won't in fact garner a majority of votes, as ridiculous and counterproductive as you might think it is?

stephanie 11-09-2011 07:38 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 230935)
Ultimately I received no answer to my analogy despite it's faults.

?? What analogy is being referred to? The African-Americans one? I'm not aware of any significant movement of black Americans for a separate state in the US (you claimed this was within the 1946 to the present period), and the US of course is a country with set boundaries and black Americans citizens of the US. The obvious proper answer in the US is a one-state solution, which is what we have. The problem in earlier eras was the blacks were not given the rights they were entitled to as citizens, not that we were taking their land.

What if one group wanted to set up its own country? Well, we have the Civil War. If the South had won, the Confederacy would have a right to exist.

I think your better analogy is with the original settling of the continent, if you really want an American analogy. But of course then you'd have to insist that it's a reasonable position to think that all the descendants of European and perhaps Asian and African and Latin American immigrants must leave and the US cease to exist, and of course no one does reasonably claim that, despite the moral objections -- greater ones, in fact -- to many of the events over our history.

Quote:

I don't really understand this point. It seems pretty obvious to me that Israel was a colonial project, Herzl himself was not nearly so shy. It was a state set up by Europeans, at the behest of Europeans and largely for Europeans.
This claim and its alleged significance depends on two things (a) that we agree on what colonialism is and (b) that we agree colonialism is bad.

It seems clear to me that we don't agree on what colonialism is. For example, your point above about "Europeans." My reaction is "who cares." One need not be European to be a colonialist, and, of course, merely being a European settler in another country (even a non-European one) does not necessarily make one a colonialist.

More significantly, if you redefine colonialism in such a way "Europeans moving to non-European countries" or perhaps "European's imposing their culture and way of life on non-Europeans," the instinctual horror you seem to want me to feel about the term "colonialism" goes away. What seems to me the problem with colonialism is that it's one country taking over and controlling another, running land that is the recognized home of one set of people for the benefit of others, elsewhere. That is not what the Zionists were doing. Yes, they were settlers from Europe (although clearly there are non-European Jewish Israelis too). That does not make them colonialist in my understanding of the term and it certainly does not make them morally objectionable.

Quote:

I don't think it is unfair for the native populations to take exception to Israel's creation, despite not having a country, a flag, or an anthem.
I have never said it was. I think it's perfectly understandable. I think it's understandable to be pissed about specific territories, about the events of history, about one's loss of land one considers a family home, so on, even now. What is unreasonable is refusing to accept the existence of Israel at this point in time or insisting on discussing this topic as about whether Israel has a right to exist. Israel is not going away.

Quote:

As for the right to exist, I don't know of any country which has this right.
So we have free range to attack any country? No wrong in the eyes would be done, since no country has a right to exist? That's basically what I'm talking about.

Quote:

That's not to say I support the destruction of Israel, but until these aspects of it's creation are acknowledged and both it's Arab and Jewish ancestry is respected, the native Arabs will be seen as no more than a nuisance and the Jews will be seen as usurpers.
I am not sure what you want recognized that you think is not.

Quote:

I say all this because there is a rather twisted discourse on this, where the Arabs are some how the interlopers and Jews in Washington demonstrate in Native American head dresses as a means to silent dissent by pointing to America's treatment of it's native people.
I think the US's attitude toward Israel is screwed up and irrational, and I think we tend to identify somewhat weirdly with the Israelis (and I say this as a supporter of Israel myself), but I find this to be a really fringe attitude and not representative of the US one even so. The Arabs aren't considered "interlopers."

Quote:

This might be dismissed as fringe view but it is one that is eerily close to some of the views of Mike Huckabee and Herman Cain.
Cain has no set views on foreign policy issues. Huckabee probably didn't until recently but perhaps he's got the Christian Zionist thing going on. I admit that I don't watch Huckabee's show or find him particularly significant, but I also admit that I don't get the Christian Zionist thing very well.

Quote:

So statements like "No one reasonably thinks the solution is for Israel is go away or for its population to move to the US or Europe or become citizens of Jordan." doesn't quite hold true if you are a Palestinian (Hukabee made comments to that effect regarding Palestinians) and one can't help but think that sense of chauvinism comes from.
I don't think this is a reasonable view. Similarly, I don't think the view that the Palestinians should just go to Jordan or Egypt because they forfeited any right to a state is reasonable either, as I said upthread. And, as I said about both, clearly people think these things, but there's no point in trying to communicate with people wedded to such views. They are more articles of faith than rationally held. (Same with any view that insists that either the Palestinians or the Israelis are the only ones at fault and the other has done no wrong or who can't empathize with the position of one side or the other, despite being strongly critical.)

Quote:

Wasn't that effectively the offer that was made to the Palestinians?
No, for reasons I explained in my last post. Palestinian Arabs and Jewish settlers/children/grandchildren of settlers (and a few Jews descending from those who had been there much longer) both claimed territory that neither of them were in control of. The territory had been for a long time colonized by others (the Ottoman Empire), in fact. The people living there rebelled, demanded a state, etc., and the partition resulted. I don't see how the Palestinian Arabs were in the position the US was in 1948. If it were, the UN and Britain and all the rest would never have been involved in the way they were.

My impression is that you think there's something about the Zionists being originally European that means the land *was* the Palestinian Arabs, such that the UN (and the Zionists) were inherently in the wrong in what happened, but I don't think that makes sense. People move about.

I wonder if this isn't to a certain extent why Americans have ended up being so pro Israel, in that we are not likely to accept the idea that immigrants to an area are always and forever intruders who don't belong. But obviously the problem with this is true everywhere, it's just something that Americans tend to be more focused on than people in, say, Western Europe.

Quote:

I'm aware of the history, but not having a country would seem to make the parallels to colonialism more apparent I would have thought, not less so.
I don't see why, but again I think you are defining "colonialism" in a way that is different than my understanding of the term.

Wonderment 11-09-2011 07:41 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Do you seriously not believe that once Palestinians have the right to vote "Jews go home" won't in fact garner a majority of votes, as ridiculous and counterproductive as you might think it is?
Yes, just as whites were not kicked out of South Africa. Israel could have a constitution at last, one which would protect the rights of all its citizens from the Jordan to the Sea.

Ray in Seattle 11-09-2011 07:47 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 230941)
Yes, just as whites were not kicked out of South Africa. Israel could have a constitution at last, one which would protect the rights of all its citizens from the Jordan to the Sea.

And which Arab nation or example of political philosophy would provide the best model for this do you think?

stephanie 11-09-2011 07:55 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 230937)
Even though my one-state view is a minority one among Israeli Jews, it's a majority view among Palestinian and Israeli Arabs, and I think it's actually the most pragmatic approach.

What is this based on? Are you including those who simply think that there should be no Israel? If so, I don't think it's an argument for one-state at all.

The creation of a Constitution gives me no reassurance, as a Constitution can be discarded or amended and in any case has no force unless it is accepted by the people concerned, given legitimacy in a way that I don't think is possible if a significant number of those involved see themselves as accepting the solution/Constitution as their best way to get rid of hated Israel. It's sufficiently suicidal that I can't see Israel going for it.

Of course, if all the changes that have to take place for your scenario to come about (a non-violent movement, rejection of violence, a sincere desire to be citizens of one Israel with recognition of what currently exists in many ways and a secular government, etc.) happened, we might be in a sufficiently different world where this would be possible, but this world seems no more plausible than one in which the settlements are dismantled or left to fend for themselves or a border agreement achieved around them with payments and other land elsewhere. I admit that there are major problems with that too, obviously.

Ocean 11-09-2011 08:08 PM

Re: Earth Calling Onederment
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 230885)
Assholes.

No schbicker-something or anything? So disappointed... ;)

Wonderment 11-09-2011 08:27 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

What is this based on? Are you including those who simply think that there should be no Israel? If so, I don't think it's an argument for one-state at all.
It's what Bob was getting at in the beginning of the conversation: that there has never been an Israeli offer that's even remotely acceptable to Palestinians, despite all the propaganda that a resolution of the conflict was inches away. (One particularly ludicrous legend is that Barak and Arafat almost had a deal brokered by Bill Clinton.) In other words, although you may get a few opinion polls that show Palestinians to favor a two-state solution, the devil is all over the details. What Israeli Jews mean by 2-states is light years from what Palestinians mean by it. The "agreement" is just a vague "in principle, it would be okay."

Quote:

Of course, if all the changes that have to take place for your scenario to come about (a non-violent movement, rejection of violence, a sincere desire to be citizens of one Israel with recognition of what currently exists in many ways and a secular government, etc.) happened, we might be in a sufficiently different world where this would be possible....
Exactly.

Quote:

....but this world seems no more plausible than one in which the settlements are dismantled or left to fend for themselves or a border agreement achieved around them with payments and other land elsewhere. I admit that there are major problems with that too, obviously.
You say major; I say insurmountable.

Sulla the Dictator 11-09-2011 08:29 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 230941)
Yes, just as whites were not kicked out of South Africa. Israel could have a constitution at last, one which would protect the rights of all its citizens from the Jordan to the Sea.

Three thousand white farmers have been murdered in South Africa since 2005. It isn't news because no one particularly cares about Boers.

Not a cause celeb. Palestinians, on the other hand.....

opposable_crumbs 11-09-2011 09:07 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 230940)
?? What analogy is being referred to? The African-Americans one? I'm not aware of any significant movement of black Americans for a separate state in the US (you claimed this was within the 1946 to the present period), and the US of course is a country with set boundaries and black Americans citizens of the US. The obvious proper answer in the US is a one-state solution, which is what we have. The problem in earlier eras was the blacks were not given the rights they were entitled to as citizens, not that we were taking their land.

There was a black separatist movement in the 60s whose most visible advocates where the Nation of Islam. A small group to be sure, but like the Jews in Palestine as old as any. So I suppose for the analogy to be perfect American is occupied by the British again, and it allows black immigration from Europe and promises them their support in dividing the nation, the matter goes to the UN and the UN agrees. So now I have tailored the analogy, you would support the partition, and object to any likening to colonialism?


Quote:

I think your better analogy is with the original settling of the continent, if you really want an American analogy. But of course then you'd have to insist that it's a reasonable position to think that all the descendants of European and perhaps Asian and African and Latin American immigrants must leave and the US cease to exist, and of course no one does reasonably claim that, despite the moral objections -- greater ones, in fact -- to many of the events over our history.
Unless you are a native american, it might not have the same emotional resonance, especially when the dilemma is set in a period when much of America is unrecognizable to the one who is being questioned.

Quote:

This claim and its alleged significance depends on two things (a) that we agree on what colonialism is and (b) that we agree colonialism is bad.
With regards to A I'm really at a loss as to what you would call colonialism. Certainly America was a colonial project and at the time the Native people where not really a state as we would call.

Quote:

It seems clear to me that we don't agree on what colonialism is. For example, your point above about "Europeans." My reaction is "who cares." One need not be European to be a colonialist, and, of course, merely being a European settler in another country (even a non-European one) does not necessarily make one a colonialist.
One doesn't need to be European, but it certainly helps in the 19th and 20th century. The Brits by that latter part of that time were growing wearier with it, but had inspired both Germans and Jews as to the possibilities. The brits in Palestine inherited the colonial mantle from the ottomans, no one is shy in saying that, and they allowed fellow Europeans to migrate in significant numbers. Herzl himself set up the Jewish Colonial Trust, a financial project with a view of setting up a homeland for the Jews.

The fact that all the parties were from the same polity is important, that it happens to be via an European agent big on colonialism is not essential but it is significant. Echoes of the same rhetoric which were thankfully dispatched with the rise of figures like Gandhi still can be heard occasionally when discussing when discussing I/P - aren't you aware of how many Jewish Nobel prize winners there are?

Quote:

More significantly, if you redefine colonialism in such a way "Europeans moving to non-European countries" or perhaps "European's imposing their culture and way of life on non-Europeans," the instinctual horror you seem to want me to feel about the term "colonialism" goes away.
This is very odd, I'm not sure what you mean. 'Civilizing the natives' certainly has it's echoes in britains colonial past, and once again I must ask whether that is something you would accept on your own doorstep. The paranoia about creeping sharia would suggest many Americans would not.


Quote:

That is not what the Zionists were doing. Yes, they were settlers from Europe (although clearly there are non-European Jewish Israelis too). That does not make them colonialist in my understanding of the term and it certainly does not make them morally objectionable.
Because they operated under the auspices of the colonial power/occupier?


Quote:

What is unreasonable is refusing to accept the existence of Israel at this point in time or insisting on discussing this topic as about whether Israel has a right to exist. Israel is not going away.
The former is pointless as it exists and has been recognized by the PLO, but the US does the same with it's foes such as Cuba. One major difference is that Cuba has defined borders and is inline with international law and not asking those it is denying to recognise it's right to exist despite being subject to military attacks itself from it's denier.

Quote:

I think the US's attitude toward Israel is screwed up and irrational, and I think we tend to identify somewhat weirdly with the Israelis (and I say this as a supporter of Israel myself), but I find this to be a really fringe attitude and not representative of the US one even so. The Arabs aren't considered "interlopers."
Sadly they often are - they only existed since '48 and Arafat was Egyptian. Israel was a land without a people and Mark Twain commented on it's emptiness. Palestinians largely followed the Jews to get work oh and Palestinians these days aren't even refugees. I've heard it all.

Quote:

Cain has no set views on foreign policy issues. Huckabee probably didn't until recently but perhaps he's got the Christian Zionist thing going on.
Cain recently said 'the so called Palestinian people' I doubt he arrived at this viewpoint on his own. Huckabee I expect is much better informed on the history and very influenced by his faith, going as far as to call for Palestine to be created in Egypt or Saudi Arabia. Not much fuss was made over either comment, but say that about Israelis or Israel and you are toast.

Let's not forget Obama declaring Jerusalem Israel's eternal and undivided capital when addressing AIPAC. It gets to the point where you do wonder if Arabs have rights to anything in the land of their fore fathers, more of that interloper mindset leaking through.


Quote:

My impression is that you think there's something about the Zionists being originally European that means the land *was* the Palestinian Arabs, such that the UN (and the Zionists) were inherently in the wrong in what happened, but I don't think that makes sense. People move about.
Yeah it matters that they were from Europe or rather that they were from elsewhere. Hence my original analogy

Quote:

I wonder if this isn't to a certain extent why Americans have ended up being so pro Israel, in that we are not likely to accept the idea that immigrants to an area are always and forever intruders who don't belong. But obviously the problem with this is true everywhere, it's just something that Americans tend to be more focused on than people in, say, Western Europe.
I'm unconvinced that this is the reason.

thouartgob 11-09-2011 09:29 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 230947)
It's what Bob was getting at in the beginning of the conversation: that there has never been an Israeli offer that's even remotely acceptable to Palestinians, despite all the propaganda that a resolution of the conflict was inches away. (One particularly ludicrous legend is that Barak and Arafat almost had a deal brokered by Bill Clinton.) In other words, although you may get a few opinion polls that show Palestinians to favor a two-state solution, the devil is all over the details. What Israeli Jews mean by 2-states is light years from what Palestinians mean by it. The "agreement" is just a vague "in principle, it would be okay."

Another way of putting what stephanie said is that if Palestinians resistance were to become over a long period of time :


Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 230943)
(a non-violent movement, rejection of violence, a sincere desire to be citizens of one Israel with recognition of what currently exists in many ways and a secular government, etc.)

Could this not lead to a 2 state solution but reached in a shorter time frame ?

I agree with Bob that as a 1 state solution becomes more thinkable a 2 state one becomes more plausible so that 1 state is valuable in more ways than ... er... one, but the forces that keep a 2 state from coming into being ( settlements, fundamentalism etc. ) stand in the way of 1 state as well.

I do understand ( and forgive me if you have made this point before ) however if you are saying that there is nothing that the Palestinians can do, violent or non violent, that can stop settlements and the formal and informal annexation of Palestinian lands. In that case they have no choice to but create a many generational sufferage movement, hoping they get the right to vote someday.

Seems to me that the difference between an Israeli 2 state solution and a Palestinian one is something that can be bridged in a medium term ( 10-20 years ) as opposed to a 30-50 year time frame for a sufferage movement. I maybe be a bit off in the actual time frame but it would seem such a movement would take longer to come to pass than the more intermediate step of a 2 state.

ledocs 11-09-2011 09:37 PM

Re: The Unmaking of Israel (Robert Wright & Gershom Gorenberg)
 
On the legality of Israel's settlements on the West Bank, interested parties may consult the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...li_settlements

Quote:

According to the BBC, every government in the world, except Israel, considers the settlements to be illegal.
However, the illegality relies primarily upon the Fourth Geneva Convention, not upon UN Resolution 242, which is a political document.

miceelf 11-09-2011 09:56 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 230941)
Yes, just as whites were not kicked out of South Africa. Israel could have a constitution at last, one which would protect the rights of all its citizens from the Jordan to the Sea.

I don't recall huge swaths of African South Africans publically calling for the death of the whites. As well, there were surprisingly few incidents of violence by Blacks toward whites. They certainly were not raining down rockets into white towns on a regular basis.

I suspect that the piece of Gershom's thought that most bothers you is his pointing out that analogies to other contexts are at best imperfect. I am sure you have an answer, but I find it hard to believe that you really think that the feelings of the Palestinian populace toward Israelis is at all comparable to the racial attitudes of Black south africans.

miceelf 11-09-2011 09:59 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 230943)
What is this based on? Are you including those who simply think that there should be no Israel? If so, I don't think it's an argument for one-state at all.

My thoughts as well. In fact, I suspect that at least a sizable minority of the Palestinian populace want exactly the kind of one-state solution that already exists, with them in the position the Israelis currently have, and the Israelis in their position, except, replace "gaza" with "the sea"

I am NOT saying that the Palestinians aren't entitled to their resentments. God knows that a whole host of Israeli policies seem primarily directed toward stoking those resentments, but it's beyond naive to pretend that they don't exist.

Wonderment 11-10-2011 12:29 AM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

I agree with Bob that as a 1 state solution becomes more thinkable a 2 state one becomes more plausible so that 1 state is valuable in more ways than ... er... one, but the forces that keep a 2 state from coming into being ( settlements, fundamentalism etc. ) stand in the way of 1 state as well.
Yes, the "Bob solution" has been around for a while: If you Israelis don't negotiate two states, one state will be the only option. Both Jimmy Carter (Christian Zionist US president) and Ehud Olmert (right-wing former PM of the State of Israel) have used the Apartheid metaphor to describe what Israel will become absent a Palestinian state. By this logic, Israel should take two states while the option is still on the table, before it's too late. My opinion is that it's already too late. The international diplomatic community consensus is a lagging indicator (i.e., living in the past).

Part of the beauty of one state is that the Settlements DON'T stand in the way of a resolution. Leave the Settlements alone. The Settlers can still vote, serve in the IDF and exercise all other rights of citizenship. But so can the other human beings who live in the Occupied Territories.

Wonderment 11-10-2011 12:39 AM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

I suspect that the piece of Gershom's thought that most bothers you is his pointing out that analogies to other contexts are at best imperfect. I am sure you have an answer, but I find it hard to believe that you really think that the feelings of the Palestinian populace toward Israelis is at all comparable to the racial attitudes of Black south africans.
No, I understand what makes Gershom and others uncomfortable about comparisons to Apartheid. Fine. Don't call it Apartheid. Treat Israel as unique, without preconceptions.

It's still clear what's needed: Palestinians and Jewish Israelis need to get to know each other better, build trust. This is best done at the grassroots level: Hebrew speakers learning Arabic (and vice versa), integrated education, integrated housing, intermarriage. The more bilingual, bicultural, bi-spiritual children, the better.

The best thing Israelis and Palestinians can do for peace and justice is to date each other.

Wonderment 11-10-2011 01:34 AM

Re: Earth Calling Onederment
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 230944)
No schbicker-something or anything? So disappointed... ;)

God agrees to grant Hyman a wish, with the condition that whatever he asks for, his brother-in-law will get double.
“Okay,” Hyman says, “I wish I were half-dead."

Florian 11-10-2011 05:21 AM

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

Originally Posted by ledocs (Post 230955)
On the legality of Israel's settlements on the West Bank, interested parties may consult the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...li_settlements

However, the illegality relies primarily upon the Fourth Geneva Convention, not upon UN Resolution 242, which is a political document.

This is a perfect illustration of the the imperfect nature of international law when sovereign, rogue states choose to ignore it.

Remember when Bush and the neo-cons were hyperventilating about rogue states?

Quote:

The International Court of Justice concluded that Israel had breached its obligations under international law by establishing settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and that Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of imposing a régime, which is contrary to international law. The Court also concluded that the Israeli régime violates the basic human rights of the Palestinians by impeding the liberty of movement of the inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (with the exception of lsraeli citizens) and their exercise of the right to work, to health, to education and to an adequate standard of living.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:20 AM.

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