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)

Sulla the Dictator 11-09-2011 04:08 AM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 230809)
Let's assume they all left willingly (which, of course, they didn't). How does that make any difference? Did they simply gift their property and the rights of their descendants to the Jews?

Is Israel the first nation in the history of the globe to capture territory, and use it? The Arabs of Palestine rejected the UN partition in solidarity with the Arab League. This leaves the matter of Israel's existence up to a contest of arms, which the Israelis won. The Israelis were content with the borders after 1948; it was the Arabs who again caused them to expand with further unprovoked wars.

Quote:

No one on the planet, except Zionists, believe that Palestinian rights ceased to exist in 1948. That's why they have refugee status under the UN, and why their status also extends to their descendants, whether they reside in camps or not.
Which is an outrage. There is no difference between the fallout in expulsions after WWII and the fate of modern Trans-Jordanians. Where is the UN on the "right of return" of some 250,000 Bosnian Serbs? Why don't you advocate for that, or does the memory of Greater Serbia and Pan-Slavic chauvinism stick in your craw?

opposable_crumbs 11-09-2011 04:12 AM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 230803)

Why do the Palestinians have any more claim to Israel than the Algerians to al-Andalus?

Why do Jews have anymore claim to Israel?

The problem with European Jews returning to their ancient homeland, was that it was someone's actual homeland.

opposable_crumbs 11-09-2011 04:20 AM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 230813)
Is Israel the first nation in the history of the globe to capture territory, and use it? The Arabs of Palestine rejected the UN partition in solidarity with the Arab League. This leaves the matter of Israel's existence up to a contest of arms, which the Israelis won. The Israelis were content with the borders after 1948; it was the Arabs who again caused them to expand with further unprovoked wars.



Which is an outrage. There is no difference between the fallout in expulsions after WWII and the fate of modern Trans-Jordanians. Where is the UN on the "right of return" of some 250,000 Bosnian Serbs? Why don't you advocate for that, or does the memory of Greater Serbia and Pan-Slavic chauvinism stick in your craw?

No doubt Iraq would be condemned if it made it's Sunni minority refugees for generations and seized their property, and I doubt many would just chalk that off as the realities of conflict.

As for unprovked wars Israel has it's fair share of blame, the Lavon Affair, or Suez, 67 not to mention continued violations of other countries airspace.

Thankfully I don't have to defend ethnic cleansing, be it Arabs from Palestine or Jews from Syria.

opposable_crumbs 11-09-2011 04:22 AM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 230812)
Except that there were no Palestinians. These were Arabs living under British rule, being herded by other Arabs. Just like Germans fleeing the Russian advance bringing German civilians along with them, by force if necessary. Doesn't get Prussia back, does it?

There are Jews alive today who have passports with Palestine printed on the front. And there are those who say Israel is not a colonial project.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTduy7Qkvk8

Ocean 11-09-2011 07:48 AM

Re: Earth Calling Onederment
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 230808)
Thank you for pointing that out. Otherwise, everyone would have thought I was a seer.

What's the Yiddish word for two old men who find enjoyment in arguing and going at each other's throat until they die? There must be one I bet. ;)

ledocs 11-09-2011 09:16 AM

Re: The Unmaking of Israel (Robert Wright & Gershom Gorenberg)
 
I am basically completely on board with Gorenberg. On the other hand, I thought his response to the "apartheid" question was itself evasive and unhelpful. As though Jimmy Carter does not know that the legal regime of Arab-Israeli citizens is not analogous to the legal status of blacks in apartheid South Africa. So, clearly, to speak of apartheid in Israel is some kind of rhetorical exaggeration. So what? I read the Goldstone piece, but I don't remember exactly what he says about the legal status of Palestinians on the West Bank and in Gaza. It seems to me that the analogies there with apartheid are many and fairly apt, the amount of racism in Israel is, in fact, huge, so if people find the analogy offensive, tough. The analogy is not primarily juridical to begin with.

The point is, the world, and the US in particular, has stood by while Israel engages in a patent land grab and a denial to Palestinians of basic human rights. The oppressed have become oppressors. The rest is all obfuscation and rationalization. Just as the Arab side was never obliged to kill Israelis, Israel was never obliged by terrorist or military acts against it to expand its territory illegally and relentlessly, engaging in an inexorable campaign of expropriation. The attacks do not justify the expansion and expropriation, they are a pretext.

Florian 11-09-2011 10:58 AM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 230773)
The UN cannot carry out any mandate. The partition arrangement was rejected by the Arab League, with the Palestinians voting with their feet. Palestine is to Israel what the Bosnian Serb Republic was to Bosnia.


Palestine, British mandate Palestine, was the historical name given to the region by the League of Nations, as I remember. To say that the autochthonous people of British Mandate Palestine, who numbered in the hundreds of thousands when the state of Israel was created, relinquished their rights because they fled from an invading Israel army is an odd way of speaking.

But not altogether surprising in the mouth of an American---when you consider the history of the "conquest" of the North American continent, I mean.

Quote:

Well the Palestinians do not want to be Jordanians and Egyptians anymore. If they were returned to their status in 1966, they wouldn't be "stateless" either, but they wouldn't be Palestinians. They are as real a national identity as Alsatians, or "Sudetenlanders" or Volga Germans.
Precisely. They do not want to be Jordanians or Egyptians. And the Jordanians and Egyptians do not want them either. Perhaps, the Americans would be so good as to create a few Indian reservations for them?

stephanie 11-09-2011 12:45 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 230770)
He's a liberal, except insofar as he is a Zionist. Zionism is incompatible with modern liberal thought, in my opinion.

This is where we disagree. I see nothing wrong with being a Zionist. Indeed, I probably am one (I am under my understanding of the term), so I clearly see no inconsistency with liberalism.

Quote:

It is not as though he were emigrating to Norway or Argentina.
Or the US, I suppose.

No, I don't see the difference. Israel, like the US, has a right to determine its own immigration policy, and I don't see anything wrong with it defining itself as a homeland for Jews and thus granting immediate citizenship to Jews. That does not bother me.

Obviously, there's a problem because there is disputed land and different groups claiming the same land. But that's hardly a unique problem, even if the particular solution and concerns are always going to be unique to any specific area.

I also think it's problematic to define Gershom as "not a liberal" because he benefited from some policies, as opposed to his views on the various policies themselves. (Note: I am certain he and you, like you and I, would not see eye to eye on precisely what the policies should be, but the point is that it's wrong to try and discredit him because he did benefit from the policies.)

Quote:

Many Jews (myself included) have declined or renounced these privileges on the grounds that they are not consistent with a liberal understanding of human rights.
Otherwise you'd be off to Israel? /sarcasm

Personally, I have no desire to emigrate from the US. I am attached to the US, and consider my status as an American a significant part of who I am. As such, I can't say it's illiberal for others to want their own state in the way that people over modern history have (troublesome as this desire has been at times, although where it fits in terms of conservatism/liberalism is a lot more muddy than you allow for). Now, clearly, the US is not defined based on ethnicity or religion, but like any country it is based on a particular culture (diverse and changing as it is) and history, as well as ideas about government that grow out of that. Much as I like Canada, if you were to tell me I shouldn't care about the existence of the US because I could live in Canada, that doesn't seem to get it at all. I suspect the average Canadian would not be thrilled with the idea that it would be all the same if we just forgot about that silly border and granted all Canadians citizenship in the wonderful USA.

This is mostly just an aside, however, in response to the idea that in a perfect world we'd all drop such silly allegiances. 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.

It seems silly to debate what "liberal" means, though, when we both know what it does mean in the context of the debate in both Israel and the US. In essence, I don't think you are debating with me the meaning of "liberal," but trying to claim the moral high ground, with all positions to the right equally objectionable. There's no point in trying to come to any solution other than yours -- the centrists are worse than the far right, since they muddle the discussion. Maybe I'm wrong here, but this is how I'm reading it.

It's really frustrating that everyone in this debate seems to be unwilling to acknowledge that there's any room for legitimate disagreement, any gray area in a matter that seems to me full of gray. That is why discussions like the diavlog are so pleasant, even if they don't accomplish much in the real world. You feel like there's some possibility for mutual understanding still.

Quote:

There was a good case to be made for Jewish immigration to Israel from countries where Jews were persecuted, including the Soviet Union and some parts of the Arab world. No one has been persecuted in the USA, however, for being Jewish.
I see nothing wrong with wanting a country where Jews are the majority. Part of this is that it exists and can be a refuge for Jews who are persecuted in the way that countries like the US and UK basically refused to be pre WW2, but it's not the only reason the desire seems legitimate to me.

stephanie 11-09-2011 12:54 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 230781)
Seriously? So now refugees fleeing a war zone (which is an incredibly charitable account of the causes of Palestinian population shifts during the 1948 war), are "voting with their feet" against ever wanting to return to their homes?

Because it fits the diavlog so well, here is Gershom's recent Slate piece on the issue -- an adaptation of a section of his book discussed here, in fact.

Ray in Seattle 11-09-2011 01:03 PM

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

Originally Posted by ledocs (Post 230827)
The point is, the world, and the US in particular, has stood by while Israel engages in a patent land grab and a denial to Palestinians of basic human rights. The oppressed have become oppressors. The rest is all obfuscation and rationalization. Just as the Arab side was never obliged to kill Israelis, Israel was never obliged by terrorist or military acts against it to expand its territory illegally and relentlessly, engaging in an inexorable campaign of expropriation. The attacks do not justify the expansion and expropriation, they are a pretext.

This is the reality-denying kind of thing I find so maddening. Israel acquired control of the West Bank and Gaza as a necessity of self-defense and only because the Arab League left Israel with no alternative. Overall Israeli acquisition of territory has only occurred during defensive wars that Israel did not start. In fact these were wars that Israel did everything possible to prevent by appealing to the UN as well as directly to the US, Britain and France to intervene politically and with blocking troops and navies to prevent impending Arab attacks. Despite full-on diplomatic efforts by Israeli leaders in 1948 and 1967 to avoid war - (1973 was a surprise Arab attack that left no time for diplomacy) - Israel was repeatedly abandoned by the UN and left to fend for itself.

The West Bank was acquired at the tail end of defensive operations in 1967 as Jordanian and Syrian (and some token Iraqi) forces retreated in disarray. There were no "Palestinian people" at that time, if you recall. The Arabs living there simply considered themselves, and the world considered them - as Jordanians, Syrians and Egyptians because those nations had occupied the land between 1949 and 1967 as the result of the previous war that they had started in 1948. In 1967, 44 years ago, there was no area of the West bank or Gaza called Palestine - except as a convenience for newspapers to not have to say "the land occupied by Arabs who used to be the Jordanians, Egyptians and Syrians in the areas of the British Mandate that are not now Israel or Jordan".

Israel immediately wanted to trade the territory it had occupied in the last days of the 1967 war with the Arab states that had attacked Israel - in exchange for peace treaties that guaranteed Israel's borders and future security in the region. Israel was turned down by the Arab League in Khartoum with the "Three No's". Acceptance by the League would have meant that the Arabs would have to give up their fantasy of destroying Israel some day when they were stronger. That left Israel with no choice but to remain in control until other arrangements could be made. The Arab Khartoum strategy had been firmly set in place.

And so to put a cap on the '67 war the UN passed S/RES/242 which recognized Israel's need to establish permanent defensible borders by direct negotiations between Israel and Palestine's again stateless Arabs. But - to the puzzlement of the clueless West - it seems Palestine's Arabs have done everything imaginable to avoid those negotiations for 44 years now.

Is it so difficult to see the very obvious? That the Palestinian Arabs did not then and will not now reach an agreement on those borders because doing so will require recognizing Israel's right to exist within them - it would legally solidify the borders of the "Zionist Entity" that all Arab leaders in the West Bank and Gaza have sworn (in their charters and daily in interviews shown to their people in Arab) to eliminate. As long as those borders remain undefined the "Zionist Entity" lacks permanent borders and the Palestinian Arabs have more legitimacy (at least in a PR sense) for their pretext of "occupation" as justification to attack and kill Israeli civilians - and to slowly turn the world, weary of the whole thing, against the only side that is willing to concede any movement toward compromise. The strategy is obviously working. They'd be stupid to abandon it.

As I said to Stephanie, I prefer to look at the big picture and not get bogged down in the specifics that have no bearing on the causes or justification for the conflict as a whole. In that spirit, I think what is obvious is that many liberals hold the emotional (non-conscious) belief that Israel never should have been created and also that they hope that that error will somehow be corrected (never taking any personal risk and leaving their own hands free of blood of course) and that Israel just goes away somehow. Actually, the furthest left have no problem admitting it. And so they create and join in these elaborate and fanciful tribal narratives about an "indigenous Palestinian people" and the rights of the members of that imaginary nation to their land and dignity and their right not to be occupied, etc.

I used to believe that as a liberal I was moire prepared to use reason and reference to some objective reality to justify my beliefs about the world - than those on the right. I now realize that only very few liberals are prepared to do that and the same is true for conservatives. I'm afraid the great majority on both sides are quite willing to create fantastic narratives about any number of things to justify believing whatever it is that feels good to them - for motives that come from a deeper psychological level.

Your comment is full of opinion and quips from the dominant leftist narrative of the conflict - as you probably see mine as full of right wing tropes. It's probably true that one of us is more right than wrong and the other is delusional here. I think I'm right of course but I'll accept up front that I could be the delusional one. From your diavlog with Bob I have the impression that you are an academic so you must have had some training in objective analysis. Would you care to apply that analytical power to help both of us decide if it is you or me who is the delusional one? 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.

opposable_crumbs 11-09-2011 01:31 PM

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

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 230860)
This is the reality-denying kind of thing I find so maddening. Israel acquired control of the West Bank and Gaza as a necessity of self-defense and only because the Arab League left Israel with no alternative. Overall Israeli acquisition of territory has only occurred during defensive wars that Israel did not start.

Israel launched the 67 war despite it's own intelligence service, as well as that of the US, stating that Nasser forces where not an immediate threat. A view shared by Israel's foreign minister at the time Abbas Eban. The history also ignores the earlier Israeli/British/French invasion of Egypt and the Lavon affair.

Florian 11-09-2011 01:32 PM

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

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 230860)
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.

The only person who rambles in this forum is you, ray, a senile, verbose fool if ever there was one.

opposable_crumbs 11-09-2011 01:48 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 230858)
This is where we disagree. I see nothing wrong with being a Zionist. Indeed, I probably am one (I am under my understanding of the term), so I clearly see no inconsistency with liberalism.



Or the US, I suppose.

As an American would you support the partition of the USA with half given to the African American community as a homeland for Black Americans or even those who are recent arrivals from Africa?

apple 11-09-2011 01:52 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 230814)
Why do Jews have anymore claim to Israel?

The problem with European Jews returning to their ancient homeland, was that it was someone's actual homeland.

Yes, it was. So what are we going to do about it?

apple 11-09-2011 01:52 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Parallax (Post 230802)
I don't think "Sandy Asses" means what apple thinks it means ... but that aside why should Arab governments pay for it? The continuation of the conflict is excellent for domestic political rhetoric.

You are criticizing me for someone else's words and arguments? Leftists...

Ray in Seattle 11-09-2011 01:54 PM

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

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 230862)
Israel launched the 67 war despite it's own intelligence service, as well as that of the US, stating that Nasser forces where not an immediate threat. A view shared by Israel's foreign minister at the time Abbas Eban. The history also ignores the earlier Israeli/British/French invasion of Egypt and the Lavon affair.

Aside from the opinions expressed by various Israeli agencies and leaders in the days prior to the war when they were searching all possibilities to find ways to avoid the coming war - no-one who has seriously studied the history of the Six Day War could possibly believe that it was started by Israel - or that its goal was to steal the West Bank or Gaza from the Arabs. If that was a credible premise there should be at least one respected book out there justifying it in detail - something other than an ideological polemic.

What you list is out of context and circumstantial. OTOH there are voluminous records of the transcripts of meetings among Israel's leaders and with US and British leaders and diplomats before the war that show the exact opposite of that to be true. That is direct evidence.

In fact, there is not one piece of convincing direct evidence for the claim that Israel's preemptive attack on Egypt was for other than immediate and eminent defensive purposes. I challenge you to produce it.

apple 11-09-2011 01:57 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Parallax (Post 230807)
That means $25 billion for West Bank alone ...

Sounds good to me. On to Israeli Arabs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parallax (Post 230807)
Well they were refugees back then. I don't know how that forces Jordan to accept refugees today. Also you seem to ignore the fact that a 50% overnight rise in any country's population will be problematic.

Jordan wasn't forced to accept them back then, so undoubtedly, it was somehow to Jordan's advantage. And no one talked about an overnight move - raising the money in one year would also be troubling. On the other hand, spread it out over 10 years, and Israel will have to pay $2.5 billion each year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parallax (Post 230807)
I have no idea why you are talking about Palestinian national identity etc. the problem is simple to state: there are 4 million people who do not have a nation. Most people tolerated this b/c they perceived it as temporary until Palestinians get their own state. With the two state solution gone this won't be tolerated anymore. And I repeat: Jordan or Egypt have no obligation to give Palestinians Jordanian or Egyptian passports. It is Israel's problem not theirs, after all they don't have a military presence in the West Bank or Gaza ...

Not anymore. But if you recall, the West Bank and Gaza actually belonged to Jordan and Egypt respectively. It sounds only fair that they would give their former subjects passports. What is this, Apartheid?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parallax (Post 230807)
So you were joking all this time ...

Actually, I wasn't. But your absurd question didn't merit a response.

Florian 11-09-2011 02:06 PM

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

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 230872)
Aside from the various opinions expressed by Israeli agencies and diplomats in the days prior to the war no-one who has seriously studied the history of the Six Day War could possibly believe that it was started by Israel - or that its goal was to steal the West Bank or Gaza from the Arabs. If it was s credible premise there should be at least one respected book out there justifying it in detail - something other than an ideological polemic.

OTOH there are voluminous records of the transcripts of meetings among Israel's leaders and with US and British leaders and diplomats before the war that show the exact opposite of that to be true.

In fact, there is not one piece of convincing direct evidence for the claim that Israel's preemptive attack on Egypt was other than for defenseless purposes. I challenge you to produce it.

What are you trying to prove Ray? That you are an accredited historian? That on the basis of your third-hand erudition and senile ramblings about the past we should accept that the Palestinians should be forever deprived of a state in the present?

opposable_crumbs 11-09-2011 02:22 PM

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

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 230872)
Aside from the opinions expressed by various Israeli agencies and leaders in the days prior to the war when they were searching all possibilities to find ways to avoid the coming war - no-one who has seriously studied the history of the Six Day War could possibly believe that it was started by Israel - or that its goal was to steal the West Bank or Gaza from the Arabs.

Care to find a single intelligence agency that at the time, or even since, that agrees with your assessment regarding Nasser's troops? It happens that they were correct in their assessment. And though Israeli leaders at the time claimed that Egypt attacked first, they had to walk back that claim, and have commented since that 67 was a war of choice. All this has a rather familiar ring to it don't you think?

stephanie 11-09-2011 02:26 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 230867)
As an American would you support the partition of the USA with half given to the African American community as a homeland for Black Americans or even those who are recent arrivals from Africa?

That's not a valid analogy. You can create a more valid analogy if you go back to the founding of the US.

I think there's a silliness to a lot of the discussion, a refusal to look at what is vs. blaming one side only, and I include both extremes in that. To the extent the argument becomes (a) Israel has no right to exist, or (b) because of past wars the Palestinians have no right to any land and should go to Jordan or Egypt and be happy, it's clear there's no interest in understanding the other POV or in any reasonable solution to the issue. Israel is not going to decide its founding was a mistake and pack up the whole country. Nor is it immoral for Jews to have moved to the area in question.

opposable_crumbs 11-09-2011 02:29 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 230879)
That's not a valid analogy. You can create a more valid analogy if you go back to the founding of the US.

I think there's a silliness to a lot of the discussion, a refusal to look at what is vs. blaming one side only, and I include both extremes in that. To the extent the argument becomes (a) Israel has no right to exist, or (b) because of past wars the Palestinians have no right to any land and should go to Jordan or Egypt and be happy, it's clear there's no interest in understanding the other POV or in any reasonable solution to the issue. Israel is not going to decide its founding was a mistake and pack up the whole country. Nor is it immoral for Jews to have moved to the area in question.

It's just that the African Americans were treated horribly, came from another continent, and advocated for an independent state of sorts within the same time period as the Jews, so the analogy has a certain vividness that Native American analogies might not.

Florian 11-09-2011 02:32 PM

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

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 230878)
Care to find a single intelligence agency that at the time, or even since, that agrees with your assessment regarding Nasser's troops? It happens that they were correct in their assessment. And though Israeli leaders at the time claimed that Egypt attacked first, they had to walk back that claim, and have commented since that 67 was a war of choice. All this has a rather familiar ring to it don't you think?

This is a pointless debate. Or rather it is a historical debate, which has little bearing on present issues, on what must be done now. You are right to object to simplistic, pro-Israeli versions of the 1967 war, but in the end what does it matter?

Wonderment 11-09-2011 02:46 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 230858)
.
Or the US, I suppose.

Yes, or the USA.

Quote:

Israel, like the US, has a right to determine its own immigration policy, and I don't see anything wrong with it defining itself as a homeland for Jews and thus granting immediate citizenship to Jews. That does not bother me.

Which means, ethnic-religious states do not bother you. That's fine, but I don't think it's liberal, even when the land is NOT disputed and there are NO refugees.

Quote:

Otherwise you'd be off to Israel? /sarcasm
I considered it as a young man and rejected the idea. Of course, I get it. People fall in love, they have adventures, they get job offers, they want to learn a new language. There are dozens of legitimate and understandable reasons for emigration. But it's still morally troublesome if you really think of what the privilege of Jewish citizenship is based on.

Quote:

This is mostly just an aside, however, in response to the idea that in a perfect world we'd all drop such silly allegiances. 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.
I respect pragmatic objections to one-state. I supported 2 states until about 2000 when I concluded that it was NOT pragmatic and that 2-staters had lost that argument. I could be wrong. (Bob seemed to agree with me, based on his recent visit, FWITW.) Time will tell.

thouartgob 11-09-2011 02:46 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by apple (Post 230870)
You are criticizing me for someone else's words and arguments? Leftists...

Sorry I left out an adjective

Quote:

Originally Posted by apple (Post 230469)
Wow, if you wage wars of aggression on an innocent country three times and get your backward, sandy ass handed to you, you lose land. Who could have imagined that?

Now whether or not you think the backward sandy asses should pay to have these Palestinians removed from the west bank and gaza etc. is up to you. I was just trying to help out :)

... since you don't think Palestinians exist please make up a name, Unless you think that they are all backward sandy asses ??

stephanie 11-09-2011 02:46 PM

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

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 230860)
the Palestinian Arabs

are not one monolithic entity. One of the problems -- both with the claim that they all gave up their rights because of fighting and losing various wars and with the claim that terrorism/the claim by some that Israel has no right to exist means that they can't have any land -- is that there's no state that we can really say speaks for everyone. It's clear there's a lot of popular support for strategies and views I dislike, obviously, but some of this seems to me a natural outcome of the situation.

Quote:

As long as those borders remain undefined the "Zionist Entity" lacks permanent borders and the Palestinian Arabs have more legitimacy (at least in a PR sense) for their pretext of "occupation" as justification to attack and kill Israeli civilians - and to slowly turn the world, weary of the whole thing, against the only side that is willing to concede any movement toward compromise. The strategy is obviously working. They'd be stupid to abandon it.
I don't think it's so successful or so thought out as all that, or good for the Palestinians in the way you seem to imagine. Indeed, if PR was the goal (and I wish it was more a focus) a strong non-violence movement would be a lot more successful than terrorist attacks and terrorist attacks undo the good that any kind of non-violent efforts do.

Quote:

In that spirit, I think what is obvious is that many liberals hold the emotional (non-conscious) belief that Israel never should have been created and also that they hope that that error will somehow be corrected (never taking any personal risk and leaving their own hands free of blood of course) and that Israel just goes away somehow.
I think this is a weird thing to say, especially from the perspective of the US and the US definition of liberalism (the Dems). You seem to be WAY overexaggerating the relevance of such a view and, as I said initially (and you haven't yet responded), it's especially odd when (a) you claim to be a liberal or have liberal sympathies, (b) this is a response to a discussion by two self-proclaimed liberals (Bob and Gershom), and (c) the views you are claiming to be arguing against weren't expressed by either Bob or Gershom and are in particular the antithesis of what Gershom said, as his concern includes as a very important piece what's good for Israel.

Indeed, my sense, as someone who is a liberal and pro-Israel is that the concerns of many liberals in the US for settling this issue, for a 2-state solution, the criticism of certain acts by Israel and in particular of the settlements comes out of concern for or some kind of attachment to Israel. For some people, it's akin to how we might feel about other close allies (i.e., the UK), whereas others have closer emotional attachments still for various reasons.

There are also a lot of liberals in the US who are no more inclined to be criticial of anything Israel does than the right is. That's current US public opinion in many ways.

This idea that any criticism of Israel means that people want it to stop existing is wrong and trotted out whenever people react to Israel the way we do to ALL our other allies. I can say whatever I want about France or Germany or even the UK without people accusing me of wanting them no to exist, etc.

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.

Wonderment 11-09-2011 02:46 PM

Re: Earth Calling Onederment
 
Quote:

What's the Yiddish word for two old men who find enjoyment in arguing and going at each other's throat until they die?
Assholes.

opposable_crumbs 11-09-2011 02:47 PM

Re: The Unmaking of Israel (Robert Wright & Gershom Gorenberg)
 
I wish it wasn't necessary, but the 67 war is used or maybe that should be misused to justify the occupation and annexation of East Jerusalem as well as paint the Arabs as the aggressors, while other events are overlooked. Normally, this wouldn't be a problem but the myths are remarkably persistent when meeting young Israelis. I think it also hi-lights the importance of being skeptical of both what your leaders say and what your text-books teach. Of course this isn't exclusive to Israel by any means, but it is certainly destructive to progress.

Ray in Seattle 11-09-2011 02:49 PM

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

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 230878)
Care to find a single intelligence agency that at the time, or even since, that agrees with your assessment regarding Nasser's troops? It happens that they were correct in their assessment.

I assume your line of reasoning is that Israel started the Six Day War to expand its territory. (You should state your main premise before you offer evidence for it.)

You'll need more than circumstantial evidence for that. Like high level authorizing and planning documents from Israeli archives that say something to that effect. And then you need to account for the thousands of memos and transcripts from Israeli archives that say the opposite - especially those memos and transcripts that are corroborated by the non-Israelis such as US and British diplomats who were there. Good luck with all that.

opposable_crumbs 11-09-2011 02:59 PM

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

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 230887)
I assume your line of reasoning is that Israel stated the Six Day War to expand its territory. (You should state your main premise before you offer evidence for it.)

My main premise is that Israel did in fact start the 67 war and with questionable reasoning.

BornAgainDemocrat 11-09-2011 03:02 PM

Re: The Role of the Orthodox Rabbis
 
A good story. Thanks.

Florian 11-09-2011 03:05 PM

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

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 230886)
I wish it wasn't necessary, but the 67 war is used or maybe that should be misused to justify the occupation and annexation of East Jerusalem as well as paint the Arabs as the aggressors, while other events are overlooked. Normally, this wouldn't be a problem but the myths are remarkably persistent when meeting young Israelis. I think it also hi-lights the importance of being skeptical of both what your leaders say and what your text-books teach. Of course this isn't exclusive to Israel by any means, but it is certainly destructive to progress.

To be sure, but history, in the minds of ideologues like Ray who cannot even begin to imagine that his own country is partly responsible for the current impasse, is always being used to cast blame or absolve from blame. That is not the proper role of the historian.

Sulla the Dictator 11-09-2011 03:07 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 230814)
Why do Jews have anymore claim to Israel?

The problem with European Jews returning to their ancient homeland, was that it was someone's actual homeland.

They have more claim to it because they actually possess it. The world offered to split the land, the Arabs refused. Why is that not relevant?

stephanie 11-09-2011 03:07 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 230880)
It's just that the African Americans were treated horribly, came from another continent, and advocated for an independent state of sorts within the same time period as the Jews, so the analogy has a certain vividness that Native American analogies might not.

As an aside, this lets me back on my soapbox about the analogies people use (relating to the South Africa analogies also and my argument about using the term holocaust).

I'm trying to figure out why it's so impossible to discuss this issue, and one thing that strikes me is that people seem to think that the way to convince others who can't see what they assume are the clear moral rights and wrongs is by comparing the situation to something that they assume is accepted as clearcut -- colonialism or apartheid or slavery/Native Americans or so on.

I don't think this works. In fact, I think it backfires. If I think the Israelis have some moral justification for what they do, am inclined to sympathize with them, I may be able to be convinced that various actions by them are wrong if given specifics, but I'm not likely to assume that the situation is just like the ones in question. Instead, I'm more likely to write you off as not willing to look at the whole picture, to close my mind or just be unable to hear what you have to say.

As a meta comment, I often think the justifications given for using the harsh comparisons, the name-calling are just excuses for what feels satisfying to one's existing true-believers.

I'm actually pretty open to argument by analogy on a personal level, although I'm going to usually see flaws in the analogies selected. (This is probably because I'm a lawyer and law uses analogies without there being a claim that something is the equivalent of the analogy chosen.) A lot of people hate such arguments, though, because they assume equivalence is intended. The bigger problem I see with the analogies is that it's assumed that if something is like another thing we all agree is bad (colonialism, say) that it's bad in the same way. But that all depends on how we are defining our terms. It ends up being an argument over labels or other events and not about the specifics at hand. Thus, I don't think it ends up being an effective argument, but merely a name-calling exercise.

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

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 230815)
No doubt Iraq would be condemned if it made it's Sunni minority refugees for generations and seized their property, and I doubt many would just chalk that off as the realities of conflict.

No one seems to care overly much about the ethnic cleansing of Zimbabwe, and the spillover that has had in South Africa. Or the Balkans. Or Tibet. Why this fixation on Muslim grievance?

Parallax 11-09-2011 03:13 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by apple (Post 230873)
Sounds good to me. On to Israeli Arabs.

In 2010 Israel's GDP was $217 billion, $25 billion is about 11.5% of GDP. Now Israel's debt to GDP ratio was 78% in 2009. And all this ignores the fact that you have to pay off Jordan and Egypt as well ...

Quote:

Jordan wasn't forced to accept them back then, so undoubtedly, it was somehow to Jordan's advantage. And no one talked about an overnight move - raising the money in one year would also be troubling. On the other hand, spread it out over 10 years, and Israel will have to pay $2.5 billion each year.
Why should they accept refugees now? Jordan's king's first priority is to stay in power not bring in more potentially destabilizing citizenry into the country.

Quote:

Not anymore. But if you recall, the West Bank and Gaza actually belonged to Jordan and Egypt respectively. It sounds only fair that they would give their former subjects passports. What is this, Apartheid?
Former subjects? Take a look at the demographics, nearly 2/3 of the Palestinian population is born after 1980s. And if you insist on calling them former subjects of Jordan and Egypt still, I am sure the millions of Palestinian refugees scattered all over middle east would be very interested in your argument as well.

Quote:

Actually, I wasn't. But your absurd question didn't merit a response.
I asked that question b/c I think the total cost of money for peace will be close to $100 billion and no way Israel can pay that amount alone.

Parallax 11-09-2011 03:16 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by apple (Post 230870)
You are criticizing me for someone else's words and arguments? Leftists...

Not a leftist and if someone quotes you here I expect it to be truthful since you are an active member of this forum and attributing an untrue quote would lead to embarrassment rather quickly.

stephanie 11-09-2011 03:19 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 230882)
Which means, ethnic-religious states do not bother you. That's fine, but I don't think it's liberal, even when the land is NOT disputed and there are NO refugees.

More specifically, I don't think opening up citizenship to all of a particular ethnicity, background, so on, especially when there is a concern about the need for a homeland, is inherently anti-liberal. Nationalism has a bad name now, for obvious reasons, but it was at one time a force allied with liberalism, and I don't think it makes sense to treat all examples of ethnic/religious favoritism, such as the creation of a homeland for Jews where all Jews would be automatically welcomed, as identical to the US deciding to allow in only people of English background, say.

Similarly, I didn't have a problem with West Germany welcoming in all Germans in eastern Europe, including specifically East Germany or even a unified Germany which welcomed ethnic Germans who came from other countries. Nor do I get bothered or consider non-liberal the fact that many European countries give citizenship to sons and daughters of and even grandchildren of immigrants from their countries.

Parallax 11-09-2011 03:31 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?

The overall trend is of course against nationalism just compare 1911 with 2011 in this regard for example. But on our smaller time scale there one can come up with other reasons as well: the fact that Arab Israelis are much better off then Palestinians, some may get on board from purely tactical reasons.

Florian 11-09-2011 03:35 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 230897)
More specifically, I don't think opening up citizenship to all of a particular ethnicity, background, so on, especially when there is a concern about the need for a homeland, is inherently anti-liberal. Nationalism has a bad name now, for obvious reasons, but it was at one time a force allied with liberalism, and I don't think it makes sense to treat all examples of ethnic/religious favoritism, such as the creation of a homeland for Jews where all Jews would be automatically welcomed, as identical to the US deciding to allow in only people of English background, say.

Similarly, I didn't have a problem with West Germany welcoming in all Germans in eastern Europe, including specifically East Germany or even a unified Germany which welcomed ethnic Germans who came from other countries. Nor do I get bothered or consider non-liberal the fact that many European countries give citizenship to sons and daughters of and even grandchildren of immigrants from their countries.

But would you be bothered if a country, let us say a nominally or formerly Christian country like France, only gave citizenship to Christians or to Catholics, Protestants etc.?

I am not disputing your point, but there is a difference between ethnicity and religion in the minds of Christians and former Christians (atheists). Jews, even when they are atheists, see themselves as a distinct people (nation), an ethnicity. Zionism seems to me to be a compromise between a religious and an ethnic identity.

opposable_crumbs 11-09-2011 03:37 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 230893)
No one seems to care overly much about the ethnic cleansing of Zimbabwe, and the spillover that has had in South Africa. Or the Balkans. Or Tibet. Why this fixation on Muslim grievance?

Zimababwe was big news certainly in Europe, but small on oil I suppose, though military action was a hot topic for quite some time. The Balkans did lead to intervention, but Dafur which has lots of Muslims has not. Israel is a central issue for lots of converging reasons and 3 billion little green ones, means it will be for some time.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:09 PM.

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