Emanuele Ottolenghi has a very forceful piece in The Guardian that argues that anti-Zionism is synonymous with anti-Semitism. It’s certainly a controversial thesis, but looking at the way the two tend to go together in Europe and elsewhere there is plenty of intellectual ammunition for such an argument.
If Israel’s critics are truly opposed to anti-semitism, they should not repeat traditional anti-semitic themes under the anti-Israel banner. When such themes – the Jewish conspiracy to rule the world, linking Jews with money and media, the hooked-nose stingy Jew, the blood libel, disparaging use of Jewish symbols, or traditional Christian anti-Jewish imagery – are used to describe Israel’s actions, concern should be voiced. Labour MP Tam Dalyell decried the influence of “a Jewish cabal” on British foreign policy-making; an Italian cartoonist last year depicted the Israeli siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem as an attempt to kill Jesus “again”. Is it necessary to evoke the Jewish conspiracy or depict Israelis as Christ-killers to denounce Israeli policies?
The fact that accusations of anti-semitism are dismissed as paranoia, even when anti-semitic imagery is at work, is a subterfuge. Israel deserves to be judged by the same standards adopted for others, not by the standards of utopia. Singling out Israel for an impossibly high standard not applied to any other country begs the question: why such different treatment?
That is the question. Considering that the Palestinians are directly attacking Israeli civilians and not even bothering to hide such a fact, it seems more than a little suspicious that the vast majority of criticism is heaped upon Israel when it inadvertantly kills Palestinian civilians. There is a clear double standard here. Israelis don’t celebrate IDF officers who kill Palestinian civilians. In fact, some of them have been expelled or jailed for excessive force. In the Palestinian Authority, parades are held in the honor of people who murder Jews. There can be no moral equivalence between a society that sees violence only as a means of self-preservation against horrible attacks and a society that sees violence as the best thing one can do and that openly calls for the extermination of the other side. Yet one would think based on the way the anti-Zionists view the situation that Jews were just waiting to destroy or enslave all the Palestinians.
Such a view can have only two explanations: ignorance or malice, and it is clear from the attitudes of many anti-Zionist groups that the latter is the case. When the EU has to suppress a report stating that there is a strong link between anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism its is clear that there is something going on that simply cannot be ignored.
As Ottolenghi continues:
The argument that it is Israel’s behaviour, and Jewish support for it, that invite prejudice sounds hollow at best and sinister at worst. That argument means that sympathy for Jews is conditional on the political views they espouse. This is hardly an expression of tolerance. It singles Jews out. It is anti-semitism.
Zionism reversed Jewish historical passivity to persecution and asserted the Jewish right to self-determination and independent survival. This is why anti-Zionists see it as a perversion of Jewish humanism. Zionism entails the difficulty of dealing with sometimes impossible moral dilemmas, which traditional Jewish passivity in the wake of historical persecution had never faced. By negating Zionism, the anti-semite is arguing that the Jew must always be the victim, for victims do no wrong and deserve our sympathy and support.
Israel errs like all other nations: it is normal. What anti-Zionists find so obscene is that Israel is neither martyr nor saint. Their outrage refuses legitimacy to a people’s national liberation movement. Israel’s stubborn refusal to comply with the invitation to commit national suicide and thereby regain a supposedly lost moral ground draws condemnation. Jews now have the right to self-determination, and that is what the anti-semite dislikes so much.
Indeed I do not believe that all anti-Zionists are anti-Semites, in fact I can virtually guarantee it. However, those who espouse anti-Zionism are basing their case on an intellectual ground that cannot be supported without a series of patently anti-Semitic assumptions. If nationalism is wrong than Palestinian nationalism is at least as unacceptable as Jewish nationalism, and even more so because of its use of violence. If violence begets violence, then the Palestinians are the ones who began the first attacks against Jews living in what was then the British Mandate of Palestine. Remember that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the leader of the Arabs in Palestine was a violent anti-Semite who was directly responsible for the murder of 139 Jewish civilians in Hebron and Safad in 1929. During World War II the Grand Mufti personally met with Adolph Hitler and personally coordinated attacks against Jews in Palestine during the war with German commandos, including an attempt to poison the water supply of Tel Aviv. Mufti Husseini’s plan was to construct a camp modeled on Auschwitz near Nablus in which the Jewish occupants of Palestine would be murdered as the Jews of Germany had been.
Yet anti-Zionism imposes a collective guilt upon the people of Israel regardless of their histories for the crime of simply living. Anti-Zionism provides a convenient whitewash for acts of barbarous and inhuman terrorism such as suicide bombings and murdering Jewish infants in their sleep. To ignore such actions while constantly casting Israel’s attempts at self-protection as being immoral and unnecessary effectively dehumanizes Jews and reduces them to little more than political pawns whose lives can be forfeit merely because of their political and religious identity. If such an attitude cannot be called racism and bigotry, then both concepts have no meaning.
I am both a proud Jew and a proud anti-Zionist. The distinction between an anti-Semite and an anti-Zionist is not so complicated as this argument seems to be making it. An anti-Zionist believes that Jews do not have an inalienable or divine right to be the sole possessors of the Holy Land. In my mind, and the minds of many of my friends, the Holy Land was not a gift from God to the Jews, but a gift from God to Mankind. No one group may lay claim to what is God’s, nor may they lay claim to what belongs to all.
I believe the state of Israel has a right to exist. I do not believe it has the right to ignore the rules of an occupying power. I do not believe it has the right to imprison thousands of people “for the crime of simply living.” I am a strong anti-Likud Jew, and, believe me, there’s a lot of us in the synagogues every week. We want to see Israel strong and at peace.
I do not believe it has the right to imprison thousands of people “for the crime of simply living.”
Strawman.
I am a strong anti-Likud Jew, and, believe me, there’s a lot of us in the synagogues every week.
How unfortunate.
We want to see Israel strong and at peace.
I thought you said you were anti-Likud?
Okay, Stan, you got your snarky comments in…care to actually contribute something of substance? And how exactly is that a strawman, or did you just want to show you knew the word?
And how exactly is that a strawman, or did you just want to show you knew the word?
Come on, JR.
I do not believe it has the right to imprison thousands of people “for the crime of simply living.”
Israel imprisons thousands of people “for the crime of simply living.”??? Heh.. You’ld think this conflict be over a long time ago if Israel did all the things it’s being accused of.
“”Israel imprisons thousands of people “for the crime of simply living.”???”
Yes, Stan. ‘Stone walls do not a prison make, nor iron bars a cage.’ When they build a giant wall complete with sentry towers, and when movement is restricted to certain areas based on ethnic origin, I consider that imprisonment.
And, again, care to justify your apparent belief that the Likud is the only group capable of making Israel safe and strong? Last time I checked, it’s a lot easier to be both of those without constant acts of terrorism being commited, and the Likud has not managed to stop terror, but instead to follow a course that creates more terrorists.
Now, in a political discussion (just like this one!) this is the part where you would traditionally offer something to back up YOUR claim, rather than just assume that blowing things up and putting them behind walls constitutes the secret to success.
And the second this becomes a black-and-white issue, I’ll be sure to give you a call.
When they build a giant wall complete with sentry towers,
Those walls are built to keep people out – not to keep them in.
and when movement is restricted to certain areas based on ethnic origin, I consider that imprisonment.
Ethnic origin or citizen status?
and the Likud has not managed to stop terror, but instead to follow a course that creates more terrorists
Because Israel’s policies are made in Washington – not Jerusalem. By the way, have you seen recent statements by Barak?
“Israel’s policies are made in Washington – not Jerusalem.”
Putting aside the fact that I think you meant Tel Aviv, how does that make the Likud a better organization? What it says to me is that have abdicated their governing power in favor of extraterritorial dictates from DC. Fortunately, I happen to think you’re wrong on this point.
“Ethnic origin or citizen status?”
And what determines citizen status?
“Those walls are built to keep people out – not to keep them in.”
Which people out of where? My understanding is that the wall was meant to keep terrorists out of Israel by keeping the Palesstinians in a restrictive area.
And as to Barak, the lst opinion of his I remember was in May:
“HANNA: Now, you in a very courageous bid in the Camp David talks with the then U.S. President Bill Clinton, talked face-to-face with Yasser Arafat. You failed on succeed in getting this peace move together. Why should it succeed now when it failed then, particularly after three years of incessant violence?
BARAK: We all have to pray that it will succeed since we’ve buried almost 800 people and the Palestinians buried more than 2,000 people since then. And the tragedy is around us in the streets. But it’s not yet clear whether it was will be successful. It’s ultimately in the hands of the Palestinians. I believe that Sharon, you know, will step up later on with certain gestures, with dismantle dismantling of illegal outposts.
I believe that we have to do it. It’s long overdue. We have to do it not just because of the Palestinians, but because Israel is a state where the law rules. And we have to find ways very urgently to ease the daily life of Palestinians.
At the same time I would not expect Sharon to make any substantial moves on issues — major issues before it becomes clear that this Palestinian new leadership is serious about implementing the reforms set by the June speech of President Bush, last June. Namely removing Arafat from any executive power. Any drop of executive power should be out of his hands otherwise there will be no peace. Secondly, to correct on Hamas and Islamic Jihad and even the al Aqsa Brigades in order to put an end to terror. Otherwise, there will be no peace.”
What has he said since then?
Putting aside the fact that I think you meant Tel Aviv,
No, I meant Jerusalem.
how does that make the Likud a better organization?
They recognize what needs to be done.
What it says to me is that have abdicated their governing power in favor of extraterritorial dictates from DC. Fortunately, I happen to think you’re wrong on this point.
That’s what it looks like. Billions of dollars in aid buy that. Golden handcuffs?
And what determines citizen status?
Israeli arabs are citizens, hence your restricted to certain areas based on ethnic origin doesn’t fly.
West Bank is not part of Israel, hence they are not citizens.
and the Likud has not managed to stop terror, but instead to follow a course that creates more terrorists.
Actually, if they followed the course, there would be no terrorism. Its very apparent to me (and many) that everytime Israel gets tough, Hamas/PLO/Fatah beg for a “ceasefire”. US (and the rest of the world)pressures Israel to commit to one. Pallies regroup, and start again. Its a cycle. If Israelis stayed the course there would be no terrorism.
Any drop of executive power should be out of his hands otherwise there will be no peace.
We seem to agree there. Given that Arafat is the constant in this equation, why not remove him before determining that Israel is at fault? The only fault of theirs that I see is legitimizing Arafat in Oslo.
What has he said since then?
Barak: Geneva Initiative is a reward to terror
Barak: Support Sharon’s Attacks, Opposes “Dangerous” Roadmap
Barak Says With Arafat Alive, there will be no Peace
So, now the question is. Is a Barak a radical right winger, or is Sharon a moderate?
Or is Barak trying to woo his party out of their alliance with the Sharon government and position himself better for the next election? (Let’s keep in mind this guy uses James Carville as a strategist).
“Actually, if they followed the course, there would be no terrorism.”
Considering the fact that I think we would both agree that forign agitation has a large role in terrorism in the region, I think that’s wishful thinking.
Recognizing what needs to be done and then not going it is not a sign of leadership, nor a sign of strength. Again, though, I see no signs that Sharon recognizes “what needs to be done” any better than Netanyahu or Barak. The last person who knew what he was doing was Yitzak Rabin, and look where it got him.
The last person who knew what he was doing was Yitzak Rabin, and look where it got him
Look where it got Israel.
JR, if you believe that Israel has the right to exist, then you are not an anti-Zionist.
I beleive that Israel has a right to CO-exist.
That still doesn’t make you an anti-Zionist. Don’t confuse Zionism with Kahanism – Yossi Beilin and Amram Mitzna are both Zionists.
The interpretation of the term that I follow is close to the one given by Wikipedia.org:
Many moderate anti-Zionists support the changing of State of Israel to what they deem a “true democracy” – one that includes Palestinian refugees; in a secular and pluralist society; neither a “Jewish state” nor an “Arab state”.
The full interpretation is at http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-zionism.
While there are parts of the definition of “moderate anti-Zionism” that are given here that I disagree with, that section above fits my point of view. Regardless, this is a semantic issue, rather than a substantative one.
JR, are you for the “right of return”?
In the immortal words of Howard Dean: “I go back and forth on that one.” I think the best way to resolve it would be to simply structure into any peace agreement a mechanism for offering a conmpensatory amount in exchange for Palestinian negotiators abdicating R. of R. It simply isn’t an issue for the daily lives for most Palestinians–it’s merely a matter of pride. If there’s a way to give the Palestinian negotiators a “moral victory” on the issue and then move along, by all means I’ll support that. I do think, though, that there should be a special mechanism for evaluating requests to return made by Palestinians, but it should be structured similar to the standard immigration policy of the state and be handled on a case-by-case basis, and not by a blanket policy.
Again, though, that’s where I am this week on it. If it reemerges as a greater stumbling block to the peace process, I’ll probably re-evaluate my position. The situation is too dynamic for me to be absolutist on that particular point–the relative salience at the time of negotiations will probably decide my position.
And that’s probably the longest answer to a 7 word question you’ve gotten in a while.
And that’s probably the longest answer to a 7 word question you’ve gotten in a while.
Unfortunately, I’ll ask have to ask it again.
Out of 1,282,000 – the total Arab population of Mandatory Palestine in April 1948, 548,600 were counted as refugees. At UN sessions the Arabs repeatedly inflated the figures. Lebanon spoke of over a million, (UN DOC/ASP/SA). Morocco gave a more “accurate” figure of 1,120,000. Swept up by an Oriental imagination, the Palestinian Emil Houry came up with 2 million.
Palestinian sources, with an obvious interest in increasing the potential benefits of a future settlement and increasing Israel’s supposed responsibility for the refugee problem, have consistently inflated their figures.
The highest figure was that quoted in 1998, when Salman Abu Sitta – the most vaunted of Palestinian researchers – attempted to add credence to a grossly exaggerated study by claiming that there were exactly 7,778,186 Palestinians, an amazing 5,325,000 of whom he called refugees.
Not far off is the day when the number of refugees claimed will be the same as the number of Palestinians. According to their definition, nearly every Palestinian can be considered a refugee in one way or another. So there will be no escape from the need to negotiate who is a refugee, and who was uprooted from his home, yet still lives in his homeland.
For example, those who fled the West Jerusalem neighborhood of Talbieh and now live in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Abu Dis have been counted twice. So, too, have the Palestinians living in Detroit or in the Persian Gulf states.
(Source)
JR, are you for the “right of return”?
Okay, two points:
1.) I think I’ve already made it clear that I’m not of a definitive mind on the subject. Or, to quote from above, “If it reemerges as a greater stumbling block to the peace process, I’ll probably re-evaluate my position. The situation is too dynamic for me to be absolutist on that particular point–the relative salience at the time of negotiations will probably decide my position.”
2.) A piece from a Jerusalem Post supplement is not going to sway me from an argument (ignoring the fact that, as already mentioned, I’m not in a definite position on the issue you’re addressing).
In any case, I’m sure there’s a point you’re trying to make, Stan, and the suspense is killing me.
If it reemerges as a greater stumbling block to the peace process, I’ll probably re-evaluate my position.
Meaning that if Pallies really, really insist on it you’ll cave in? Nice. I guess the answer is that you do support the right of no return. Are there any positions that you will not evaluate? Are there any positions that you are aware of that Palestinians have re-evaluated and conceded to Israel? Can you list any concessions that Palestianians have made? Ever? If Israel will just continue to give without getting anything back, why would Pallies ever stop? How exactly do *you* define the word “negotiate”?
A piece from a Jerusalem Post supplement is not going to sway me from an argument
What does that mean? Are you alleging that since the piece is from JPost its credibility is questionable? Or are you saying that facts have nothing to do with anything, and it all depends on how much Palestinians want something?
Yes, I am alleging that the credibility of a piece from the Jerusalem Post is questionable, particularly since this reading is neither attributed to news writers on staff nor clearly labeled as either news or opinion–and I find the “Arabist” response particularly interesting, since the person chosen to represent that particular point of view was writing from thousands of miles away from the situation. But that’s really irrelevant: you asked for my opinion on a particular subject, and I told you that my opinion isn’t set either way. I could try to use smaller words, but I fear a similar outcome will occur regardless.
“Meaning that if Pallies really, really insist on it you’ll cave in? Nice.”
No, Stan. Once again, you fail to understand what I find to be a fairly simple idea: why would you waste time discussing an issue to death that only one in ten Palestinians really care that much about? (That fraction comes from analyzing the results of the Shikaki poll released in July: the issue is probably being kept around as part of politcal debate merely to inflame emotions on both sides of the debate, despite the fact that most Palestinians wouldn’t choose to take the right of return if offered and that the PA is working to take the issue off the table in exchange for concessions on other issues. If you want to question whether Shikaki is accurate or not, go right ahead–I know that the al aqsa martyrs brigade thinks they’re incorrect numbers)
If the issue of Right of Return suddenly became the litmus test for a peace negotiation, then I would give is more considration than I do now. I think it’s one of the few bargaining chips that the PA has thatnit can part with, and I think it should be waived in favor of concessions in other areas (assuming I’m interpreting that polling data correctly and it isn’t a major issue for most Palestinians). If it became an issue of greater importance or salience within the debate, then you’re goddamn right I’d be willing to negotiate it if I was Israel. As it stands, Right of Return is looking more and more like a nonissue that gets propped up to increase political capital. That’s how policy is made, Stan, it’s how concensus is reached, and it’s how deals are brokered–each party gets a little, each party gives a little, and you hope for a balanced outcome.
But where the hell do you get off moralizing about Right of Return? If you want to have a debate on the ethics of it, you go right ahead. International law is more likely to back the Palestinians on that issue. I think you fail to give that point consideration: the PA seems to be willing to concede its legal position concerning R of R in favor of other, more salient concessions.
Go ahead and act like caring about more important issues is a bad thing…at this point, I really don’t give a rat’s ass what you think.
Hey stan,
if you’re so much against the RoR, can you explain me what the hell are jews doing in the region?
;-))
JR,
That’s how policy is made, Stan, it’s how concensus is reached, and it’s how deals are brokered–each party gets a little, each party gives a little, and you hope for a balanced outcome.
Hah! Excuse me while I laugh…. Aaah… Interestingly you haven’t answered my question. What concessions have Palies made so far? Any?
International law is more likely to back the Palestinians on that issue.
Hardly.
1) They would have to prove that Israel kicked them out.
2)A Palestinian refugee is defined as a person who lived in British Mandatory Palestine for two years (Source).
Also of interest are facts such as:
a) registration of “refugees” occurred a full two years after the conflict
b) unlike other refugees under the UN’s auspices; “Palestinian Refugees” are able to transfer refugee status on to their heirs.
Source.
But like you said. Its not about facts. Its about what Palestinians decide is important to them. After all, it’s how concensus is reached, and it’s how deals are brokered–each party gets a little, each party gives a little, and you hope for a balanced outcome. Never mind that Palies haven’t given anything so far or stopped killing Jews.
etc.
act like caring about more important issues is a bad thing…
Strawman. Besides, it seems like you think that only Palies have important issues.
at this point, I really don’t give a rat’s ass what you think.
Boo-hoo. Cry me a river.
Vincent,
if you’re so much against the RoR, can you explain me what the hell are jews doing in the region?
Study history, my friend.
Okay, Stan, seeing as how you are not literate, or apparently versed in international law regarding states that are parties to the UN Charter, let’s begin.
Context is important, Stan, in international relations. For example, when you write “A Palestinian refugee is defined as a person who lived in British Mandatory Palestine for two years,” and then cite a source, it usually helps to include the FULL definition that source gives, especially when it’s so easy to check:
“A Palestinian refugee is defined as a person who lived in British Mandatory Palestine for two years, ‘who lost their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict,’ and who took refuge in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank or Gaza Strip. The descendants of those people also are considered refugees.”
Now comes point two: whether or not YOU regard transferring that refugee status as appropriate is irrelevent. The UN recognizes that definition, and the US, Israel and the Arab States in that piece you linked to are all members of the UN. Therefore, those states have agreed to accept the official UN definition for purposes of correspondence within the UN. Regardless, that article you cite also had an interesting tidbit that you may have missed–namely, these negotiations are largely occuring bilaterally outside the structure of the UN, meaning that conferees are setting terms as they go along. Arguing the semantics of the term is a waste of time, since it honestly doesn’t matter what you think the word should mean.
Point three starts with a question: looking back through the history of our country, shouldn’t the British be thanking us for revolting in 1775? I don’t mean that as some sort of intellectual anti-Americanism, I mean that as a legitimate question of fact. Consider the amount of investment that we Americans have put into our country since the 1780s. We’ve opened land for settlement that the British would not allow colonists to settle. We’ve acquired massive segments of land as part of our expansion to the Pacific, opening hundreds of thousands of acres for agriculture and exploration, with many of those resources going to Britain as exports. All of these opportunities existed during the colonial period, but Britain never seized their chance to harvest what this land had to offer. KNow why? It’s because occupations are costly to both sides. As soon as English troops left America, the burdens shifted onto a new group, who were better able to devote themselves to the task before them. England has since prospered by exporting manufactured goods to their relatively new trading partner, and we send to them our service sector, our crops and sometimes our soldiers. Compare this to Israel: what does Israel GAIN by continuing the occupation? They have to provide men to guard the settlements, they come under attack (according to Jay and many of the realist and neorealist analysts, that will happen regardless of whether they’re occupying or not), they use an incredible amount of money to fund the occupation, and they have difficulty operating internationally because of the animosity generated by the occupation.
When an issue like Right of Return comes up, there’s usually a deal being brokered. In the case of Geneva, that agreement seems to be waiving Right of Return in exchange for Israel forsaking their claim of sovereign ownership of the Temple Mount. The large majority of people on both sides seem to agree to this point. I do as well, since I think it eliminates or seriously lessens the threat of two potential points of conflict. Now, were one of those issues to become an ACTUAL point of conflict to the side of origin (meaning if Palestinians walked away from the table over Right of Return, or if Israelis walked away because of Temple Mount) then the issues would need to be handled further. As it is now, you seem to be arguing about one of the few points that has already been addressed. Neither side seems to care that much about Right of Return anymore, Stan–why do you?
Context is important, Stan, in international relations.
Yes. As far as I know, the “two years” figure is specific to Palestinians. Why would that criteria differ from other types of refugees? I think Israel could (and should) raise that point.
whether or not YOU regard transferring that refugee status as appropriate is irrelevent
That (in addition to “two years”) create the context which even you admit is “important” in international relations. How is that international “law” if its not uniform?
I think that we should either pull out of UN (unlikely in the near future) or at least start a real stink by naming things for what they are. If you are fine with UN, then I got 2 things to mention (speaking of context):
1) CZECHOSLOVAKIA
2) League of Nations
looking back through the history of our country, shouldn’t the British be thanking us for revolting in 1775?
Dude… Seriously… How can you even compare?
Compare this to Israel:
I am about to go on a 2 page rant, but I will not (am I not nice?) and will give you an opportunity to retract that portion of your post.
I’ll just ask this (very rhetorical). Was England’s existence/national security threatened by America’s independence?
Neither side seems to care that much about Right of Return anymore, Stan–why do you?
Who cares if Palies *really* care about RoR or not? The fact remains that by even accepting the legitimacy of that claim, Israel is accepting RoR as a bargaining chip.
“I’ll just ask this (very rhetorical). Was England’s existence/national security threatened by America’s independence?”
Oh, Stan, you make my life so easy sometimes. The answer to this question is another question: Is Israel’s existence/national security threatened more by Palestinian independence and self-government or by the continued strains, attacks and costs incurred through occupation? (And, for the record, the English EMPIRE’s continued existence was actually considered threatened, as the Colonists had shown that it was possible for settlers to defeat the British military in wars of independence.)
“Who cares if Palies *really* care about RoR or not? The fact remains that by even accepting the legitimacy of that claim, Israel is accepting RoR as a bargaining chip.”
Well, duh. And they’re solving a potential problem with it. If Geneva is accepted, then Israel doesn’t have to spend the next few years arguing over that point with the PA. You seem to think there’s a downside to acknowledging the legitimacy of the complaint. My point continues to be that the complaint is ALREADY legitimate, at least in the eyes of those involved in the negotiations, and bitching about it isn’t going to solve anything. It’s a piece of political capital, nothing more. Why are you trying to inflate the issue?
Is Israel’s existence/national security threatened more by Palestinian independence and self-government or by the continued strains, attacks and costs incurred through occupation?
I suggest you look at the map. Note how thin Israel is between the hostile arabs in Judea and the sea.
You seem to think there’s a downside to acknowledging the legitimacy of the complaint.
Only if its not legitimate.
My point continues to be that the complaint is ALREADY legitimate, at least in the eyes of those involved in the negotiations
Ah. So, if Palies come out tomorrow demanding that Jews stop using arab blood to make matza, then hey…. why bitch and all. after all, its true (at least in the eyes of those involved in the negotiations)
And, for the record, the English EMPIRE’s continued existence was actually considered threatened
Yea, yea. But what I asked was Was England’s existence/national security threatened by America’s independence?. Risking the loss of resources/wealth is not quite the same as risking total extermination.
Your argument is based on one of the greatest myths in international diplomacy: namely, that Israel is a precariously balanced state on the brink of destruction in a hostile region.
“I suggest you look at the map. Note how thin Israel is between the hostile arabs in Judea and the sea.”
I suggest you look at the CIA World Factbook at http://www.cia.gov, and look at the military statistics provided. Israel spends twice as much on its military as Egypt, and it gets huge military aid packages from the US, and purchases arms from American firms that make the finest battlefield equipment in the world. These guys aren’t using rockets on donkey carts–they’re using Bradley fighting vehicles and sophisticated aircraft. Israel is a freakin’ powerhouse, with far and away the strongest military in the region.
Remember a few weeks back when, acting independently and with no international support watching their backs, the Israeli Air Force hit targets inside of Syria? Let me say that part again–they hit targets INSIDE of Syria, and managed to not only get out of Syrian airspace, but also avoid any retaliation for violating the sovereignty of their neighbor. Israel didn’t get let off the hook because they’re “risking total extermination” and Syria took pity on them. There has been no military response against Israel because nobody in the region CAN repond militarily to Israel.
Israel is not going anywhere, and I think you ought to give them a little more credit than to think that the entire nation will come crumbling down if they don’t continue expanding their settlements.
“Ah. So, if Palies come out tomorrow demanding that Jews stop using arab blood to make matza, then hey…. why bitch and all. after all, its true (at least in the eyes of those involved in the negotiations)”
~I would respond to this, but if you haven’t seen why your argument is pointless yet, I doubt you ever will. Your whole case seems predicated on the notion that nobody should ever negotiate because the other guy is always going to want something and you’d be a capitulator if you gave it to him. You’re bitching about people at a bargaining table using bargaining chips to strike bargains. Your rant would be funny if it weren’t so damn sad.
And since you obviously never studied British history that well, the entirety of the British Industrial Revolution was based on commerce involving goods being shipped out of–and consumer markets within–the colonies. Without the cheaper materials for manufacturing provided by colonial holdings, Britain is not the “workshop of the world.” If Britain lost those colonies, then it’s national security would most assuredly be threatened. And in case you’ve forgotten, not all of the peoples of the British Isles were extremely happy with the English running the show, specifically the Scottish and Irish. When your army is overseas fighting colonial wars, guess what it can’t be doing instead? If the British had to continue engaging in colonial wars, they wouldn’t be able to defend from attack or supress revolts. But why let that stand in the way of your misleading characterization of Israel as a helpless babe in the woods?
After all, a nation built on the struggle to survive by a peole that have known more suffering in the last hundred and fifty years than most religions have ever known is probably not going to be brought down by some shitheads with explosive vests. A little credit…just a little.
I suggest you look at the CIA World Factbook at http://www.cia.gov, and look at the military statistics provided.
Look at the map. Israel can be cut in 2 in a matter of minutes.
Israel is a freakin’ powerhouse, with far and away the strongest military in the region.
Israel also has a very small footprint.
Your whole case seems predicated on the notion that nobody should ever negotiate because the other guy is always going to want something and you’d be a capitulator if you gave it to him.
Uh, no. Like I said before, the problem is that their claim is not legitimate. You are sad with your appeasement philosophy that everything should be on the table – wether legitimate or not. Palestinians can dream up a fable, and you’ll accept it as a bargaining chip even though you know its a fable and they know its a fable and you know that they know its a fable.
You know what you get when you eat a bowl of shit? Another bowl.
If the British had to continue engaging in colonial wars, they wouldn’t be able to defend from attack or supress revolts
Who cares? What does this have to do with anything? They were not protecting their national security by fighting overseas, where they? What’s more, America did not become a bordering hostile dictatorship (used by your enemies as a proxy to conduct war on them), did it? Your whole analogy is flawed, and as you put it, your analogy would be funny if it weren’t so damn sad.
After all, a nation built on the struggle to survive by a peole that have known more suffering in the last hundred and fifty years
Precisely. Jews survived when they struggled. They did not when they delegated their well being to others. When it was left up to Israel – Israel kicked ass. When Israel left it up to the UN diplomacy – it suffered.
You want to accept illegitimate claims? Fine. You want to blame Sharon, for the impossibility of any kind of diplomacy with Arafat? Fine.
You want to forget how UN took orders from Naser in 1967, by leaving the UN “buffer zone”, so Arabs could attack? Fine.
Your rant would be funny if it weren’t so damn sad.
The great thing about this exchange is that it shows you have no concept of a.) the way international relations are operated or b.) the meaning of “legitimacy.” But that’s fine. The great thing about being a civil libertarian is that I firmly support your right to continue blustering without actually making a case for any particular point. Hell, that’s what American political discussion is all about these days, as Jay pointed out last month–who can bitch the loudest and longest without offering anything of substance.
Thanks, Stan, for your example of that valuable lesson.
a.) the way international relations are operated
Sure, I do. The difference is that you are content with going along/business as usual. I am not.
the meaning of “legitimacy.”
Prime example. To you, for a claim to become legitimate Pallies have to whine. Unfortunately, once Israel starts to respond to that whining, the claim does begin to look legitimate.
Look at history. Palies have been kicked around by their arab brothers for decades, yet there are no claims and no stink towards them. You hear that Sharon is a murderer and a war criminal every day (both are not true), however, nobody cares about King Of Jordan slaughtering Palies during even of Black September. Why? Because, Jordan (and other arabs) simply don’t acknowlege Palestinian whining when its directed at them. Arabs view diplomacy as weakness.
“The difference is that you are content with going along/business as usual. I am not.”
You got any better suggestions, I’d love to hear them. No, wait a minute, I wouldn’t, but I’d expect to if you are so concerned with the inevitable failure of all peace negotiations AND the lack of alternatives being presented in policy discussions. Or, as you yourself say, “It’s easier to oppose, then (sic) to propose.”
You got any better suggestions, I’d love to hear them.
As I said before in this very thread: I think that we should either pull out of UN (unlikely in the near future) or at least start a real stink by naming things for what they are.
There is a ton of things that everybody knows, but nobody mentions. Arafat stealing money, for example. Why do we and EU still send money to PA if we know that a sizable chunk ends up in
Arafat’s private accounts?
Another example… All this talk about sending $$$ to PA for education, so their kids can have new books and supposedly grow up friendly to the west, etc. How come whatever the money that makes it without being stolen by Arafat and his cronies go toward printing books that preach hate to Israel and West? Why are we not attaching conditions on the money we send?
Its exactly this kind of complacency that snowballs into bigger and bigger problems.
Again, what do you get when you eat a bowl of shit?
Another bowl.
I think you misinterpreted my request, Stan. I meant do you have any REAL alternatives? As in ones that have a chance in hell of coming about in the next, oh, ten years or so.
And, assuming you stick by your .22s, could you please explain how simply pulling out of the UN is going to bring peace to Israel?
I meant do you have any REAL alternatives? As in ones that have a chance in hell of coming about in the next, oh, ten years or so.
10 year? Why such rush all of a sudden? UN has been prolonging this crisis for half a century and you are quite content with them mediating it still.
how simply pulling out of the UN is going to bring peace to Israel?
UN can provide humanitarian aid around the world, but refrain from bothering with everything else. In any case, how is staying in UN going to bring peace to Israel?
So Stan, what you meant to say is “I have no alternative in mind, nor do I know of any that would work.” That’s what I thought you’d say.
JR, uh, no. I said what I said.
JR, JPost has an article that mirrors my position in this thread.
“Of course the Times is entitled to think that the great majority of Israelis are not “people of good will” but extremists who want peace less than the Palestinians do. But if that is what the Times thinks, it should put forth this implausible proposition rather than hiding behind the fantasy that Sharon is an extremist who has somehow hijacked the democratic politics of his country.
The Times’s discussion of the “central elements” of the Geneva Accord follows the usual assumption of outsiders and Israeli doves, that issues of morality and principle are just words – what the Times describes as “endless arguments over whose religion grants what land to whom” – and that what counts is practical points such as borders. Therefore the Times would describe concerns about what the agreement carefully implies about rights and justice as “nitpicks.”
It is a “nitpick” that the “agreement” does not use the word Jew or Jewish, because of Palestinian refusal to recognize that there is a Jewish people, much less that that people has the normal right of a people to a state.
It is a nitpick that the agreement requires Israel to compensate the Palestinians for every acre of land it keeps from the territory occupied by Jordan before its 1967 aggression against Israel – not because they need a few acres of Negev desert, but because they care about the principle that the land Israel acquired in 1967 has always been “Palestinian land” rather than disputed territory to which Israel has strong legal claims.
It is a nitpick that the agreement provides that Israel compensate the Arab countries where Palestinian “refugees” have lived – but makes no mention of compensation to the larger number of Jews who were ethnically cleansed from these same Arab countries when the Palestinians left, and in some proportion were thrown out of, Israel during Israel’s War of Independence.
Clearly, the Times believes that Israel should admit anything in order to induce the Palestinians to sign an agreement.”
link
Pretty much what I have been saying.
Someone else echoing a wrong statement doesn’t make it any more right.
“I said what I said.”
And what you said comepletely and totally failed to answer the questions put to you. Therefore, I can only conclude that your statement meant to say “I have no alternative in mind, nor do I know of any that would work,” since I asked you if you knew of any viable alternatives to bring about peace and your answer was to leave the UN, without offering anything remotely RESEMBLING an explanation as to how that could bring peace.
I said several times already, that we should try to name things for what they are. You, on the other hand, insist on accepting whatever palies dream up of as bargaining chips. You solution is the same old policy which got Israel into this mess.
“Clearly, the Times believes that Israel should admit anything in order to induce the Palestinians to sign an agreement”.
See, and your idea for “naming things what they are” does what exactly to promote peace? I’m just going to assume for a minute that you somehow lack the capacity on a fundamental level to distinguish between a Palestinian refugee and a terrorist, so, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that every single Palestinian is in favor of destroying Israel…mind telling me how calling them out for it would make them stop? What you don’t get is that a lot of people in the Middle East would rather see peace than victory, s “victory” can’t happen in a war where both sides have lost so much, including moral superiority. Both sides have innocent blood on their hands, but only one side’s mistakes seem to interest you. Wonder why that is.
Oh, and if you’re trying to win an argument about the Middle East, it helps to cite things like news and not LGF to prove your point. LGF is neither news nor particularly good analysis. It’s a haven for the delusional, like a Reform Party convention.
I’m just going to assume for a minute that you somehow lack the capacity on a fundamental level to distinguish between a Palestinian refugee and a terrorist,
The criteria for a “Palestinian refugee” is somehow different then for a refugee any place else. Let’s start there.
so, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that every single Palestinian is in favor of destroying Israel…mind telling me how calling them out for it would make them stop?
Fine. Let them fight it out, then. If they are all out to destroy Israel, then why pretend that they are not? Why negotiate and delude yourself if going along the argument you are making, they just want to destroy Israel?
What you don’t get is that a lot of people in the Middle East would rather see peace than victory,
Ah! I love it when liberals assume things.
Ofcourse, they would rather see peace than victory, right? I mean, that’s what we want in the West, so that must be what people want every where else!
This is what I don’t get. Liberals always stress diversity and sensitivity to other cultures. Yet, when it comes to things like this, for some reason it is assumed that every single person has a liberal/western mindset. What happened to diversity and cultural differences?
I am not so sure that Muslims in the 3rd world would rather see peace then victory. Should I remind you that they kicked out all of their Jews?
How come everytime I read an article about Muslim outrage they always quote some guy complaining about the infidel “humiliating” Muslims by having checkpoings and searches? Please, explain. I don’t believe I’ve heard accounts of Jews complaining of being “humiliated” by Nazis, or Albanians complaining that Serbs “humiliated” them with searches/checkpoints. I haven’t heard of Kurds comlaining that Saddam “humiliated” them. Killed? Sure. Humiliated? That’s laughable.
They have a different perspective when it comes to infidel.
Both sides have innocent blood on their hands, but only one side’s mistakes seem to interest you. Wonder why that is.
Moral equivalence. Nice.
1) Nazis killed civilians in WW2.
2) Allies killed civilians in WW2.
Hence, Allies = Nazis, right?
Oh, and if you’re trying to win an argument about the Middle East, it helps to cite things like news and not LGF to prove your point.
I linked to the article that was posted on JPOST. I’ve initially seen it on LGF and mistakenly linked there instead of the original source.
LGF is neither news nor particularly good analysis.
Given that I did not post to a analysis/news item gathered by LGF, the above comment is irrelevant. I merely linked to a story by JPOST. But you knew that, didn’t you?