Joseph Agassi Liberal Nationalism for Israel: Towards an Israeli National Identity. Gefen, Jerusalem, 1999.
This book is a passionate call for a public debate in Israel and elsewhere to resolve some fundamental and crippling disabilities in Israeli politics. It first appeared in Hebrew in 1984 and it does not appear that the message has made much progress since that time. The atmosphere of ongoing crisis tends to preclude any consideration of first principles that could clear the way to make progress with the obvious problems.
The author is a philosopher and his first step is to make a distinction between the theory of the liberal nation state that derives from the Enlightenment Movement and the chauvenistic concept of the Romantic Reaction. In the liberal theory it is the welfare of individuals that matters and the state is a kind of administrative convenience or perhaps a necessary evil that looks after some essential public services and polices non-discriminatory laws. For the romantics the state is the proud and (hopefully) triumphant expression of the spirtual, intellectual and military powers and virtues of the People, the Volk, and this view is manifest in the ethnic nationalism of modern times.
In the liberal state we are supposed to have separation of church and state, also separation of powers, and no discrimination by the laws of the state along political, ethnic or religious lines. This principle is violated in Israel, partly because the original founders operated with a mix of liberal and romantic ideas. Hence Israel has a political identify crisis, stuck midway between theocracy and the liberal state. This is one of the vexed issues addressed in historical context by this book.
Next month I travel to Israel as the (unlikely) member of a touring party organised by the Australian Council of Christians and Jews. At the end of the tour I will spend a week in Tel Aviv with Joe Agassi and his wife. So I have to read this book before I go away, and will give out some of the arguments in installments.
Joe Agassi grew up in Israel, studied science and turned to the philosophy of science. He was Popper’s research assistant for several years in the 1950s and he has a huge record of publication across a wide range of topics from the philosophy of physics and the history of ideas to the social sciences. As a young activist he met Hillel Kook, (known in the US as Peter Bergson) who was one of the pivotal but almost forgotten figures in the independence movement.
As a young activist he met Hillel Kook, (known in the US as Peter Bergson)
I can see why Mr Kook might have needed to change his name
jtfsoon
10 May 10 at 4:34 pm
Slightly OT but worth mentioning:
http://www.liberal.org.il/
Semi Regular Libertarian
10 May 10 at 4:38 pm
FMD, JUST what the Israelis need. Some nobody pencil necked academic philosopher. WTF do university academics have to do with the incredibly real world, dirt and sweat of a situation like this?
Peter Patton
10 May 10 at 5:02 pm
The settlers are A grade, “real world” dumbarses. They gainsay the military and diplomatic efforts of the foreign ministry and IDF.
Someone needs to tell them.
Semi Regular Libertarian
10 May 10 at 5:12 pm
WTF do university academics have to do with the incredibly real world, dirt and sweat of a situation like this?
Plenty of philosophers involve themselves in the ‘real world’. What makes you think a carpenter or bathroom mat salesman is more qualified?
This principle is violated in Israel, partly because the original founders operated with a mix of liberal and romantic ideas.
I think the principle is violated in the very notion of a ‘Jewish State’, which ends up being (predictably) a bit of identity politics, every bit as harmful and ridiculous as an ‘Islamic State’ or a state for black lesbian bikers.
The ‘identity crisis’ of which Bergson speaks is no doubt real, but it needn’t be coupled with Romanticism. The residual trauma of the Holocaust, and decades of militarist state propaganda have more to do with the current state of affairs, IMHO. It is an integral part of Israeli ideology that the state is not merely Jewish, but reflects a particular kind of ‘Jewishness’ – militarist, ‘strong’, yet moral, and so forth. For this reason, it isn’t unusual for Jewish victims of the Holocaust to be denigrated within Israel when those victims are perceived as having passively and meekly accepted their fate (as opposed to going out, Warsaw Ghetto style). It’s also partly why right-wing Israeli pundits (and their frothing-at-the-mouth Western supporters) are prone to see anti-semitism at every turn – Obama is supposedly anti-semitic, for instance.
THR
10 May 10 at 5:15 pm
I think the principle is violated in the very notion of a ‘Jewish State’, which ends up being (predictably) a bit of identity politics, every bit as harmful and ridiculous as an ‘Islamic State’ or a state for black lesbian bikers.
I don’t think its necessarily ridiculous; I think the idea that a state would not be influenced by its cultural and religious inheritence is more ridiculous.
dover_beach
10 May 10 at 5:34 pm
You’re shifting the goalposts, dover. Of course a state will have ‘influences’, just like everything else on the planet. A state founded on ethno-religious particularism is a better description of Israel.
THR
10 May 10 at 5:37 pm
You’re shifting the goalposts, dover. Of course a state will have ‘influences’, just like everything else on the planet.
I’m not shifting the goal posts at all. All states were founded on assumptions rooted in their cultural and religious traditions, even those that thought that were departing from them; the idea that these influences can be erased is ridiculous.
But what, in particular, is ridiculous about a state having a cultural-religious-identity, broadly speaking?
dover_beach
10 May 10 at 5:51 pm
But what, in particular, is ridiculous about a state having a cultural-religious-identity, broadly speaking?
Well, think about a ‘White Australia’ or a Catholic Spain. It inevitably leads to oppression, as soon as you have people who don’t fit some narrow conception of ethno-religious identity. And that’s exactly what we see in Israel (or, at least, in ‘Greater Israel’ – a ‘Western democracy’, on the one hand, and hundreds of thousands persecuted as Untermenschen.
Further to Rafe’s points, I don’t wish to dismiss Romanticism in all of this. Romanticism is arguably there any time you have some kind of nationalism. I just think it doesn’t particularly apply to the case of Israeli nationalism. Zionism, for instance, isn’t all that Romantic. Perhaps messianic, perhaps politically radical, but not so Romantic.
THR
10 May 10 at 5:56 pm
Catholic Spain was less oppressive than the version of it pursued by the communists, whose Red Terror slaughtered hundreds of thousands.
The twentieth century country with the most devoted cultural/religious identity was the USSR – which even displayed Lenin’s alleged corpse like Catholics do the blessed remains of St John Vianney. Naturally, this cult always brought a tear to the eye and a lump to the throat of the Western left.
Incidentally, have there ever been any well attested episodes of exterminationism where black lesbian bikers were gassed to death in the millions?
C.L.
10 May 10 at 6:32 pm
Well, think about a ‘White Australia’ or a Catholic Spain. It inevitably leads to oppression, as soon as you have people who don’t fit some narrow conception of ethno-religious identity. And that’s exactly what we see in Israel (or, at least, in ‘Greater Israel’ – a ‘Western democracy’, on the one hand, and hundreds of thousands persecuted as Untermenschen.
But why think about them to the exclusion of many other states that have nevertheless exhibited a cultural-religious identity? And no, such conceptions do not lead inevitably lead to persecution; you don’t, for instance, argue that the self-conscious persuit of aboriginality inevitablyleads to oppression.
And that’s exactly what we see in Israel (or, at least, in ‘Greater Israel’ – a ‘Western democracy’, on the one hand, and hundreds of thousands persecuted as Untermenschen.
Yes, it has nothing to do with sucide bombers.
dover_beach
10 May 10 at 7:07 pm
And no, such conceptions do not lead inevitably lead to persecution; you don’t, for instance, argue that the self-conscious persuit of aboriginality inevitablyleads to oppression.
Show me an Aboriginal state and perhaps we can talk.
Yes, it has nothing to do with sucide bombers
Naturally, you’re taking refuge in sarcasm, but you’re technically correct – the Israeli attitude to Palestinians since the inception of the Israeli state has had little if anything to do with suicide bombers.
THR
10 May 10 at 7:20 pm
For the romantics the state is the proud and (hopefully) triumphant expression of the spirtual, intellectual and military powers and virtues of the People, the Volk, and this view is manifest in the ethnic nationalism of modern times.
.
I think it’s even more tangled than that, Rafe. Israel is a specifically Jewish state. It’s function is to create a homeland for stateless people in order to ptrevent further repression. So it must be categorically an ethnically determined polity – rationally.
.
No matter how pragmatic – Enlightened – one is, the categorical impertive precludes a ‘normal’ civic arrangement because, in order to perpetuate the Jewish homeland, Israel must always be dominated by Jewish people.
.
The only way to leave this behond is to leave anti-Semitism behind and Israel hasn’t exactly been good for relegating The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to the realm of historical interest only.
.
Have a good time there.
Adrien
10 May 10 at 7:37 pm
The twentieth century country with the most devoted cultural/religious identity was the USSR
.
Yes and that has what to do with Israel?
.
displayed Lenin’s alleged corpse like Catholics do the blessed remains of St John Vianney. Naturally, this cult always brought a tear to the eye and a lump to the throat of the Western left.
.
The Commies learnt an awful lot from Holy Mother Church ‘ey?
Adrien
10 May 10 at 7:38 pm
Enjoy your time there, Rafe. I look forward to your impressions. Hope to make the trip myself, soon.
Rob
10 May 10 at 8:12 pm
Of course the full story and the detailed arguement in Agassi’s 300 page book is more complicated than my introduction could indicate.
Not all the founders of the state of Israel had the same view on the purpose and the justification for the enterprise. Not everyone wanted it to be a Jewish gettto, and some people want it to take its place with the liberal democracies of the world. That does not mean any encroachment on the rights of Jews who want to practice their beliefs but it does limit their claims on the state to act as a theocracy that gives them special privileges, like exemption from national service and other laws of the land. Serious moves in that direction may be required to maintain support in the Western democracies.
Anti-intellectual comments notwithstanding, getting clear about some basic principles appear to be necessary if Israel is to do justice to its own people and also to the Arabs and other non-Jews who live there.
Rafe
10 May 10 at 9:06 pm
Show me an Aboriginal state and perhaps we can talk.
The THR two-step.
the Israeli attitude to Palestinians since the inception of the Israeli state has had little if anything to do with suicide bombers.
That is true of attitudes at its inception but not of attitudes since the 80s. We can equally say that their attitude to Palestinians has had nothing to do with Untermenschen.
dover_beach
10 May 10 at 9:27 pm
test
Boris
10 May 10 at 9:48 pm
Can someone correct the title of this post? It currently says “The Israeli Labyinth.”
daddy dave
10 May 10 at 9:58 pm
In the liberal state we are supposed to have separation of church and state, also separation of powers, and no discrimination by the laws of the state along political, ethnic or religious lines. This principle is violated in Israel, partly because the original founders operated with a mix of liberal and romantic ideas. Hence Israel has a political identify crisis, stuck midway between theocracy and the liberal state.
1) Israel’s founders were mostly socialist idealist, who somehow also understood the value of democracy. I am not sure about liberalism or indeed romanticism, but maybe this is because I do not know enough philosophy.
2) Israel is indeed somewhere between theocracy and the liberal state (if we call Western-style social democracy a liberal state). But it is not mid-way. It is much closer to so defined liberal state than theocracy. There is freedom of religion (hardly a theocracy), and all ciitzens have the same basic rights. There are some restrictions shopping hours, but so we have here in WA, and we do not call this a theocracy. The the most annoying restrictions are concerning marriages, births and burial, which are all administered by respective religious authorities. But these date from the Ottoman times and British mandate. Some of these rules are easily circumvented and are generally challenged by secular parties…
Boris
10 May 10 at 9:58 pm
Boris, part of the problem is that the people who live in Israel do not have the same basic rights. The situation is complicated and more detail is required, but in brief there are categories of orthodox believers who have special privileges and the Arabs have no voting rights at all. There are other issues which I don’t have time to pursue just now but Agassi’s major point is that there is a failure of will to address some basic issues.
Rafe
10 May 10 at 10:28 pm
The THR two-step.
What makes yo think that a self-defined ‘Aboriginal state’ would be a liberal democracy founded on universal values? I think you’re lapsing into your own Romanticism here, dover.
That is true of attitudes at its inception but not of attitudes since the 80s. We can equally say that their attitude to Palestinians has had nothing to do with Untermenschen.
Sheer and utter garbage. The chauvinist attitude directed at Palestinians has continued in a straight line from before Israel was settled, to the present day. ‘A land without a people for a people without a land’, remember? By definition, Palestinian arabs were non-people to begin with. The occasional suicide bombing (and they are a very rare event these days) merely provides a bit of ideological cover for Israeli bigotry and IDF incursions. As I showed on the other thread, a majority of Israelis believe that their state’s ‘immoral’ activity (i.e. killing civilians, extrajudicial execution, racism and attacks by settlers, etc) should be censored. A couple of suicide bombings and a handful of katyusha rockets in five years simply does not account for that.
THR
10 May 10 at 10:42 pm
All this stuff is fine, but the ACTUAL choice on offer is between a Jewish state and an exterminationist Islamic one. That’s it. There is no possibility of a binational state with “equal rights” ever being constructed in Palestine. It’s a fantasy. Those who advocate the destruction of Israel need to explain why they think a Hamas-ruled Islamic state would be an improvement (which is in fact what they are saying) on the Jewish state, seeing as this is the only actually existing alternative.
Michael Fisk
10 May 10 at 10:43 pm
“people who live in Israel do not have the same basic rights”. Not exactly, but ALMOST. I have read the beginning of the book. I think it is a radical proposal towards so-called post-Zionism advocated by many leftist academics and journalists.
I am interested in the following question:
Does he still believe the state of affairs to be similar to what he desribed in his book some decades ago.
I ask this because there are many signs that the Israeli society is much more cohesive and consensual than 20 or even 10 years ago. The divide between secular and religious, pro and anti-palestinian statehood, rich and poor, between native Israelis and new immigrants etc etc, are all being narrowed. Of course, the glass is always half-full and half-empty, but it is important to identify prevailing trends. But I see no sign of disintegration. Quite the opposite, I see signs of cohesiveness.
As for mixing between Jews and Arabs: well, I do not think this can happen until there is peace. Israeli Arabs support, at least theoretically, their paletinian brothers who are in the state of war with Israel. I can’t see Israel forcing them into the army and giving them arms.
Anyway, I am very interested how you will view this encounter with a leftist philosopher.
Boris
10 May 10 at 10:54 pm
“The chauvinist attitude directed at Palestinians has continued in a straight line from before Israel was settled, to the present day.”
I am not quite sure what you mean by chauvinist attitudes. Initially, at the turn of 20th century, the relations between the Jews and the local Arabs were quite good, as the Yeshuv provided jobs to the locals, supported by Hashemite Transjordan rulers . But as the Jewish numbers grew and the talk of a Jewish state began, a violent conflict errupted and eventually culminated in the 1948 war. At the founding of the state, the two sides were at the state of war. You do not expect the peoples still at war to love each other. However the relations were steadily improving till mid-1960s, when Arab nations inspired this Palestinan liberation movement. Note that PLO was created before 1967. Was its mission to liberate West Bank and Gaza from Jordan and Egypt? No, it was to ‘liberate’ Palestine of Jews!. And even after 1967, the relations were reasonable, until the first intifada.
Nowadays, the hatred of Arabs towards Israelis is uncomparable to Israeli attitude towards Arabs. As I said, this will not improve until there is peace between Israel and the Palestinians. And this peace will not come until a leader emerges that can lead his people to accept Israel’s existence.
Boris
11 May 10 at 12:24 am
Nowadays, the hatred of Arabs towards Israelis is uncomparable to Israeli attitude towards Arabs.
Precisely.
Michael Fisk
11 May 10 at 12:30 am
In some aspects Iarael treats its Arab/Muslim minority better than some of its European critics. (1) Arabic is identified in one of two official languages and (2) there is no restrictions on wearing the hijab in public offices etc.
Boris
11 May 10 at 1:04 am
Yes and that has what to do with Israel?
You’ve raised Spain, lesbian bikers and Aborigines and now you’re the analogy police?
That’s basically it, Fisk. Further, the hatred of Arabs towards Jews is indistinguishable from the Hitlerian exterminationism.
C.L.
11 May 10 at 1:05 am
…from the Hitlerian exterminationism of Nazi Germany.
C.L.
11 May 10 at 1:06 am
What makes yo think that a self-defined ‘Aboriginal state’ would be a liberal democracy founded on universal values? I think you’re lapsing into your own Romanticism here, dover.
Fristly, I never referred to an aboriginal state, you did; I merely suggested that aboriginal communities were not necessarily oppressive because they were aboriginal communities. Secondly, no existing liberal state is founded upon ‘universal values’; their liberalism simply qualifies their cultural-religious inheritence.
The chauvinist attitude directed at Palestinians has continued in a straight line from before Israel was settled, to the present day. ‘A land without a people for a people without a land’, remember? By definition, Palestinian arabs were non-people to begin with. The occasional suicide bombing (and they are a very rare event these days) merely provides a bit of ideological cover for Israeli bigotry and IDF incursions. As I showed on the other thread, a majority of Israelis believe that their state’s ‘immoral’ activity (i.e. killing civilians, extrajudicial execution, racism and attacks by settlers, etc) should be censored. A couple of suicide bombings and a handful of katyusha rockets in five years simply does not account for that.
Sheer and utter garbage, I agree. THR, as usual, you caricature the subject of your criticism while contextualizing/ historicizing the subject of your apologia.
dover_beach
11 May 10 at 7:34 am
Rafe, you threw me off the rails. I spent half the night reading extracts from the book and also the extraordinary story of Hillel Kook. I have a lot of thoughts about it. I will write later when I have time.
Boris
11 May 10 at 10:22 am
Fristly, I never referred to an aboriginal state, you did; I merely suggested that aboriginal communities were not necessarily oppressive because they were aboriginal communities.
This post (and my response to it) are obviously not about ‘communities’, hippie communes or the Armenian Piano Tuners Trade Union. We’re talking about states, not other forms of association. My point is that a state, insofar as it is based on some particularism or other, is bound to descend into wanton oppression. This is clearly the case for Israel, and there’s no reason to believe that an Aboriginal state would be any different, in the long run.
Nowadays, the hatred of Arabs towards Israelis is uncomparable to Israeli attitude towards Arabs.
Selective blindness. Of course their are bigoted Arabs. Have a look at the extremist elements within Israel, and particularly those in the Settler movement, and you’ll find their Israeli-Jewish counterparts. The only difference is that Palestinians have something to be angry about (as occupied peoples), whilst Israeli settlers do not. Within the past couple of years we’ve seen plenty of evidence of soldiers and settlers terrorising civilians, soldiers defiling civilians’ quarters, and Israelis making ‘humorous’ t-shirts mocking the killing of pregnant Arab women. The hatred of some within Israel is every bit as repulsive as that of fanatical Arabs, but with none of the mitigating circumstances.
Further, the hatred of Arabs towards Jews is indistinguishable from the Hitlerian exterminationism.
Speaking of fanatical bigotry, the above sweeping generalisation takes the case. All Arabs are ‘Hitlerian’, are they? Where are the death camps? The plans for the Final Solution? The attempts to engineer World War? To denigrate occupied peoples as ‘Hitlerian’ is merely projection, par excellence.
THR
11 May 10 at 11:37 am
The problem, THR, is that among Jews is a small (but significant) minority who hate Arabs. Among the Palestinians, it is an overwhelming majority. Shown by every opinion poll.
About a million Arabs live in Israel, and there acts of violence against them are very rare. However any anarmed Jew who enters the Palestinian-controlled territory is risking his life.
Boris
11 May 10 at 12:22 pm
BTW I do not think reference to Hitler is helpful.
Boris
11 May 10 at 12:25 pm
Among the Palestinians, it is an overwhelming majority. Shown by every opinion poll.
This is false. On the other thread I provided the opinion poll wherein a majority of Israelis more or less endorsed the ‘immoral’ actions of their state. ‘Immoral’ here is a euphemism for incursions, extrajudicial executions, and all of the daily terror and oppression that derives from occupation.
About a million Arabs live in Israel, and there acts of violence against them are very rare.
Acts of violence by the settlers against Arabs are exceedingly common. The agents of the state – soldiers, police – turn a blind eye.
It is a standard motif of European colonialism, (of which Israel is an example), that the ethnic cleansing, mass-murder and occupation of the colonisers is displaced, and projected onto the colonised, who are described here (and everywhere) as ‘barbaric’, ‘backward’, ‘hate-filled’, etc. In this way, apologists for colonialism can avoid the unpleasant facts of occupation, and its radical asymmetry.
BTW I do not think reference to Hitler is helpful.
At least we agree on something.
THR
11 May 10 at 12:39 pm
THR, I also endorse defensive actions of the state. I do not hate Arabs. I tell you from the first-hand experience that only a small minority of Israelis hate Arabs and want endorse any killing of civilians. OTOH, the majority of Palestinians approve suicide bombings. The difference is huge. But it does not fit your ideology, I know.
Boris
11 May 10 at 12:47 pm
“Acts of violence by the settlers against Arabs are exceedingly common.”
How common? Sellers themselves are are a small minority. Most of them are peaceful (although many are fanatical). A tiny minority is militant. And even smaller (but yes, increasing) minority is prepared to kill Arabs. These are severely prosecuted by the state like any criminals. Very different from PA, let alone Hamas.
Boris
11 May 10 at 12:50 pm
You’re mired in ideology of your own, Boris.
THR, I also endorse defensive actions of the state.
These ‘defensive actions’ are actually ‘offensive actions’, since the IDF is, from the very beginning, an oppressor and occupier of the Palestinians. There are no ‘defensive actions’ by the IDF any more than the act of British settlers shooting Aborigines can be construed as ‘defensive action’. The moral obligation here is with the occupier, not the occupied. The latter didn’t ask the former to invade them.
I tell you from the first-hand experience that only a small minority of Israelis hate Arabs and want endorse any killing of civilians.
I can believe this, yet the polls say otherwise. Not only is the killing of civilians endorsed, a majority want it to be hushed up. Now, no sane person should treat the Israeli people as some kind of unified monolith, which begs the questions as to why you, Fisk, CL and others insist on doing the same to the Palestinians.
OTOH, the majority of Palestinians approve suicide bombings.
Firstly, I doubt this is true. Secondly, even if true, it is in the context of resistance to military occupation.
THR
11 May 10 at 12:53 pm
And I must add, most Iraelis are increasingly tired of the settlers. I was even told this by settlers themselves. It is very clear.
Boris
11 May 10 at 12:55 pm
When Palestinians attack Israelis, the authorities invoke all means at their disposal – including some that are incompatible with international law and constitute gross violations of human rights – to arrest the suspects and bring them to trial. Defendants convicted by military courts can expect harsh sentences.
In contrast, when Israeli civilians attack Palestinians, the Israeli authorities employ an undeclared policy of leniency and compromise toward the perpetrators. This policy is reflected in the actions of officials in charge of law enforcement – the Israel Defense Force (IDF) and the Israel Police Force (IPF) – which do not do enough to prevent harm to the life and property of Palestinians, and to stop the violent attacks by settlers while they are taking place. All law enforcement agencies and judicial authorities demonstrate little interest in uncovering the substantial violence that Israeli civilians commit against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.
http://www.btselem.org/English/Settler_Violence/
THR
11 May 10 at 12:58 pm
Thanks Boris! I was going to say that I will have to agree to disagree with some of Joe Agassi’s leftwing views on economics and the welfare state, however this book steers clear of those issues to focus on the history and nature of Israeli politics.
Also this topic is not in my area of expertise and so I must expect to modify my views with more research so am not completely hostage to Joe’s account.
As Boris pointed out, there is a very big difference in the attitudes of the majority of Arabs and Israelis towards the other side. The Israelis are expected to do everything by the book but the folk who rage about Israeli reprisals appear to be completely relaxed about Arab terrorism and the constant attacks by rocket and missiles into Israel.
We need to make the same demands on both sides.
In Israel, critics can be heard, but in Gaza the moderate Arab leaders are most likely all murdered by now.
I would like to read THR’s suggestions for improving the governance of Gaza and other Arab states.
Rafe
11 May 10 at 12:59 pm
And I must add, most Iraelis are increasingly tired of the settlers. I was even told this by settlers themselves. It is very clear.
It may be true at some level, Boris, but this is yet to be translated into policy on the ground. For now, settlements in the West Bank are expanding, like this one:
More than 300 olive trees were uprooted and two cars set alight in the West Bank village of Hawara in the early hours of Wednesday morning.
Stars of David and the word ‘Mohammed,’ as well as racist slogans, were also sprayed in Hebrew across the town, including on the walls of a mosque.
A military official told Army Radio that the army suspected settler violence against Palestinians, part of some settlers’ policy of imposing a ‘price tag’ on a government order to freeze Israeli construction in the West Bank.
As part of the strategy, settlers from nearby Yitzhar have launched numerous attacks on Palestinians, including an arson attack on a mosque in December 2009.
Responding to news of the incident, Itamar Ben-Gvir, a spokesman for the right-wing Jewish National Front party, said:
“We are talking about a hostile village that has been the source of a large number of violent attacks against the residents of Yitzhar.”
He added: “The time has come for the Arabs to understand that Jews are not suckers and that Jewish blood will not be shed without consequence.”
http://www.haaretz.com/news/mosque-vandalized-as-settlers-attack-palestinian-village-1.284247
If this Ben-Gvir fellow is anything other than fascist, I’d be very curious to know how.
THR
11 May 10 at 1:01 pm
Secondly, even if true, it is in the context of resistance to military occupation
.
ie in the context of war. Why do the Palestinians get a pass but not the Israelis? Both are locked in this struggle. That is my fundamental question about the middle east.
.
Not only is the killing of civilians endorsed, a majority want it to be hushed up.
.
I’d like to see the survey question where this was put to Israeli citizens.
daddy dave
11 May 10 at 1:03 pm
As Boris pointed out, there is a very big difference in the attitudes of the majority of Arabs and Israelis towards the other side. The Israelis are expected to do everything by the book but the folk who rage about Israeli reprisals appear to be completely relaxed about Arab terrorism and the constant attacks by rocket and missiles into Israel.
Occupiers have no moral rights, only moral obligations. It would be idiotic to expect those who participated in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising to restrict themselves to rubber bullets, in order to not offend the fine feelings of those in Germany.
I would like to read THR’s suggestions for improving the governance of Gaza and other Arab states.
Settlement building should be stopped, and serious consideration given to dismantling existing settlements. If existing settlements continue, it should not be under any kind of military/police protection that is not afforded in equal measure to those on the other side.
US aid is part of the problem – Obama and friends give the IDF a $3 billion welfare incentive to brutalise Palestinians. Remove this, and Israeli military fanatacism might be taken down a notch or two.
The longer-term problem depends on what sort of solution people want – two-state, one-state, or no-state. The two-state solution is the most feasible, undoubtedly, and could be achieved relatively easily. The problem with it is that it would lead to continued instability, since nobody expects the IDF to regard teh Palestinian Territories as a state, irrespective of what the UN says. Consequently, a one-state solution comprised of Greater Israel, based on universal values would be the ideal. Sure, it’s a difficult ideal, but that does not mean that it isn’t worth pursuing.
THR
11 May 10 at 1:08 pm
Here you go, dave:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/poll-majority-of-israel-s-jews-back-gag-on-rights-groups-1.285120
THR
11 May 10 at 1:10 pm
Thatcher’s answer to northern Ireland was to have nothing to do with the IRA.
When did the action start. when negotiations started between the IRA and others in Northern Ireland.
The act of not recognising the Hamas government was incredibly stupid. It gave further evidence to the radical wing of never talking to the Israelis.
There has to be negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians.
give them the responsibility of actual Governing.
Realpolitik will come to the surface.
If they only remain an ideological foe then they will continue to do what they do now.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
11 May 10 at 1:17 pm
give them the responsibility of actual Governing.
.
We tried that.
What happens? They elect redneck, macho, tough-talking, Jew-hating, uneducated, unemployed layabout radicals who get to work straight away; importing as much explosive stuff as they can from Syria and Iran, as fast as they can.
.
Yep, I can really see that working.
daddy dave
11 May 10 at 1:28 pm
“When did the action start. when negotiations started between the IRA and others in Northern Ireland.”
What made them start negotiating?
Semi Regular Libertarian
11 May 10 at 1:34 pm
THR – what’s your view on lord hawhaw?
Sinclair Davidson
11 May 10 at 1:50 pm
THR – what’s your view on lord hawhaw?
Treacherous in a way that clearly does not apply to NGOs in Israel.
THR
11 May 10 at 2:00 pm
no DD we haven’t tried that all.
Marky the recognition the thatcherite solution of completely ignoring wasn’t working
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
11 May 10 at 2:05 pm
“the recognition the thatcherite solution of completely ignoring wasn’t working”
…the IRA were being ignored so they gave up. Thatcher was right.
Semi Regular Libertarian
11 May 10 at 2:11 pm
no DD we haven’t tried that all.
.
Hamas didn’t get elected?
daddy dave
11 May 10 at 2:27 pm
If you say so but I’m not sure.
Sinclair Davidson
11 May 10 at 2:39 pm
DD Hamas got elected and what was the reaction?
Marky the IRA didn’t give up the British gobvernment did with a great deal of help from the US for which we must all give a great deal of thanks.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
11 May 10 at 3:13 pm
Firstly, I doubt this is true. Secondly, even if true, it is in the context of resistance to military occupation.
So war crimes are fine by you so long as Hamas are the offenders.
Michael Fisk
11 May 10 at 3:19 pm
DD Hamas got elected and what was the reaction?
.
From Syria and Iran:
“How much explosives and weapons do you need? And do you have enough rockets?”
daddy dave
11 May 10 at 3:20 pm
No
DD,
reaction from other Governments, how about the stopping of revenue going to the government.
They won the election in a landslide but never got the opportunity to actually govern which will make next time even harder
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
11 May 10 at 3:22 pm
So war crimes are fine by you so long as Hamas are the offenders.
.
THR’s starting point is that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is so heinous and so barbaric that any response by Palestinians is understandable.
I’ve seen many threads where people have responded to THR by saying, to paraphrase “Israel are only defending themselves” and trying to argue that Arab enmity toward Israel exists independently of anything that Israel does or does not do.
It goes around in circles.
daddy dave
11 May 10 at 3:24 pm
“the IRA didn’t give up the British gobvernment did with a great deal of help from the US for which we must all give a great deal of thanks.”
Homer Paxton: “IRA wins war against UK”
Thatcher:
“Crime is crime is crime; it is not political”
She negotiated with the Taoiseach, not the IRA you twit. The Irish Republic, not the IRA held the referendum.
Semi Regular Libertarian
11 May 10 at 3:28 pm
reaction from other Governments, how about the stopping of revenue going to the government.
.
Oh yeah.
“Guys, if all you’re going to spend all your money on plastic explosives and AK-47′s then I’m afraid we’re going to have to cut your allowance.”
daddy dave
11 May 10 at 3:28 pm
rky the UK only started negotiating with the IRA AFTER US intervention which is why we have the present set up in Northern Ireland with the IRA actually doing some part in the governing.
DD you are absurd.
The government needed money to govern and was denied their rightful money from taxes.
Moreover there was little recognition from any Government that they were the Government.
so the realpolitiks were pushed aside and people saw their vote was worth nothing.
All because of idiots such as yourself
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
11 May 10 at 3:34 pm
“the UK only started negotiating with the IRA AFTER US intervention which is why we have the present set up in Northern Ireland with the IRA actually doing some part in the governing.”
The IRA negotiated with no one. Sein Fein negotiated for them and were minor players compared to either Government and the will of the Republic and Ulster Irish. In 1983 and 1998, the Uk and Irish Governments negotiated.
The consensus Government had failings to begin with because the IRA refused to abide by the agreement initially.
Semi Regular Libertarian
11 May 10 at 3:37 pm
This post (and my response to it) are obviously not about ‘communities’, hippie communes or the Armenian Piano Tuners Trade Union.We’re talking about states, not other forms of association. My point is that a state, insofar as it is based on some particularism or other, is bound to descend into wanton oppression.
THR, firstly, states are communities; certainly that is presumed in any fears you or others might have about ethno-religious particularism. Secondly, you haven’t demonstrated that all states in virtue of being cultural-religiously particular are bound to descend into wanton oppression. You’ve asserted it ad nausea but the only thing that gives the assertion a patina of credibility are the few instances where states have. And of the few that have the case of Israel is arguably one of the least convincing.
The hatred of some within Israel is every bit as repulsive as that of fanatical Arabs, but with none of the mitigating circumstances.
And you accuse me of selective blindness.
dover_beach
11 May 10 at 3:39 pm
Do you have an argument, or merely an infinite number of these obfuscatory tics?
By definition, a ‘Jewish state’ is going to cause some problems for the non-Jews within its borders (or occupied territories).
By definition, ‘a land without a people’ presupposes the standard European chauvinist attitude to the Middle East, insofar as Palestinian Arabs are implicitly regarded as non-people.
Unless you’re arguing that particularist identity politics ought to be the basis of statehood, you’re simply nit-picking. And if you are arguing that particularist identity politics ought to be the basis of statehood, then Israel is a pretty ugly example.
THR
11 May 10 at 3:56 pm
“By definition, a ‘Jewish state’ is going to cause some problems for the non-Jews within its borders (or occupied territories)”
You’re 62 years too late.
Semi Regular Libertarian
11 May 10 at 3:57 pm
By definition, a ‘Jewish state’ is going to cause some problems for the non-Jews within its borders (or occupied territories).
Not necessarily; no more than their being an established religion in the UK, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Finland, Greece, Norway, etc; and yet Judaism is not even the official religion of the Israeli state. And there is a world between “some problems” to “wanton oppression”.
Unless you’re arguing that particularist identity politics ought to be the basis of statehood, you’re simply nit-picking. And if you are arguing that particularist identity politics ought to be the basis of statehood, then Israel is a pretty ugly example.
I’m not arguing that partuicularist identity politics ought to be the basis of statehood; I’m arguing that particularist identity politics can range from the liberal to the illiberal. You, however, presume that the even the most exiguous identity politics will with time end in wanton oppression.
dover_beach
11 May 10 at 4:24 pm
The UK and Irish governments negotiated but it didn’t make a difference until the IRA came to the party.
it will be the same in Israel and Palestine
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
11 May 10 at 4:27 pm
“The UK and Irish governments negotiated but it didn’t make a difference until the IRA came to the party.”
Right. The terrorists were ignored. The Government negotiated. They almost blew it and faced political pressure from their demilitarised wing to disarm or they’d be occupied again by the black and tans.
Thatcher won.
Semi Regular Libertarian
11 May 10 at 4:38 pm
and yet Judaism is not even the official religion of the Israeli state.
Yes, but Jewish identity has long since ceased to be predicated on Judaism. Sigmund Freud, for instance, identified very strongly as a Jew, despite being resolutely athiest and refusing to partake in Judaism’s traditions. Many of the earl Zionists were likewise secular Jews, whose identity qua Jew had no straightforward relation to religion.
As for the IRA – this analogy (like that of Apartheid South Africa) helps somewhat, but only goes so far. The UK recognised a clear distinction between a military wing (i.e. the IRA) and the political wing (i.e. Sinn Fein) of the same movement. Israel (and its supporters on this site!) afford no such distinction to Palestinians. Hamas is regarded as nothing other than a terror organisation with whom negotiations are supposedly impossible (despite such negotiations having occurred before). Palestinians who voted for Hamas are regarded as equally culpable of terror, and therefore deserving of collective punishment (despite the fact that most would’ve voted for Hamas as a reaction to the corruption and impotence of Fatah). So ultimately, BB&B is correct on this analogy – the IDF has to negotiate.
THR
11 May 10 at 4:52 pm
The government s negotiated and got nothing.
The Us came in and said to the UK you have to negotiate with the IRA.
They did and that is why we are here now.
Thatcher did not even come close
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
11 May 10 at 4:55 pm
“The UK recognised a clear distinction between a military wing (i.e. the IRA) and the political wing (i.e. Sinn Fein) of the same movement. Israel (and its supporters on this site!) afford no such distinction to Palestinians.”
That’s horseshit.
How many times do Boris and I have to repeat how Palestinians aren’t actually fighting as a collective group as such, but rather, the foreign controlled militias, consisting of Palestinians, actually rule the place despotically and run the brainwashed media there and hold dubious elections and violent and intimidating street rallies?
1000? 5000? Tell me how often and I’ll start cutting and pasting.
Semi Regular Libertarian
11 May 10 at 4:56 pm
“The government s negotiated and got nothing.”
Oh please do shut up Homer. Your history is actually more appalling than your economics. The IRA had nothing to do with the Anglo-Irish agreement which set the whole process off towards peace and normality.
“The Us came in and said to the UK you have to negotiate with the IRA.”
Yeah right, Clinton held the UK as a protectorate. Fuck me dead you are full of some very rank BS.
Semi Regular Libertarian
11 May 10 at 4:58 pm
The IRA simply realised that it was going to be economics and cultural attrition that will deliver reunification (which is inevitable). The north – to be sure – is a bog-hole inhabited by the banjo-plucking cast-offs of the lower British protestant aristocracy.
C.L.
11 May 10 at 5:01 pm
Yes, but Jewish identity has long since ceased to be predicated [singularly] on Judaism.
Which further strengthens my point.
dover_beach
11 May 10 at 5:03 pm
Yes C.L – crime is crime is crime – and Thatcher won.
Semi Regular Libertarian
11 May 10 at 5:06 pm
How many times do Boris and I have to repeat how Palestinians aren’t actually fighting as a collective group as such, but rather, the foreign controlled militias, consisting of Palestinians, actually rule the place despotically and run the brainwashed media there and hold dubious elections and violent and intimidating street rallies?
I don’t think you have been saying this. Boris most definitely hasn’t. If this were truly the problem, it would merely be a matter of Israel negotiating with other representatives in addition to/instead of Hamas. But as we see in the West Bank, Israel has approacbhed negotiations with all Palestinian groups with zero good faith.
The north – to be sure – is a bog-hole inhabited by the banjo-plucking cast-offs of the lower British protestant aristocracy.
I’m sure those 15-year old pregnant girls pushing prams behind the wall in Belfast were Catholic…
THR
11 May 10 at 5:06 pm
Which further strengthens my point.
No, it proves that Israel can accommodate secular as well as religious Jews. It says nothing about its ability to accommodate non-Jews, which, as we know, is appalling.
THR
11 May 10 at 5:07 pm
“I don’t think you have been saying this.”
That’s because you have selective comprehnsion.
Semi Regular Libertarian
11 May 10 at 5:07 pm
I doubt it. Ireland’s reunification is inevitable.
‘Crime is crime is crime’ is what they said to George Washington.
C.L.
11 May 10 at 5:07 pm
Mark you actually know buggerall about any history as has been shown.
the government to Government negotiations didn’t do much at all.
until the IRA came involved it was a bit like your comments meaningless.
which is why magazines like the Economist laud the Ireland example as the way to go.
There is one man who is familiar to both processes
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
11 May 10 at 5:08 pm
“It says nothing about its ability to accommodate non-Jews, which, as we know, is appalling.”
What about the Israeli Arabs in the Knesset?
Semi Regular Libertarian
11 May 10 at 5:08 pm
I’m sure those 15-year old pregnant girls pushing prams behind the wall in Belfast were Catholic…
Good. Another reason “Northern Ireland” is doomed.
C.L.
11 May 10 at 5:09 pm
“until the IRA came involved it was a bit like your comments meaningless.”
The IRA were never involved, Poindexter.
Semi Regular Libertarian
11 May 10 at 5:09 pm
“the government to Government negotiations didn’t do much at all.”
Right. Except for making the referendums possible. What do you get out of being such a bullshit artist Homer?
“I doubt it. Ireland’s reunification is inevitable”
You Catholic Lads certainly do play a long game.
Semi Regular Libertarian
11 May 10 at 5:14 pm
No, it proves that Israel can accommodate secular as well as religious Jews. It says nothing about its ability to accommodate non-Jews, which, as we know, is appalling.
For pete’s sake, THR, Israel accommodates non-Jews quite well. And compared to it’s neighbours treatment of their non-Muslim populations it remains a beacon.
dover_beach
11 May 10 at 5:16 pm
“There is one man who is familiar to both processes”
Is it Bill Clinton, Homer? I’m dying to know! After all, you insist that he forced the UK to negotiate with the terrorists and the terrorists and the Americans put forward all of the legal and electoral changes necessary to bring the peace process to a conclusion or near conclusive normality.
Semi Regular Libertarian
11 May 10 at 5:18 pm
And compared to it’s neighbours treatment of their non-Muslim populations it remains a beacon.
You can keep repeating this, but it won’t make it true. Sure, Saudi Arabia and Egypt treat the locals appallingly, but the Palestinian Arabs within ‘Greater Israel’ are not treated any better, and on many measures, are probably treated much worse. When the Israeli attempted to bribe Iranian Jews to leave town and move to Israel, they almost entirely refused.
THR
11 May 10 at 5:20 pm
That’s not true. Not only are there many Christians in Israel, but a Mosque occupies the site of Solomon’s temple.
Sinclair Davidson
11 May 10 at 5:20 pm
“When the Israeli attempted to bribe Iranian Jews to leave town and move to Israel, they almost entirely refused.”
I don’t know what you tried to prove here, but it seems to sort of backfired.
Semi Regular Libertarian
11 May 10 at 5:21 pm
“I doubt it. Ireland’s reunification is inevitable”
Waste of time. All the good Irish are Americans and Australians now. The rest are feckless drunkards and Euroweenie spivs.
Infidel Tiger
11 May 10 at 5:23 pm
SLR, you’re point was that Israel treats minorities better than the neighbours. This isn’t true – Iran’s Jews are in far less dire straits than Israel’s Palestinian Arabs:
http://www.eutimes.net/2009/06/iranian-jews-refuse-cash-bribe-to-move-to-israel/
THR
11 May 10 at 5:27 pm
You can keep repeating this, but it won’t make it true.
It’s the first time I’ve stated this, but it is nevertheless true.
dover_beach
11 May 10 at 5:29 pm
It’s true that Christians have made a home within Israel, but plenty have also joined pro-Palestinian resistance movements.
In a 2006 poll of Christians in Bethlehem by the Palestinian Centre for Research and Cultural Dialogue, 90% reported having Muslim friends, 73.3% agreed that the Palestinian Authority treats Christian heritage in the city with respect, and 78% attributed the ongoing exodus of Christians from Bethlehem to the Israeli occupation and travel restrictions on the area.[37] Daniel Rossing, the Israeli Ministry of Religious Affairs’ chief liaison to Christians in the 1970s and 1980s, has stated that the situations for them in Gaza became much worse after the election of Hamas. He also stated that the Palestinian Authority, which counts on Christian Westerners for financial support, treats the minority fairly. He blamed the West Bank barrier wall as the primary problem for the Christians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Christians
THR
11 May 10 at 5:31 pm
I wonder what would have been visited on the remaining Iranian Jews’ families if some of their number had taken the ‘bribe’? Probably had nothing to do with their decision to take a ‘loyalty pledge’.
dover_beach
11 May 10 at 5:36 pm
Boris – Was its mission to liberate West Bank and Gaza from Jordan and Egypt?
.
How could it be. The Israelis hadn;t scored those territories tehen.
.
THR – It is a standard motif of European colonialism, (of which Israel is an example), that the ethnic cleansing, mass-murder and occupation of the colonisers is displaced, and projected onto the colonised, who are described here (and everywhere) as ‘barbaric’, ‘backward’, ‘hate-filled’, etc.
.
In other words, Europeans, like other humans demonize their victims in order to rationalize their nefarious deeds. I’m sure those flew planes into the World Trade towers likewise convinced themseleves that the terrified commutters they captured were responsible for the dog’s breakfast that is the ME.
.
White people aren’t the only bad guys.
Adrien
11 May 10 at 5:39 pm
Perhaps, dover. What I’m trying to suggest is that the IDF treatment of those in ‘Greater Israel’ is no less brutal or totalitarian than anything else in the Middle East. If the best that can be said of Israel, supposedly a great ‘Western democracy’, one of our guys, is that ‘Yemen may be worse’, well, then we have a problem.
THR
11 May 10 at 5:39 pm
White people aren’t the only bad guys.
Of course, which is why I didn’t take dover’s bait about some hypothetical Aboriginal state. Also, when it comes to European colonialism (including that involved in the creation of Israel), it turns out that the ‘bad guys’ are almost invariably white.
It might be timely to recall that part of this problem was created by the refusal of the so-called Western world to admit Jewish asylum seekers. Paradoxically, Stalini, of all people, created a ‘Jewish Autonomous Zone’ in the unlovely outskirts of outer Siberia which, whilst horribly inconvenient, actually saved the few tens of thousands of Jews who moved there.
So there you go – on asylum seekers, even Stalin was more enlightened than what the Australian right is today (and Rudd counts as one of their number).
THR
11 May 10 at 5:43 pm
Marky he is close to Clinton ansdwas also appointed by Obama and you would know his name if you knew what went on.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
11 May 10 at 5:51 pm
Of course, which is why I didn’t take dover’s bait about some hypothetical Aboriginal state.
I wasn’t offering you ‘bait’, THR, when I referred to the self-consciousness pursuit of aboriginality or the like, I was trying to get you to consider the possibility that identity politics isn’t always illiberal.
So there you go – on asylum seekers, even Stalin was more enlightened than what the Australian right is today (and Rudd counts as one of their number).
I hope you’re joking.
dover_beach
11 May 10 at 6:11 pm
THR
What “oppression” did the White Australia Policy “lead to?”
Peter Patton
11 May 10 at 6:37 pm
It facilitated racist attacks against Asians (among others) and, unsurprisingly, went hand-in-hand with horrendous treatment against Aborigines, who didn’t get the vote until the 1960s.
THR
11 May 10 at 6:41 pm
THR most Jews have fled Iran long ago. To suggest Jews or any other minority are treated well in theocratic Iran is prepostorous. Executed gays is just one example. Not to mention women’t rights.
Yes, there is certainly some tension between Israel being a democratic state and a Jewish state, and this has implication for minorities. But this cannot be compared with theocratic Iran, or, say, Malaysia where discrimination is official.
Palestinians are not citizens of Israel and don’t want to be. Therefore the word discrimination does not apply to them. As for ‘oppression’, this is the reality of war.
Boris
11 May 10 at 6:59 pm
Interesting to compare the debate on this site and on Troppo!
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2010/05/10/addressing-the-conceptual-crisis-in-israeli-politics/
Rafe
11 May 10 at 7:02 pm
suggest Jews or any other minority are treated well in theocratic Iran is prepostorous
On the face of it, they’re treated far better than the way the Israeli Govt treats Palestinians.
But this cannot be compared with theocratic Iran, or, say, Malaysia where discrimination is official.
Why can’t it be compared? Israel’s borders eat into the occupied territory all the time, with both the ‘security’ wall and the new settlements. Since this necessitates further disruption and brutality against Palestinians, how is this discrimination anything other than ‘official’? It’s a policy that’s got popular support, both in Israel, and in the Knesset.
As for ‘oppression’, this is the reality of war.
As for your sentence, it’s a bunch of weasel words used for the express purpose of redefining and ennobling IDF atrocities as sad, but necessary acts of ‘war’. We might as well construe any common rape, theft or murder as an ‘act of war’, under the flippant Boris definition.
THR
11 May 10 at 7:09 pm
I think Boris has a lot to contribute to this discussion and I would like THR to stop trolling. I don’t have time to engage with every non sliquitur and red herring that you introduce and I imagine that other people are in the same situation.
Rafe
11 May 10 at 8:42 pm
I think Boris has a lot to contribute to this discussion and I would like THR to stop trolling.
Boris seems like a nice guy, and he’s been lucid on other topics, but here he seems to mix one legitimate comment with one ideologically-loaded rightwing talking point. He makes many assumptions that ought not to be merely taken for granted, and redefining every IDF atrocity as a justified act of war fully deserves criticism.
THR
11 May 10 at 8:52 pm
suggest Jews or any other minority are treated well in theocratic Iran is prepostorous
I hate to enhance the tint on THR’s rose-coloured classes when it comes to talking about just about any backward or left-wing regime, but I worked relatively closely with an Israeli company over 2006-2008 and they indicated to me that, while they were nervous about Iran, the Iranian Jews weren’t under threat (in fact, one guy did say ‘and they are perfectly safe’ although this was probably to exaggerate the point). I suspect this is a relative thing however. Like relative to having homemade rockets land in your community on a regular basis.
Michael Sutcliffe
11 May 10 at 9:27 pm
Michael maybe a few Jews left in Iran are not treated too badly. Maybe they are even perfectly safe. However women and gays are treated so badly that you do not need to even talk about Jews.
THR, how many times do I need to repeat that Palestinians are NOT Israeli citizens, they are adversaries at war. If you want a comparison, compare their treatment to say, treatment of Kurdish rebels by Turkey or Iran. Or Chinese treatment of Muslim rebels. Or perhaps the latest anti-terror operation in Sri Lanka.
And then compare the HRW and Amensty’s outcry after Gaza war with that in Sri Lanka.
And if Israel is a rogue state, are India and Turkey also rogue states?
Boris
11 May 10 at 11:00 pm
We’re obviously going around in circles, Boris. I don’t accept for one instant that Israel is at ‘war’. Just because you swallow this propaganda does not make it fact. The model for understanding this conflict is colonialism, not war.
As for rogue states – Sri Lanka and China clearly fall into this category, which is why countries like Australia have accepted Uighur and Tamil refugees. I’m not sure why you’ve brought up India – perhaps you could explain.
Turkey I don’t know enough about, but my understanding is that a Kurd in Turkey is vastly better off than a Palestinian Arab, both materially and legally speaking.
Claims that HRW and Amnesty are running a conspiracy against Israel simply don’t withstand scrutiny. These NGOs are not perfect, but they highlight many other regions to a much greater extent. Media outlets simply don’t pick up on those stories, for the most part.
THR
11 May 10 at 11:18 pm
Rafe, I had a miriad of thoughts after reading extracts of the book. I would be happy to discuss with you some points, based on my personal experience.
Perhaps the most fascinating thing I learned yesterday is this extraordinary story of Hillel Kook. Fascinating, but also deeply sad. Not only he was largely forgotten, but also he largely choose this fate. You see, upon arival in Israel in 1948(?) he was attacked (on Altarena), and then arrested. And yet, he became a PM from Irgun. Some mistreatment indeed
. And when the constitutive assembly declared itself parliament, he resigned from Irgun in protest, and soon quit politics and left the country.
I can understand both him and his opponents. The founders of the state were getting on with the job of building institutions, solving economic, social and security problems. And they were less concerned with (or postponed) foundations of the state (like constitution). And they did manage to build pretty reasonable institutions without breaking their heads (and without internal vilence) over language of the constitution. The fact that Kook chose to stay on the sidelines just because of this reminds me of the debate here about the republic or the bill of rights. Important issues, but not crucial. Sure, it is more important in a completely new country, but surely this is not the first priority…
Of course I would agree at some point this needs to be addressed. But I would think that maybe it cannot be attacked head on until there is peace. Until then we will have an imperfect and intuitive drift in that direction, rather than radical reform.
Boris
11 May 10 at 11:29 pm
So THR, are you saying the Turkish repraisal attacks in Kurdish areas in Iraq are fine, but Israeli in Gaza or Lebanon are not?
Boris
11 May 10 at 11:34 pm
“The model for understanding this conflict is colonialism, not war.”
Can you explain please. At what point Jews colonised Palestine? at 3000 BC, in 1880, in 1948, or in 1967? I am really confused.
Boris
11 May 10 at 11:41 pm
So THR, are you saying the Turkish repraisal attacks in Kurdish areas in Iraq are fine, but Israeli in Gaza or Lebanon are not?
So you want a condemnathon? No criticism of the IDF until Turkey are likewise criticised? How precisely does that get the Israeli state off the hook?
At what point Jews colonised Palestine? at 3000 BC, in 1880, in 1948, or in 1967? I am really confused.
Only to happy to help, Boris. European Jews began migrating in significant numbers in the first decades of the 20th century. This in itself was not colonisation per se, and nor was it necessarily a bad thing. The creation of the Israeli state, however, involved the sorts of massacres and large-scale expulsions of Palestinian Arabs that we now term ‘ethnic cleansing’.
In short, the history of colonialism in the region is complex, and was not a discrete event that occurred in one week or year. This is still the best means of understanding the conflict. If we take your claims about war seriously – well, when did war start? Did Zionist Jews declare war on Palestine in 1948? How does this make their position any more legitimate? How is it that there are no front lines, merely continual occupation by the IDF?
THR
11 May 10 at 11:49 pm
THR, I find it kind of interesting to debate with you because it sheds some light for me on anti-Israel leftist thinking that is so common in the West nowadays.
You answered your question, kind of avoiding the main occupation event, the 1967 war. OK, I won’t go into that for now.
You asked me when the war started. Easy to answer. When the partition plan was enacted by the UN, Israel did not like it, but swallowed a snake and accepted it. Arab states rejected it, occupied the territory assigned to the Arab state, and attacked Israel. When the war ended, the Arab state was occupied by Egypt and Jordan. BTW I do not recall much talk of occupation by human rights organisation from that time.
In 1967 Egypt’s Nasser provoked the war with Israel which ended with Israel gaining control over West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. The rest is history (sorry for the cliche).
Boris
12 May 10 at 12:39 am
Thinking about it, I am still confused by this colonialism thing. I understand colonialism as a colonisation of a weaker country or territory by a strong world or regional power. By colonising these lands, these powers created massive empires that controlled most of the world.
Now there may have been some abuses during 1948 war, but how is that colonialism? What is the colony and what is the metropole. Is Sri Lankan policy also colonialism?
Boris
12 May 10 at 1:50 am
You asked me when the war started. Easy to answer. When the partition plan was enacted by the UN, Israel did not like it, but swallowed a snake and accepted it.
So what are you saying here? That the Israeli state has been at war with the Palestinian people for the past 62 years? This doesn’t make the situation any better for your argument, except that you need the current situation to be a ‘war’, in order to justify IDF brutality, carte blanche. When I point out this tortured chain of reasoning, Rafe accuses me of trolling.
Now there may have been some abuses during 1948 war, but how is that colonialism?
The ‘abuses’ were murders and mass expulsions, and whilst ethnic cleansing alone is not the sine qua non of colonialism, it should give you some pretty strong hints. Moreover, the current situation is clearly the result of a European Israeli colonial project, right down too Gazans not having any control over their airways and beaches. It’s basically a plunder of land and resources by way of military occupation.
THR
12 May 10 at 2:17 am
THR:
You can’t run a debit and credit ledger on brutality in regards to a war. For the most part the Israelis have spared the Palis what they actually deserve.
You need to look at who starts it and why.
JC
12 May 10 at 2:23 am
Well, the OECD has just rolled out the welcome mat for Israel. That will send its neighbors nuts.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/israel-celebrates-membership-of-oecd-20100511-uu9m.html
Peter Patton
12 May 10 at 9:36 am
So what are you saying here? That the Israeli state has been at war with the Palestinian people for the past 62 years?
.
Rhetorical question: Why would the Palestinian state fire rockets across the border; and capture “enemy” soldiers, and so on, if they were not engaged in war?
.
In fact, THR, your entire case in defence of the Palestinians rests on the claim that they are fighting a war of liberation.
You can’t have it both ways.
daddy dave
12 May 10 at 9:43 am
It’s basically a plunder of land and resources by way of military occupation.
.
One other point on colonialism. Let’s accept your claim that the founding of Israel was an act of colonisation. Fair enough; the argument has some merit. But let’s just agree it’s true.
So what?
Does that make, for example, Brazil an illegitimate state? Canada? Australia? And anyway, didn’t the Vikings conquer Britain? Perhaps it should be given back to the Celts.
What do you want to see happen- all the Israeli Jews fold their clothes neatly into suitcases and board the next ship outta there?
daddy dave
12 May 10 at 9:49 am
I wonder how different the interpretation of the period between 1948-73 of the majority of the Western Left would have been if the Israelis lost the Yom Kippur War (defeat appeared very likely in the first few days of the war) and were then promptly slaughtered and the remainder expelled?
dover_beach
12 May 10 at 9:56 am
The only difference between israel and other settled countries is the span of time that has elapsed since the colonisation and even the clock is ticking on that. Apparently THR thinks it would be OK if the Aborigines in Redfern started firing missiles at the CBD to take back the country.
Sorry, champs but you lost the war. Deal with it, forgot about your fucking great great great grandpas’s olive trees and get on with your life.
The only exception to this is the Occupied Territories where it’s ongoing.
jtfsoon
12 May 10 at 9:58 am
“he is close to Clinton ansdwas also appointed by Obama and you would know his name if you knew what went on.”
I’m actually going to ignore that because the idea that an Imperialist America and rebel IRA Government wrote the accords and forced the Republic and the UK to abide by them is batshit insane.
Thatcher won.
Semi Regular Libertarian
12 May 10 at 9:58 am
I agree with Jason. If there was no settlers, peace would probably come a lot quicker. Sharon tried to stop them but was painted as a warmonger for a judicious use of force against Hamas and Hezbollah.
Semi Regular Libertarian
12 May 10 at 9:59 am
“Thatcher won.”
Thatcher was long out of office by the time the processes leading to the Good Friday Agreement were even commencing. Her government had little, if anything, to do with the end of the conflict.
badm0f0
12 May 10 at 10:20 am
She marginalised the IRA which lead to the Anglo-Irish treaty – which set up the process for the accord to be negotiated.
It was the beginning of the Northern Ireland peace process. It was only the beginning and the voters in the UK, Ulster and Ireland ultimately did more than any of the politicians did.
Homer thinks Clinton and the Provos somehow forced the UK and Ireland into voting yes on the referendums.
Semi Regular Libertarian
12 May 10 at 10:25 am
It is more accurate to say “the Arabs” have been at war with Israel since 1947/48, while one faction of the Palestinians has been at war with them for about 90 years. And then all the various Arab kingdoms and states have been at each other’s throats since the collapse of the Ottomans, and even throughout the 19th century.
Muhammad Ali’s wrested Egypt from the Mamluks, in the early 19th century was the catalyst. He subsequent lead the invasion of Saudi Arabia to obliterate the Wahhabists, who had conquered Mecca and Medina, and planned next to topple the Turkish sultan as caliph; demanding only an Arab could be a true caliph. And that Arab was going to come from the House of al-Saud. Muhammad Ali clearly had an investment in stopping this reactionary Hanbali sect, as he himself was an Albanian, whose only language was Turkish!
So, as we can see, all this nonsense about the “centuries of European colonialism and oppression of the Arabs/Muslims/Middle East” is pure ahistorical, boneheaded, uneducated, ideological drivel.
The Muslims were at each other throats long, long, long before the first Jewish aliyah. Whether Arab on Arab or Arab on Turk, the Islamic world from Turkey to Saudi Arabia to Syria, Egypt, and northern Africa was increasingly a powder-keg throughout the 19th century.
The Ottoman loss in WWI provided more than enough oxygen for the whole of that part of the Islamic world to turn on each other. From the 1930s on, and particularly after WWII, the Jews proved the perfect scapegoats for the various contenders to the post-Ottoman caliphate.
The Soviet Union was more than happy to foment rabid anti-Semitism in firstly, the Arab world – as part of a strategy to replace the US as geopolitical guardian of middle-eastern oil – and secondly, to let it ooze across the entire Muslim world.
The Soviet Union provided not only military hardware – guns, planes, bombs, ships, but also military software, with 15,000 Soviet “advisors” camped out fulltime in Cairo by the late 1960s. Soviet universities provided scholarships by the thousands to their new Islamic supplicants, with current Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, gaining a PhD in Moscow in the late 1970s. And then of course, billions of dollars in aid and loans.
Perhaps most importantly, and insidiously, the Soviets provided a ready-made discourse built on “Zionism as racism.” This was a masterful discursive tactical move by the Soviets, as it excused the Muslims and Soviets from the post-Holocaust insupportable discourse of pre-war anti-Semitism. Indeed Mahmous Abbas’ Moscow PhD thesis was titled
Relations between Zionism and Nazism: 1933-1945
Charming!
The exposition of this history by THR, and his ilk, is shocking in its naivety (swallows the 1970s party line hook, line, and sinker), disinterest in the historical facts and realities, despite the ubiquity of their easy public access, and ongoing obsession with this issue, depsite living on the other side of the world, and the Soviet Union itself abandoning the propaganda warfare in 1991, when it sponsored the repealing of the UNGA Resolution that “Zionism is Racism,” which ironically the Soviets themselves had initiated in 1975 .
Peter Patton
12 May 10 at 10:38 am
Revive the Ottoman empire to keep these nutty Arabs in check and water down their wild form of Islam. And bring back the Habsburgs while we’re at it.
jtfsoon
12 May 10 at 10:45 am
Here’s the thing Jason – pre WWI, the world was a wealthy, stable place where you may not have had liberal democracy but you had a liberal autocracy elsewhere.
Perhaps I’ve read too much one arly Australian economic history and watched Sunshine (1999) film once too often.
Semi Regular Libertarian
12 May 10 at 10:48 am
THR the point I was trying to make about Turkey etc was this: every country under rebel attack will react in this way, and rightly so. It must be strong and disproportionate, tit for tat doesn’t work, because the other side does not value human life (and in case of Israel vs Arabs, it is a losing number game as well). The damage must be so strong that they will think hard next time they want to attack. Now, I do not support targetting civillians, but infrastructure is fine.
The point is that when coparing Israel to other countries, we compare with Turkey, not Switzerland… By the way, Switzerland has banned building of minarets. Can you imagine what sort of outcry would occur if Israel does the same… Some theocracy…
Boris
12 May 10 at 11:24 am
Part of the solution is to establish a Palestinian state so that there can be state to state negotiations on border issues instead of exchanging missiles. This would require the Palestinians to take responsibility for their internal affairs and we can see how they make out as democrats and economic managers.
Part of the deal would restrain Jewish fundamentalists who think they are entitled to extent their settlements regardless of the damage that this inflicts on the peace process.
Another part of the deal is for the Palestinians and the other Arab states to accept the state of Israel and normalise relations instead of firing rockets.
Agassi addresses many other issues and I will attempt to explain some of these in further posts, time permitting.
Rafe
12 May 10 at 11:31 am
The Palestinians must repudiate their doctrinal exterminationism. Until they do – and in a meaningful and credible way – they deserve nothing.
C.L.
12 May 10 at 11:33 am
Rafe, I agree, with all you said.
Boris
12 May 10 at 12:26 pm
“Until they do – and in a meaningful and credible way – they deserve nothing.”
Sure they don’t. But I still believe Israel should try ourmost to stop the occupation as far as practically possible – not for the sake of Palestinians (they don’t deserve it), but for their own sake.
Unfortunately “as far as practically possible” is not very far because no sane Israeli government can allow rockets falling on Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
Boris
12 May 10 at 12:31 pm
This whole notion of a new state in the global system – the state of ‘Palestine’ – is incredibly irresponsible. We already have far too many ‘states’ who do not deserve to be recognized as such. The Palestinians running their own state, with their own money? ROFLMAO. Oh, you are too funny.
Peter Patton
12 May 10 at 5:09 pm
“The Palestinians running their own state, with their own money? ROFLMAO. Oh, you are too funny.”
Either they fail or they prosper. Time to cut the apron strings.
Semi Regular Libertarian
12 May 10 at 5:10 pm
THR – Also, when it comes to European colonialism (including that involved in the creation of Israel), it turns out that the ‘bad guys’ are almost invariably white.
.
Funny that.
.
Boris – At what point Jews colonised Palestine? at 3000 BC, in 1880, in 1948, or in 1967? I am really confused.
.
Isn’t that disingenuous?
.
I’m sure you know that the origins of Israel lay in the late 19th century Zionist movement which involved a minority of European Jews and European nationalism. After the Holocaust it became a mainstream movement. That the Jewish people used to have a homeland there before the Romans scattered them to the wind is, strictly speaking, immaterial. My ancestors used to have a seat of civilization in what is now Switzerland. That doesn’t mean Scotland or Ireland can be annex the territory.
.
The Israeli exceptionalism is founded in religion which is to my thinking not an argument. Not that any of that really matters. All that matters is that it’s there. But that it cost the Palestinian Arabs dear to put it there is a fact.
.
If Israel deals with this fact, and the Arabs accept the fact of Israel, peace might be possible.
Adrien
12 May 10 at 6:43 pm
If Jews were pathetic the bleeding-hearts would be supporting their right to a Jewish nation and taking control of their own destiny. But of course they’re not. They had the audacity to say ‘never again’ after the Holocaust and demand to live as civilised people, and when challenged they’ve…..well, met the challenge. All while showing the rest of the world how human progress is made.
Every bleeding-heart knows the purposes of productive civilised peoples like that are to pay taxes and crap on about how some pathetic tribal culture is just as good, or suprisingly better, than their own. They certainly have no right to assert themselves, live according to their own values and make progress, least of all if they’re getting benefit from it.
Michael Sutcliffe
12 May 10 at 6:45 pm
Adrien, all I asked was what THR meant. To his credit, he answered that, albeit in vaguely. I still don’t quite understand why it has anything to do with colonialism. THR refers to atrocities during 1946-1948 war. I am not sure if Israeli atrocities were worse than the Arab ones, but even if they were, this does not explain the reference to colonialism. Arguably, the worst atrocities in living memory occurred in Rwanda. Was that colonialism?
Colonialism is one country (metropole) capturing another country or territory, and subjigating it. Sorry, I do not understand who was a metropole in 1948.
Arguably, “Colonialism” has slightly more merit in reference to Israel’s capture of West Bank and Gaza. But this is not usual colonialism. It stemmed from a war initiated (or threatenned) by Arab states, hardly a normal colonialism.
Sorry, I do not accept for a second that Jewish connection to the land of Israel counts for nothing. The example of Switzerland does not count. There has never been an independent Arab state in Palestine. It was a backwater of the Ottoman, then British empire. Jews did not force themselves in, they just settled in. With the departure of the British, UN partitioned Palestine. Some colonialism. Had Arabs accepted the partition, there wouldn’t have been any problems.
Of course, it was Egypt and Jordan, not Israel, that prevented the creation of an independent Arab state in Palestine. They only suddenly became proponents of such a state when they lost these territories to Israel in 1967.
Boris
13 May 10 at 3:21 am
Video: overweight Muslim Students Association member supports second Holocaust during Q&A with David Horowitz.
The face of ‘moderate Islam.’
C.L.
13 May 10 at 3:26 am
I’m flabbergasted. She openly agreed that she wanted all Jews to gather in Israel so that it would be easy to hunt them down. The Muslim Brotherhood, of which both the Muslim Students Association and the child-killing Hamas are affiliates, is not proto-nazi as some have suggested. It is literally a Nazi organisation which advocates genocide of the Jews. Jewish genocide is an objective as written in the preamble to the Hamas Charter, and it is regularly admitted to be a goal by apologists for the Brotherhood themselves.
Just as Stalin was completely right to smash the Nazis (regardless of how odious he himself was), so too is Israel right to attempt to eliminate every last breathing trace of this putrid, genocidal, fascist, Nazi, pig-fucking piece of shit “organisation” (the Brotherhood). It would be the just and humane thing to do.
Michael Fisk
13 May 10 at 3:45 am
Exactly.
C.L.
13 May 10 at 10:38 am
I still don’t quite understand why it has anything to do with colonialism.
.
It’s a bit shifty to use the word colonialism in connection with the establishment of Israel because the people who established it were more or less mostly refugees. However the pre-Holocaust Zionists were a kind of colonialism. These were European Jews who acted on the assumption of the inherent superiority and associated rights of conquest ubiquitous in Europe in the 19th century.
.
When I was growing up I used to hear the argument often repeated that there was nothing in Palestine before Israel was etablished. That the Israelis made something of the place. This is similar to arguments used to justify European colinialism everywhere.
.
Part of the problem was that the establishment of Israel took place at the same time that the colonial ethos was being discredited. Of course to a Holocaust survivor whose home in Poland has been stolen by neighbours the notion that establashing Israel on the territory of Palestinian Arabs is morally wrong would draw a big so what. Especially considering that such moral assertions would come from those who’ve both most benefited from European colonialization and whose cultures have been the most extremely anti-Semitic.
.
Like a lot of other terms the word colonialism does and doesn’t fit with the Israel/Palestine situation. Part of the dysfuntion of discussing such issues is that, depending on your stand, you’ll either categorically reject it or apply it absolutely, no question.
Adrien
13 May 10 at 4:26 pm
Adrien, I think you’ve missed Boris’s point and talking about pre-Holocaust Zionists having a colonial ethos that wasn’t even unique to Europeans (the Ottomans and the Arabs before them exemplified an air of superiority over the lands they conquered) isn’t going to prevent us from noticing this. Boris’s point is that colonists act as agents and in the interests of a colonial power, and this cannot be said of either pre-Holocaust or post-colonist Zionists.
Pre-Holocaust Zionists were in the main, firstly, responding to the new found movement for national self-determination, and secondly, to the increasingly deleterious position for Jews during the late 19th/ early 20th C in Europe and elsewhere.
dover_beach
13 May 10 at 5:03 pm
Correction: post-Holocaust Zionists.
dover_beach
13 May 10 at 5:37 pm
DB – I haven’t missed the point. I’ve said that in one aspect Zionism can be viewed as European colonialism and in another it can’t. Zionists did not act in the interests of a colonial power, true. On the other hand, in terms of their attitudes and in terms of the disinheritance of the Palestinian Arabs, there’s a resemblance.
.
I don’t think colonialism or other nasty such business is the province of Europeans. As the USN lieutenant in Barcelona says, responding to assertions that US gun death statistics indicate that Americans are exceptionally violent people: “No. We’re not more violent. We’re just better shots”.
.
Thing is you can take the position either of Palestinians or Israelis and weave a credible tale of moral righteousness. If you look at it without taking sides it’s hard to judge either people for their actions finally. If I was a European Jew in 1945 I’d want a homeland and’d do anything to establish it. If I was a Palestinain Arab I’d be mighty pissed off.
.
That’s why this is such a geopolitical migraine.
Adrien
13 May 10 at 5:39 pm
DB/Boris – Have you read Eichmann in Jeruselum. If so, what’s your opinion of it?
Adrien
13 May 10 at 5:42 pm
On the other hand, in terms of their attitudes and in terms of the disinheritance of the Palestinian Arabs, there’s a resemblance.
But the resemblance isn’t indicative of colonialism. The attitude of Palestinian Arabs to Jews pre-1948 was also chauvinistic but it would be ridiculous to argue that they had a colonial ethos or the like. And so far as their disinheritance is concerned, they gambled and lost in 1948; they could have been celebrating 62 years of Palestinian statehood and yet gambled on destroying Israel. That is the tragedy of it.
DB/Boris – Have you read Eichmann in Jeruselum. If so, what’s your opinion of it?
Nope.
dover_beach
13 May 10 at 6:13 pm
“However the pre-Holocaust Zionists were a kind of colonialism. These were European Jews who acted on the assumption of the inherent superiority and associated rights of conquest ubiquitous in Europe in the 19th century.”
I don’t know if there was assumption of superiority, maybe to an extent. But the main thing was that they did not come with force, but rather just settled in, at least initially, with the blessing of local authorities, Ottoman, British and Arab (Transjordan). They were no more colonialists than the Greeks and the Italians who came here after WWII.
Of course at some point they began bulding a state; maybe this element was controlversial. However it must be remembered that they did this when the land was under colonial rule anyway. Thus they aimed to take power from colonial rulers (Ottomans, then Birish), who arguably did not have a greater right to power than the Jews.
An important point is also that there was Jewish presence in the Holy land for many centuries, although in small numbers. Especially in the Old city of Jerusalem and in Hebron.
Boris
14 May 10 at 1:01 am
“DB/Boris – Have you read Eichmann in Jeruselum. If so, what’s your opinion of it?”
I have read large parts of it. I also read different opinions about it. I don’t really have my own formed.
Boris
14 May 10 at 1:08 am
Boris – I don’t know if there was assumption of superiority, maybe to an extent. But the main thing was that they did not come with force, but rather just settled in, at least initially, with the blessing of local authorities, Ottoman, British and Arab (Transjordan).
.
As I understand it the Ottoman Empire disapproved of Zionist settlement once it became aware of what was happening. But it’s machinery was too creaky to deal with it effectively. That’s what I’ve read.
.
As for the assumption of superiority. At the time, and until recently, the idea that there were superior, dominant cultures and states and peoples was axiomatic.
.
DB – But the resemblance isn’t indicative of colonialism. The attitude of Palestinian Arabs to Jews pre-1948 was also chauvinistic but it would be ridiculous to argue that they had a colonial ethos or the like.
.
Why? They come from somewhere else and settle in land occupied by someone else. There’s at the very least a resemblance.
.
And so far as their disinheritance is concerned, they gambled and lost in 1948; they could have been celebrating 62 years of Palestinian statehood and yet gambled on destroying Israel. That is the tragedy of it.
.
I’m not sure statehood would’ve made much sense to Palestinians in ’48. Logically they should’ve made a deal. But when it comes to certain things like ‘homeland’ people are anything but logical. If the PRC were to say to us: “You’ve got so much land, we’ve got so many people and we are going to settle large numbers of our population here, make a deal or lose a war”, we’d probably choose to lose the war.
.
And yes you’re quite right – tragic.
Adrien
14 May 10 at 2:25 pm
On Eichmann in Jeruselem, I think it’s a fine book. It’s been vilified partially for contradicting the notion that Eichmann was some kind of monster, the sad truth is was he was just the kind of blind, mediocre, follower that made the Holocaust possible. In part the book’s been villified for elucidating the similarity between certain Zionist factions and the racial ethos of National Socialism.
.
Someone at Lavatory Pronto called Hannah Arendt the most evil intellectual of the 20th century because of it. Interesting what being honest and thorough will get you.
Adrien
14 May 10 at 2:28 pm
Why? They come from somewhere else and settle in land occupied by someone else. There’s at the very least a resemblance.
Well, yes, but that is true even of immigrants, and yet they’re not colonists. My point is that chauvinism isn’t a distinguishing feature of colonialism.
If the PRC were to say to us: “You’ve got so much land, we’ve got so many people and we are going to settle large numbers of our population here, make a deal or lose a war”, we’d probably choose to lose the war.
That’s hardly an apt analogy. There was no Palestinian state prior to the UN offer in 1948 so in a real sense they had little to lose and very much to gain by accepting it. Let’s, also, not forget that certain communities in Europe were being forcibly removed during this same period.
It’s been vilified partially for contradicting the notion that Eichmann was some kind of monster, the sad truth is was he was just the kind of blind, mediocre, follower that made the Holocaust possible. In part the book’s been villified for elucidating the similarity between certain Zionist factions and the racial ethos of National Socialism.
One can also observe that those who too easily concede this ‘similarity’ are in some ways Eichmannesque; not necessarily anti-Semites, but nevertheless, “blind, mediocre,” thoughtless intellectuals that would make a second Holocaust possible.
dover_beach
14 May 10 at 2:54 pm
Question:
Prior to 1948 was there any clear enmity between Jews and Palestinians? Or did this arise after the settlement?
BTW, a recent genetic study found that Palestinians and Jews probably had the same ancestors. The Jews were not entirely kicked out of Palestine in AD70, probably a minority were kicked out. So much for selfish genes seeking to preserve kin … .
John H.
14 May 10 at 3:13 pm
Prior to 1948 was there any clear enmity between Jews and Palestinians? Or did this arise after the settlement?
Yes, there was but it’s gotten much worse since 1948.
dover_beach
14 May 10 at 3:35 pm
Thanks DB,
Long ago I read that one proposal for a Jewish settlement post WW2 was in North West Australia. That would have been nifty, an Israeli State on this continent would have done us no end of good.
What I cannot understand are those who claim that peace is possible when Israel’s enemies are committed to its extermination. Make peace now, will kill you all later. Insane.
John H.
14 May 10 at 3:56 pm
One can also observe that those who too easily concede this ’similarity’ are in some ways Eichmannesque; not necessarily anti-Semites, but nevertheless, “blind, mediocre,” thoughtless intellectuals that would make a second Holocaust possible
.
I don’t agree at all. There’s a certain anti-Israeli hostility that fellow travels with hardline anti-Semitism these days. But criticizing Israeli policy or looking at the laws of Israel in the 1950s which prohibited marriage between Jews and Gentiles and saying: ‘Hey! I’ve seen this somewhere before’ is not Eichmannesque at all.
.
The besmirching of Hannah Arendt as a self-hating Jew because she a. Agreed with Karl Jaspers that the Holocaust was a crime against humanity in general and not just the Jewish people (let’s not forget that the Holocaust took others as well) and b. criticized certain Zionists because they held similar views of ethnic superiority to Nazis is not helpful. What those who say such things really mean is that Israel is somehow exempt from criticisms we’d make of any other country. It’s not.
.
And crying anti-Semite when someone says well, um, maybe it isn’t such a good idea to slaughter bulk Arab civilians every time Hamas fires one of its stupid rockets into Israel and hits the side of a pothole is wearisome and renders the term anti-Semite meaningless.
.
I’ve been labelled both fanatically pro-Palestinian and an anti-Semite depending on who I’m talking to. My views are consistent. Someone has to be wrong.
.
The contradictions within the state of Israel that are the subject of this post will not go away and must be dealt with. If not they will eventually tear then place to bits. One cannot even begin to deal with them if the anti-Semite tag hangs over anyone who dares to criticize Israeli policy.
Adrien
14 May 10 at 4:34 pm
an Israeli State on this continent would have done us no end of good.
.
There is one. It’s called Myer.
.
And yes it’s done us a lot of good. Oh that more capitalists were like Sydney Myer.
Adrien
14 May 10 at 4:35 pm
#
an Israeli State on this continent would have done us no end of good.
.
There is one. It’s called Myer.
No you are lying. It’s called Bellevue Hill.
jtfsoon
14 May 10 at 4:39 pm
But criticizing Israeli policy or looking at the laws of Israel in the 1950s which prohibited marriage between Jews and Gentiles and saying: ‘Hey! I’ve seen this somewhere before’ is not Eichmannesque at all.
Actually, I think it is Eichmannesque, since the comparisons are made rather too blindly, thoughtlessly, etc. Similar to comparing the NT when euthanasia was legal to the Nazi state. Anyway, I’m not arguing that you or anyone else cannot criticize Israeli policy but when you have academics organizing boycotts against Israeli academics and yet not against Turkish or Iranian or Egyptian academics something is deeply wrong.
And crying anti-Semite when someone says well, um, maybe it isn’t such a good idea to slaughter bulk Arab civilians every time Hamas fires one of its stupid rockets into Israel and hits the side of a pothole is wearisome and renders the term anti-Semite meaningless.
This is Eichmannesque; the IDF doesn’t “slaughter bulk Arab civilians every time Hamas fires one of its stupid rockets into Israel” and nor should it have to wait for one of these missiles to murder Israeli civilians before it is permitted a response.
I’ve been labelled both fanatically pro-Palestinian and an anti-Semite depending on who I’m talking to. My views are consistent. Someone has to be wrong.
Woops.
dover_beach
14 May 10 at 5:06 pm
Adrien
Your sympathy for the Paletinians can stand on its own merits, without all the completely [uncharacteristic] ahistorical guff you’re spouting. You sound like you have drunk a gallon of International Socialist Kool Aid circa 1980.
However the pre-Holocaust Zionists were a kind of colonialism.</i?
Adrien, where is the capital of this colonizing power? Does it rule Israel by letters patent? Does it exploit Israel for its massive riches of minerals, oil, and bountiful pastoral and agricultural providence?
These were European Jews who acted on the assumption of the inherent superiority and associated rights of conquest ubiquitous in Europe in the 19th century.
Jesus wept! Make that TWO gallons of the Kool Aid. ‘Colonialism’ was a geographical expansion from an advanced industrial metropole to new lands firstly for trade benefits, which evolved into alliances with local elites, which evolved into the colonizer gradually assuming political control as well? Why? Civilizational asymmetry and progress, dear boy!
Colonialism was about action, power,and industry. Somehow, a ragtag of Jews dribbling into an unbountiful, feudal patch of 10,000 sq.km, within the 7,000,000 sq km (yes, that’s right, 0.15%) Ottoman empire doesn’t cut the colonial mustard, even if they were sitting around muttering “aren’t we superior.”
Just looked up some old atlases: Red for the Russian empire; light blue for the Japanese empire; yellow for the Ottoman Empire, Purple for the Mughal Empire, blue for the French . Plenty of the world colored pink to represent the British empire.
In another atlas, gigantic green for the Persian empire; other colors for the Inca, Byzantine.
Should I go on?
the assumption of the inherent superiority and associated rights of conquest ubiquitous in Europe in the 19th century.
Huh!? How dare they not sit around in grass huts bemoaning how useless and insignificant they are! Humane and moral societies, are those who are backward, feeding on victimhood. Why couldn’t those wretched Europeans fall in line!?
When I was growing up I used to hear the argument often repeated that there was nothing in Palestine before Israel was established.
You hung around some pretty ignorant people then. Of course, there was stuff and people there. But very little of both.
pssttt…Let me give you a hint.
Israel per capita GDP: $30,000
Egypt/Syria/Lebanon/Syria: $6,000
Oh, and another heads up. Read it, and weep. Israel’s expansionism shames Rome!
http://www.iris.org.il/sizemaps/arabwrld.htm
TI deal with the rest of complete garbage anon.
Peter Patton
14 May 10 at 8:17 pm
“And so far as their disinheritance is concerned, they gambled and lost in 1948; they could have been celebrating 62 years of Palestinian statehood and yet gambled on destroying Israel. That is the tragedy of it.”
“That’s hardly an apt analogy. There was no Palestinian state prior to the UN offer in 1948 so in a real sense they had little to lose and very much to gain by accepting it.”
Guys I know it is Friday night but: who asked Palestinian Arabs? The armies of Egypt and Jordan took control of the West Bank and Gaza, and did not give as much as a minimum autonomy to them.
The Arab world, and Jordan in particular, did not consider Palestine to be worthy of statehood, or Palestinian Arabs as a distinct nation. They wanted the whole Palestine to be part of Jordan. They only statrted talking about Palestinians in early 1960s when this looked like a good strategy to create an anti-Israel insurgency (I guess local Arabs wouldn’t fight and die for Jordan).
Boris
15 May 10 at 2:58 am
Prior to 1948 was there any clear enmity between Jews and Palestinians? Or did this arise after the settlement?
The enmity started in 1920s, culminating in The Hebron Massacre of 1929 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre that led to militarisation of the Jewish settlement. The deadliest conflict was the war of 1947-1948.
Boris
15 May 10 at 3:03 am
Colonialism was about action, power,and industry. Somehow, a ragtag of Jews dribbling into an unbountiful, feudal patch of 10,000 sq.km, within the 7,000,000 sq km (yes, that’s right, 0.15%) Ottoman empire doesn’t cut the colonial mustard, even if they were sitting around muttering “aren’t we superior.”
Boris
15 May 10 at 3:04 am
exactly
Boris
15 May 10 at 3:05 am
They wanted the whole Palestine to be part of Jordan.
More accurately, they considered Palestine to be part of Jordan.
Boris
15 May 10 at 3:06 am
Guys I know it is Friday night but: who asked Palestinian Arabs? The armies of Egypt and Jordan took control of the West Bank and Gaza, and did not give as much as a minimum autonomy to them.
The Arab world, and Jordan in particular, did not consider Palestine to be worthy of statehood, or Palestinian Arabs as a distinct nation. They wanted the whole Palestine to be part of Jordan. They only statrted talking about Palestinians in early 1960s when this looked like a good strategy to create an anti-Israel insurgency (I guess local Arabs wouldn’t fight and die for Jordan).
Boris, that is basically true. There was simply no Palestinian leadership to say “yes” in 1948 to the UN offer and thus the Arab states surrounding the territory took it upon themselves to answer on their behalf.
dover_beach
15 May 10 at 9:08 am
Peter – You hung around some pretty ignorant people then.
.
Yes. Engineers, geologists and Brit/US military types, Republicans and Tories all.
.
Why? Civilizational asymmetry and progress, dear boy!
.
Isn;t that the same as the argument that, because such and such a people haven’t developped a sophisticated economy their land rights are forfeit. Colonialism, imperialism all such isms are about accessing other people’s resources. The covilization argument, which is not entirely untrue, comes later.
.
I’m not sure wherefore I’m being ahistorical could you be more specific? I have made it clear that the term ‘colonialism’ does and does not apply to the creation of Israel and why. It does not apply because, as you say, the Zionists were not agents of a state.
.
I’m not sure what the percentage of land Palestine made of the Ottoman Empire nor the associated territories of other Empires have to do with anything. Nor am I harping on some shrill megaphone blast here. Imperialism, colonialism etc are just aspects of a much more primary activity whereby different groups within the humanspecies compete for the most basic of resoucres – land. The Jews have disingherited the Arabs as the Romans disinherited them, by the law of the fist. This is exactly how the Arabs came to be there and how ther Hebrews got the land way back when blah blah blah.
Adrien
15 May 10 at 12:28 pm
The Jews have disingherited the Arabs as the Romans disinherited them, by the law of the fist.
No, they came to Palestine peacefully.
Boris
15 May 10 at 2:31 pm
And the Jews did not disngherit the Arabs because the Arabs did not rule Palestine in the first place. It was under Ottoman and then British rule.
Why do you think the Arabs were automatically entitled to rule Palestine?
Because they ruled it centuries ago? Well, then their claim is comparable to or even weaker than that of the Jews.
Because they were the dominant ethnic group? But at the time when this question of statehood in Palestine became topical, namely in 1940s, the two groups were of comparable sizes.
Whichever way you look, I can’t see a reason why Arab claim was stronger.
Boris
15 May 10 at 3:07 pm
Boris, I like you and respect you but that is just bullshit.
.
Palestinian Arabs found themselves chucked out of their homes and off their land and that is disinhertince no matter who owned the government. If I ‘peacefully’[ decide to park my tent on your front lawn and get away with it what am I doing?
.
Don’t get me wrong I would’ve done the same thing in the same circumstance but it was it is.
Adrien
15 May 10 at 5:19 pm
Why do you think the Arabs were automatically entitled to rule Palestine?
.
I don’t.
.
Entitlement to rule is based on a group of people who claim land and can defend it by violence if necessary. That’s it. So the Arabs and the Jews have exactly the same claim.
.
Maybe we can find some Ca’aninites to give it back to.
Adrien
15 May 10 at 5:21 pm
Adrien, I also understand where you are coming from, but I disagree. I am sorry but I think you are coming from a mindset that “white people” are inherent colonialists.
Palestinian Arabs found themselves chucked out of their homes and off their land
Not initially. Initially the Jews came peacefully and settled alongside Arabs and others.
Later when their numbers increased, the conflict errupted. In this conflict both sides lost their homes. Arabs lost more. But Jews also lost, particularly in Hebron, where Jews lived for centuries prior to Zionism.
I am not saying at all that Jews always acted peacefully, etc. I am just saying it was not colonialism.
I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one.
Boris
15 May 10 at 8:25 pm
Adrien
You forgot one very vital hurdle to clear re entitlement to rule. And that is the recognition of other nations that you have that right. From 1945, that has meant – at the very least – full membership of the UNGA, which the Palestinians Arabs have never come within co-ee of achieving, despite over 100 other nations joining the UN since 1945. Just face facts. They’re useless.
Peter Patton
15 May 10 at 8:52 pm
Oh, and by the way. The Israelis and Arabs have nothing like the same claim.
Peter Patton
15 May 10 at 9:08 pm
I’ve been busy for a few days, but I see there’s nothing like a Middle East thread to take otherwise rational people and imbue them with a mixture of race hatred, ignorance, and sheer dishonesty.
Where to begin?
Initially the Jews came peacefully and settled alongside Arabs and others.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Mcq5-nrxF18/SnJjuyqPVJI/AAAAAAAAAHk/euZk7BVN1eg/s1600-h/Palestine+Post+-+Ataque+en+Haifa.jpg
THR
15 May 10 at 10:16 pm
At the founding of the state, the two sides were at the state of war. You do not expect the peoples still at war to love each other. However the relations were steadily improving till mid-1960s, when Arab nations inspired this Palestinan liberation movement. Note that PLO was created before 1967. Was its mission to liberate West Bank and Gaza from Jordan and Egypt? No, it was to ‘liberate’ Palestine of Jews!. And even after 1967, the relations were reasonable, until the first intifada.
In fact, Boris, there were massacres by the IDF from the very beginning:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/deir-yassin-massacre-55-years-on-1.13393
THR
15 May 10 at 10:19 pm
And far from ‘relations improving’, the IDF continued the massacres, unilaterally as it were:
http://stopthewall.org.il/commentary/11/massacre-dilemma
THR
15 May 10 at 10:19 pm
Deir Yassan!!??
ROFLMFAO. It was a little scap. 100 Arabs dead and a few Jews. Jesus dude, this was 1948. For a conflict during the 1940s, it would have ranked about 23,876th.
Sorry. FAIL.
Peter Patton
15 May 10 at 10:24 pm
ROFLMFAO. It was a little scap. 100 Arabs dead and a few Jews. Jesus dude, this was 1948. For a conflict during the 1940s, it would have ranked about 23,876th.
Ethnic cleansing was clearly the basis of the Israeli state. It’s irrefutable. What is refutable is whether history ought to be judged by how giddy it makes Peter Patton when confronted by war porn.
FAIL.
THR
15 May 10 at 10:43 pm
THR
Do you know what a non-sequitur is? If not, consider your response to the italicized part of your post.
And PLEASE, learn something about the Arab/Israeli conflict and the history of the 20th century. Are you really Bobbie Manne?
Peter Patton
15 May 10 at 10:48 pm
No, you’re CLEARLY Marilyn Lake!
Peter Patton
15 May 10 at 10:53 pm
No Patton, you need to learn some basic logic. You’ve tried to argue that colonialism isn’t colonialism if it isn’t perpetrated by an ‘empire’. This is sheer idiocy, as is the rest of your drivel. There has been a period of continued slaughter and occupation of the Palestinians, and it continues to the present day. I and many others think it ought to be addressed. Now you may think differently, but please, don’t waste your time spruiking your learnings from your latest trip to Wiki. If you’re anti-Palestinian, just come out and say so.
THR
15 May 10 at 10:54 pm
THR
Very interesting Palestine Post image you linked to. Yet another piece of evidence that its was Jews who were known as “Palestinians” at that time.
Hardly surprising. The toothless feudal Arab peasants were illiterate wretches.
Peter Patton
15 May 10 at 11:06 pm
Hardly surprising. The toothless feudal Arab peasants were illiterate wretches.
So what, you support ethnic cleansing? You’re forever prattling on about your education, and this is the best you cna come up with?
THR
15 May 10 at 11:07 pm
THR. just tell us who accepted and who rejected the partition plan in 1948, and who started the war in 1948?
Boris
15 May 10 at 11:31 pm
Boris
It was November,1947, not 1948.
The day after, the towelheads went nuts. Well DER!
Peter Patton
15 May 10 at 11:34 pm
THR, what purpose is served by mentioning massacre of one side? For every Deir Yassin, there is Hebron 1929.
Boris
15 May 10 at 11:35 pm
THR
I don’t use vapid sophomoric illusory cliches like “ethnic cleansing.” And nor do I have any particular policy prescription for the world’s ugly, idiotic, and dumb. Leave them to their own devices, I say.
Peter Patton
15 May 10 at 11:38 pm
At the war’s end, some 150,000 Arabs remains on the territory controlled by Israel. By contrast, there was no Jews in the West Bank or Gaza.
Boris
15 May 10 at 11:40 pm
Boris
The 1948 War was ALL about Sunni Muslim imperialism. The war was NOT about, or between, Jews and ‘Palestinians.’ It was a war among the monarchs and emirs of Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. Their aim was to annex Palestine into their own imperial ambitions to leverage their proto-empire into the new post-Ottoman caliphate.
Peter Patton
15 May 10 at 11:47 pm
The events of 1947-1948 are very controlversial with some arguing they left mostly volunarily, others asguing it was planned ethnic cleansing, and some arguing it was all sporadic…
I think Benny Morris and his fellow New Historians are right and indeed ethnic cleansing did occur. However I think the use of the word ‘colonialism’ is misplaced.
Now THR, I could easily follow your example and use stronger words to describe your one-sided approach, but I won’t.
BTW, do you support ethnic cleansing of Jews from the West Bank and Gaza?
Boris
15 May 10 at 11:56 pm
THR, what purpose is served by mentioning massacre of one side? For every Deir Yassin, there is Hebron 1929.
No, Boris, for every Hebron there are about 20 Deir Yassins. Many of the dead Palestinians were not murdered in ‘self-defence’, but by psychopathic Israeli ‘civilians’:
http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp
THR
16 May 10 at 12:11 am
Boris
The events of the time were not ‘sporadic’ nor are they particularly difficult get a handle on. I can quote you chapter and from about 1945 until 2000, when I completely lost interest.
I’ve read all the relevant historians – Morris, Pape, and some you wouldn’t have heard of. I’ve read biographies of the time; the most informative of which are by military leaders, by the way, who have no time for the jelly-baked ideology of pen-pushers. I’ve read [English-language] newspapers of the time. I’ve been given privileged access to transcripts from the BBC of the time. I’ve read the masses of Soviet declassified documents gradually translated since 1989. I’ve been given access to English translations of Arabic radio broadcasts from Berlin in the 1930s and 1940s by Haj Amin al-Husseini, Yasser Arafat from Tripoli, and others. I have read the biographies of Israeli military leader of the mid 20th century.
While I am so glad I devoted all that time and energy to getting on top of this issue, once I had, I never really wanted to hear about it again!
Peter Patton
16 May 10 at 12:17 am
Now, THR, you are starting a number game, but conveniently shift from 1929-1947 to 2000-2010.
Now, you know of course that Palestinians terrorists target mostly civilians while Israel targets mostly combatants (with civillians killed in crossfire).
Arabs and their leftist supporters (including some Israelis) deny Israel the right to self-defence. But I said earlier and will say it again: disproportional and overwhelming response to these attacks is fully justified. This is the only way to stop these murderers.
Boris
16 May 10 at 12:27 am
Peter, this is interesting. What’s your conclusion?
Boris
16 May 10 at 12:30 am
“nor are they particularly difficult get a handle on.”
From the effort your’ve described, it seems like they are
Boris
16 May 10 at 12:31 am
“Peter, this is interesting. What’s your conclusion?”
LOL.
Ev630
16 May 10 at 12:43 am
Now, THR, you are starting a number game, but conveniently shift from 1929-1947 to 2000-2010.
The settlers led the way in terrorism from 1929-1947 and they still lead the way now.
Now, you know of course that Palestinians terrorists target mostly civilians while Israel targets mostly combatants (with civillians killed in crossfire).
Falsehoods, Boris. Israel is the most militarised country in the world. There’d never be a place where a random shooter would be more likely to hit a solider. Moreover, the IDF keep their bases in civilian areas.
In any case, the statistics speak for themselves. Thousands more Palestinian civilians have been killed than Israeli. You can believe in unicorns and IDF strategists who don’t target civilians, but this won’t change the facts.
THR
16 May 10 at 12:47 am
Thousands more Palestinian civilians have been killed than Israeli.
Shorter THR: Muslims are dumber and worse shots than Jews.
Peter Patton
16 May 10 at 12:51 am
THR:
It not the body count, it’s who’s right and wrong.
The US lost 350,000 troops in WW2 and no civilians as such. That doesn’t make them the bad guy.
Jc
16 May 10 at 1:10 am
Shorter Patsy: In a massacre, lend your support to Martin Bryant.
Oh, and the Soviet Union actually supported the state of Israel for several years. Perhaps that wasn’t in the ‘declassified documents’…
THR
16 May 10 at 1:11 am
It not the body count, it’s who’s right and wrong.
In principle, I agree, JC. I was using the numbers to refute the falsehoods on this thread about evil Palestinians who spend their days doing nothing but targeting civilians. In reality, the evidence overwhelmingly points to the IDF doing this, with the full support of the state. Even the most rabid members of Hamas could only but dream of such a moral blank cheque.
THR
16 May 10 at 1:14 am
THR I think everyone is entitled to the point of view, even if it is support for terrorists. I think you said enough for people to judge, no need to restate obvious things.
But please do not pretend that you support peace, Because your position which denies the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state vindicates the Arab and Muslim claim that Israel is an illegitimate foreign entity plunted by Western colonialists. As long as this is the position of the Muslim world and wide sections of Western society, no Palestinian leader can sign any agreement containing recognition of Israel. It has come to the point that even so-called moderate Abbas refuses to enter direct negotiations.
Boris
16 May 10 at 1:59 am
And THR, maybe Obama is following your advice. If he thinks his unprecedented pressure on Israel will advance peace, he is misguided. What it does is provide further justification to Arab intransigence. The fact is peace requires painful compromises. When one side refuses even to talk, the chances for such compromises are slim indeed.
In particular, Obama is pressuring Israel to stop all construction in Jewish neighbourhoods of East Jurusalem. For many years this construction caused little controversy. Next day Palestinians adopt this as a pre-condtion for negotiations. This is understandable: if even Americans are against this construction, Palestinians can’t accept this. Thus a new obstacle to negotiations is created.
Abbas appears to be in no hurry at all; it seems he believes Obama will bring him state on a plate. But it ain’t going to happen. Even if Obama cuts aid and stops supporting Israel in the UNSC, it will only strngethen Israeli hardliners.
The only way to facilitate peace is to strongly encourage negotiations without pre-conditions.
Boris
16 May 10 at 2:56 am
Boris
Obama’s pressure is not really that ‘unprecedented.’ George Bush Senior was tougher, as were Nixon/Kissinger some of the time. During the 1973 War, Kissinger withheld promised aid/military hardware. He only relented when Golda Meir said “Henry darlingk, no tanks, I’ll nuke them, instead!”
The background to this drama is incredibly fascinating insight into just how different US politics is compared to ours (a difference rooted in our particular constitutions, and how ‘separation of powers operates within those constitutions).
Kissinger’s threat to Israel was a card he was playing to advance his pro-Soviet detente agenda with Brezhnev, which the neoconservatives within the Democrats were blocking in Congress. Yes, that’s right. In 1973, remember, neocons were actually Democrats, not Republicans!
Peter Patton
16 May 10 at 1:52 pm
Peter, I remember the detente part, and Democrat opposition (say, Brzezinski)… It all somehow disappeared under Carter.
It is also interesting that in the past, pressure on Israel was mostly applied from Republican administrations. In the immortal words of James Baker, fuck the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway. GW Bush and Obama have changed that equation.
I still think Obama’s humiliation of Israel’s PM is unprecedented, as is his appeasement of the Arab and Muslim world.
Boris
16 May 10 at 2:12 pm
Actually, Hamas does have a moral blank cheque for targeting civilians, Jews specifically. It’s called the Islamic Hadith. Hamas enshrined a call for mass murder in their Charter, and proceeded to systematically target Jews for suicide-murder on public transport.
Michael FIsk
16 May 10 at 2:59 pm
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/05/026287.php
Check out the video of Holder trying to discount “radical Islam” as a motivating factor for terrorist atrocities.
Christ these Obamaites are so lame.
Michael Fisk
16 May 10 at 3:12 pm
But please do not pretend that you support peace
Nonsense. I seem to be the only one on this thread (with the exception of Adrien, and maybe Rafe, in his lucid moments) who supports a secular state based on universal principles. You on the other hand have repeatedly called for a ‘disproportionate’ number of Palestinian civilians to be murdered to satisfy Israel’s claims of statehood.
maybe Obama is following your advice.
Obama hasn’t followed my advice, and Obama has put absolutely no pressure on Israel to do anything. He has talked to them about freezing settlements, and they ignored him, remember? My advice would be to cut all US aid to Israel, or to at least make it conditional on good behaviour. Obama is nowhere near doing this.
For many years this construction caused little controversy.
You can’t honestly believe this. This is blatant nonsense.
THR
16 May 10 at 3:48 pm
Another “liberal” capitulation to barbarians and savages:
Last week, the American Association of Pediatricians noted that certain, ahem, “immigrant communities” were shipping their daughters overseas to undergo “female genital mutilation.” So, in a spirit of multicultural compromise, they decided to amend their previous opposition to the practice: They’re not (for the moment) advocating full-scale clitoridectomies, but they are suggesting federal and state laws be changed to permit them to give a “ritual nick” to young girls.
http://article.nationalreview.com/434231/nicking-our-public-discourse/mark-steyn?page=2
This is deeply immoral. Leaving aside the filthy, backward barbarians who partake in these permanently disfiguring practices, on what authority do a bunch of western doctors claim the right to commit child abuse?
Incidents like these prove once again that “liberalism” is a useless philosophy that is incapable of defending itself from destruction.
Michael Fisk
16 May 10 at 3:52 pm
Last week, the American Association of Pediatricians noted that certain, ahem, “immigrant communities” were shipping their daughters overseas to undergo “female genital mutilation.”
In Australia, this is illegal. If reported, the parents would be charged, and the girl removed from their care.
THR
16 May 10 at 4:03 pm
Incidents like these prove once again that “liberalism” is a useless philosophy that is incapable of defending itself from destruction.
Perhaps Michael, it may also be the case that the doctors came up with this strategy because of the intransigence of the parents. A compromise but one that is addressing reality and does at least provide a potentially better outcome for the girls.
I fully agree with you though, in my view all such practices must always be condemned. Cultural relativism too often is moral and intellectual cowardice. If a person without religious convictions performed these sort of acts they’d be lucky to survive one week in some neighbourhoods and I’m not even sure I’d have a problem with that. Yet because it is done in the name of relgion …. Bloody ridiculous.
I used to joke that one of the best things we can do in the world is destroy all holy and sacred places. A friend of mine told me last night that that very idea is a recurring theme in some comics.
John H.
16 May 10 at 4:12 pm
THR, have you ever been to Jerusalem? The eastern part of the city is a mix of Arab and Jewish neighbourhoods. It is one thing when Jewish activists secretly purchase land or houses in an Arab neighbourhood and raise the Israeli flag or start building. It is quite another when there is regular construction in an established Jewish district.
I have an uncle who lives in one of those neighbourhoods. He is a true left winger, supporter of Peace Now and all these NGOs. So I tried to figure out how he can live there and support the (unilateral) end of occupation at the same time? His answer: the blueprint for an agreement drawn by peace activists from both sides has this area as belonging to Israel in any future arrangement, in exchange for some other areas going to the Palestinian state. I do not know the details but he says there are maps with final borders etc, all is required is political will to go ahead…
By choosing to focus on this construction, Obama is creating a new obstacle to peace efforts.
Boris
16 May 10 at 4:56 pm
Here is a good article about this:
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=172107
But the new Jewish neighborhoods that sprang up along the northern, eastern and southern outskirts of the city as well as those in the Old City were never a source of contention even during the presidencies of Carter or the elder Bush. Indeed, the notion that places such as Ramat Eshkol, Pisgat Ze’ev, Gilo or even Ramat Shlomo (the site of the “insult” to Biden) are considered “settlements” by the US and thus no different than the most remote hilltop outpost deep in the West Bank is something that has come as a complete surprise to most Israelis, let alone American supporters of Israel.
But despite that fact that his diplomatic offensive has virtually no chance of success, Obama has still done something that will permanently alter Middle Eastern diplomacy. By treating the Jewish presence in eastern Jerusalem as a vast illegal settlement, the continued growth of which is an alleged impediment to peace, Obama has made it impossible for any Arab leader to ever accept Israel’s possession of this part of the city.
Boris
16 May 10 at 5:01 pm
Boris – Adrien, I also understand where you are coming from, but I disagree. I am sorry but I think you are coming from a mindset that “white people” are inherent colonialists.
.
No. I’m coming from the perspective that everyone is a potential colonist.
.
Besides ‘white people’ usually refer to those who come from north of the Mediterreanean. Palestinians and Jews are more bretheren ethnically. Of course Jewish people get around some.
.
I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one.
.
Indeed.
Adrien
16 May 10 at 5:13 pm
Peter the notion that nations are legitimised by recognition from the international community is relavtively new and still shakey. Just because there’s been no serious conquering since WWII doesn’t mean it might not start up again. I don’t think Russia or China’re much into this global village vibe.
Adrien
16 May 10 at 5:15 pm
Adrien (and THR), if you consider ANY taking of land by force, regardless of the circumstances, and even in self-defence (1967) to be colonialism, then yes, it is colonialism. But I think this is an extremely broad definition, much broader than the conventional one.
Colonialism is the building and maintaining of colonies in one territory by people from another territory. Colonialism is a process whereby sovereignty over the colony is claimed by the metropole.
The only reason to broaden the definition is to demonise the aid colonialists. I know that’s not what Adrien means, but why then use these words? What does it add to the debate, except for name calling?
Boris
16 May 10 at 5:24 pm
said clonialists
Boris
16 May 10 at 5:25 pm
damn it.
Boris
16 May 10 at 5:26 pm
Adrien
Peter the notion that nations are legitimised by recognition from the international community is relavtively new and still shakey.
Your point is valid to the extent that 1648 comes within the bounds “relatively new.” The Treaty of Westphalia has underpinned notions of the legitimacy of sovereignty of states, right up until the creation of the United Nations and beyond. That’s 450 years.
Your point about shakiness might have found a friend with Chairman Mao, who when asked ‘whether the French Revolution had been a good idea’ replied “it is too soon to tell.”
Peter Patton
16 May 10 at 5:38 pm
I used to joke that one of the best things we can do in the world is destroy all holy and sacred places. A friend of mine told me last night that that very idea is a recurring theme in some comics.
We’re still dealing with this BS because 3,000 years ago, a geriatric lunatic heard voices in his head telling him to kill his own son (people were impressed by that for some reason). Alexander the Great and his followers missed a perfect opportunity to erase this stuff from the annals of human history.
In Australia, this is illegal. If reported, the parents would be charged, and the girl removed from their care.
And how much longer do you think this will last? It’s only a matter of time before liberals with actual power start calling for a “softening” in our laws against child mutiliation on sensitivity grounds. Already the LP crowd have said that we “shouldn’t condemn genital mutilation too loudly”, because it’s offensive to child-abusing barbarians. What’s left to capitulate?
Michael Fisk
16 May 10 at 7:29 pm
It’s only a matter of time before liberals with actual power start calling for a “softening” in our laws against child mutiliation on sensitivity grounds. Already the LP crowd have said that we “shouldn’t condemn genital mutilation too loudly”, because it’s offensive to child-abusing barbarians. What’s left to capitulate?
You’re not really representing LP very accurately, and, in any case, they don’t make the laws in Australia. I think this law will be here to stay.
THR
16 May 10 at 8:36 pm
THR, what Michael is describing is a general trend of leftist thinking. An idea can be marginal at first. Then it gradually becomes a popular thought of the wider left, and it is only a matter of time before it is adopted by mainstream left-of-centre parties. It is quite possible the law will stay, but I won’t bet on it.
BTW the old left, with all their illiberal thinking, were clear on such issue (oppression of women and children). Their moral relativism and cultural sensitivity is a relatively new phenomenon.
Boris
17 May 10 at 12:47 am
THR, what Michael is describing is a general trend of leftist thinking.
No, what Fisk is demonstrating is the shrill hysteria that’s characteristic of the right. Neither you nor he would know SFA about ‘leftist thinking’, general trends or otherwise, as evidenced by Fisky’s attempts to misrepresent LP. There’s absolutely no campaign by anybody, leftist to Muslim, to promote FGM. There is no campaign to relax laws. In reality, there is a campaign, driven by the right, to toughen restrictions on Muslims, vis-a-vis immigration, the wearing of the burqa, etc.
So there’s no ‘moral relativism’ on the part of leftists here, but a staggering degree of intellectual dishonesty on the part of postmodern righties.
THR
17 May 10 at 1:31 am
THR, I think I know a lot about leftist thinking. With my upbringing it comes ‘through the ears’.
100 years ago people who called themselves progressives led the way in emancipation of women in oppressed Muslim societies, including, yes, freeing them from wearing burqa and otherwise being subservant to men. Now they leave this to the right. Oh well…
BTW I did not mean FGM specifically. I was talking about evolution of leftist thought more generally.
And, also, could you please tone down your rhetoric a bit. Just because you oppose some thought, does not mean it is intellectual dishonesty. Have some manners please.
Boris
17 May 10 at 2:09 am
THR, tell me what side the (majoirty of) European left have been on regarding Mohammed cartoons: on the side of the freedom of speech or on the side of cultural sensitivity?
Boris
17 May 10 at 2:12 am
No, what Fisk is demonstrating is the shrill hysteria that’s characteristic of the right. Neither you nor he would know SFA about ‘leftist thinking’, general trends or otherwise, as evidenced by Fisky’s attempts to misrepresent LP
Erm, where have I misrepresented LP? In a thread on female child abuse, Kim took greater offence at opponents of barbarism, such as the ex-Somali rape victim, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, than she did with child abuse itself – not to be denounced too loudly as she put it. This is utterly morally bankrupt and it is widespread amongst the liberal-Left. I didn’t expect to bump into a Marxist who would run interference for a group of worthless liberals, but I suppose you learn something new everyday.
Michael Fisk
17 May 10 at 2:39 am
100 years ago people who called themselves progressives led the way in emancipation of women in oppressed Muslim societies
The all-time greatest emancipators of Muslim women were Ataturk and Stalin. I am particularly fond of the latter; he knew very well that all liberals, deep down, are masochists and he was more than happy to oblige them.
Michael Fisk
17 May 10 at 2:43 am
THR, tell me what side the (majoirty of) European left have been on regarding Mohammed cartoons: on the side of the freedom of speech or on the side of cultural sensitivity?
The European left have generally been on the side of both freedom of speech and cultural sensitivity.
And I think my rhetoric is justified here – there are front page campaigns in Australian papers, ‘debating’ the burqa, yet it’s supposedly the left who are running some agenda based on relativism and the like.
I didn’t expect to bump into a Marxist who would run interference for a group of worthless liberals, but I suppose you learn something new everyday.
there’s a lot to criticise LP for legitimately, without the need to exaggerate. Kim was quite right to criticise Ayaan, who is a rather dubious opportunist in any debate surrounding Islam. I don’t recall Kim coming out in favour of FGM, and it’s not as if Kim represents the entire left, or even the LP left.
THR
17 May 10 at 2:56 am
Ayann was a victim of a barbaric culture which she rightly gave the flick. Now she, along with other heroes such as Wafa Sultan, campaigns vigorously against her former oppressors. Kim, in what must have been what people sometimes call a “Freudian slip”, said that Ali had been too “coloured” by her life experience. Oh dearie me.
Stalin knew exactly how to deal with these people.
Michael Fisk
17 May 10 at 3:00 am
The all-time greatest emancipators of Muslim women were Ataturk and Stalin.
Don’t know about Ataturk, but there’s a grain of truth to this on the Soviet side (though not for Stalin – deporting the Chechnyans didn’t really ‘liberate’ anybody). The former Soviet states in Central Asia have generally descended into tyranny and chaos.
This brings me to a roundabout point. ‘Radical Islam’ has flourished precisely where democratic or leftist alternatives have failed (or, more likely, have been snuffed out). Pan-Arabism failed utterly in its goals. Indonesia once had the world’s biggest communist party outside of Russia and China, but Suharto killed hundreds of thousands in the Cold War, just as Saddam killed unionists, Iran killed feminists, and so forth. The end result was that the only place of association left standing was the mosque, so it’s hardly surprising that rebellion would seek to cloak itself here.
THR
17 May 10 at 3:01 am
THR, can you explain better your roundabout point? Do I understand correctly that the rise of Muslim fundamentalism has been caused by the failure of leftist ideology? I think I would partly agree with this view (although there are deeper causes), but I did not expect to hear it from you.
Seeing leftist and democratic in such combination is funny. And I suggest you look more carefully at your examples before making your point.
BTW democracy hasn’t failed in any of these countries, as it has never been tried in those places. Now of course you have democracy in Indonesia. It remains to be seen whether it will be able to stamp out the fundamentalism.
So you are saying that killing communists by Suharto brought about the rise of fundamentalism? Give me a break…
Boris
17 May 10 at 3:24 am
there’s a few different ways of explaining it, I think. But I’ll use analogy in the first instance. Imagine if you’re in Saddam’s Iraq, or Suharto’s Indonesia, and you’re unhappy wit the ruling regime. You can’t join a union, or the revolutionary communist party, or the Quakers, or some other rebellious movement, democratic or otherwise. But almost everybody is Muslim, at least notionally, so you can always attend a mosque, and find rebellion preached in allegorical (or not-so-allegorical) form by a firebrand preacher.
THR
17 May 10 at 3:33 am
THR, I am not sure. In some of these regimes, joining something like a Muslim Brotherhood may get you in the same trouble as joining the communist party. Attending Mosque perhaps is not. But then attending Mosque does not necessarily makes you a fundamentalist (like attending church). Anyway, this is another debate…
Boris
17 May 10 at 12:00 pm
THR
I seem to be the only one on this thread (with the exception of Adrien, and maybe Rafe, in his lucid moments) who supports a secular state based on universal principles.
You clearly have no idea just how racist that is.
Peter Patton
17 May 10 at 2:17 pm
Boris
I wouldn’t worry about the leftists. There’s about 8,000 of them left in Australia, who corral themselves in LP. They’re harmless.
Peter Patton
17 May 10 at 2:26 pm
I wouldn’t worry about the leftists.
So once again I am in the minority. The Light on the Hill or the Fool on the Hill?
John H.
17 May 10 at 2:28 pm
John H.
Are you leftist? Keep hanging in there my brother! The Bloggers United Will Never Be Defeated!
Peter Patton
17 May 10 at 4:03 pm