If There Were Any Sharks Left For George Galloway To Jump, He Would Have Vaulted Over Them All

by hilzoy

I read this post about George Galloway, by Daniel Davies at Crooked Timber, and thought: surely that's over the top. I mean, yes, from what I can tell, Galloway is a bit unhinged, but can this really be called for?

"To be honest, listening to these orations, my reaction was that this is on the absolute cusp of being the sort of thing that a decent, liberal society ought to be chucking people in jail for. The issue is the language; a charitable interpretation might be that GG has allowed his own gift for turning a fiery phrase to combine with the hyperbole beloved of Arab literature (“a thousand curses, etc, etc) to quite dangerous effect. A less charitable interpretation would be that, like Enoch Powell with his River Tiber, he knows exactly what he’s f*cking doing and doesn’t care. (...) If this was said in the UK, I would guess it would be exactly the sort of thing that would be captured by the incitement to hatred laws (either racial or religious depending on whether he’s going on about Islam or specifically Arabs). I’m not a great fan of those laws, so I wouldn’t necessarily support such a prosecution, but I would certainly regard it as a misfortune he’d brought on himself."

Then I listened to it, and thought: basically, yes. Silly me for doubting Daniel Davies. (The video is from MEMRI TV, taken from various Arab stations, but there aren't really accuracy issues, since you can hear what he says in English if you try. The subtitles are basically accurate; I think I spotted one place where they added an 'it' that grammatically ought to have been there, but that was the extent of it.) It's absolutely repellent, and an irresponsible incitement to violence.

I am a free speech fiend. I supported the right of Nazis to march through Skokie, and I did so knowing that Skokie wasn't just any old town, it was a town where holocaust survivors lived. I also oppose the British laws, and would oppose Galloway's prosecution under them had he made his remarks in Britain. But it would be with the same feeling of swallowing revulsion and asking: 'Why oh why do my principles have to require this?' that I feel when I think about Skokie.

Comments

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Now you are being incoherent. You did not say demand, you said 'assert'. Is it immoral to assert that Palestinians do have a right of return, or that they should have a right or return, or neither, or both?"

I'm being incoherent, yet you imply that all methods of 'asserting' are equally moral? Germany allows a certain very limited number of Jews to resettle. This is quite explicable in the sense that very few Jews have asserted that Germany has no right to exist and that very few have bothered to blow up coffee shops in Germany. So surprise, I am not morally offended that Germany chooses to allow a minute number of people to resettle. A majority of Palestinians would like to see Israel wiped from the face of the earth. Their advocates regularly blow up random Israeli citizens.

The moral incoherence might not be located in the party to this argument that you believe. The reason I distinguish between peacefully 'asserting' what Germany allows and violently asserting what Palestinians demand is because there is a rather obvious difference between those types of assertions. If you can't see that, perhaps the problem is with you, not me.

[Gary Farber]

"While noting that little good debate is going to result now that you have implied that rilkefan is a Nazi, it must be said that Israeli immigration policy treats it as a racial characteristic - they treat it as though it can be inherited from one's parents."

The religious view, as well as the view of the Israeli government, in fact, is that Jewishness descends matrilineally, and that all converts are as Jewish as the next person. You, too, can be a Jew, if you like. As can, and are, people from China, India, all over Africa and Asia, and the whole world, of any ethnicity.

But make up pseudo-facts as you wish.

"It has been argued that asserting the Palestinians' right to return is immoral."

I suppose I could search and try to figure out who said what that led to this, but since I have no idea, and it has nothing to do with anything I said: whatever.

Just wondering: do Jews have as much right to their nation as Palestinians, or not, felixrayman?

[Donny]

Personally, I think no one should have the right of return.

A vexing question, indeed. There surely should be a statute of limitations on such rights. The Jewish "right of return" to the ancient homeland is a special case, driven by the singular event of the Shoah. I'm not sure, however, that there should be a permanent presumption that Jews are uniquely persecuted and should have rights that aren't available to the countless other displaced peoples of history. The desecendants of the Byzantine Greeks, for example, have a pretty good and relatively recent claim to their capital at Constantinople, but it ain't gonna happen, and for good reason.

[felixrayman]

felix: I can't see that Gary implied any such thing.

Rilkefan said, in response to a remark that mentioned Israeli discrimination by ethnicity (rather than race), "felix thinks it's worth pointing out to us that there are racists in Israel". As no besides rilkefan mentioned race or racists before Gary's comment, to whom was said comment directed?

[Gary Farber]

"Personally, I think no one should have the right of return."

This is problematic in terms of history, and the entire Zionist idea. Also to Palestinian nationalism, of course, as well as many others.

"The Jewish "right of return" to the ancient homeland is a special case, driven by the singular event of the Shoah."

That made for a notable point in the face of the modern world, but it's not actually such a biggie in the face of three thousand years of history and persecution, actually. Anti-Semitism and mass killing of Jews didn't start in 1933. Neither did Zionism or Israel or the Jewish people.

Nor do many of us hold hope or confidence that it will end "several years in advance" of now.

Give us five hundred years or so of peaceful acceptance as a people in the world, and the idea might start to hold water. In the meantime, Jews tend to be a lot more aware of Jewish history than others, I'm afraid, and unsurprisingly. And we tend to not trust the kindness of others, since that whole thing hasn't worked out so well as one would have hoped, overall.

[felixrayman]

I'm being incoherent, yet you imply that all methods of 'asserting' are equally moral?

Yes you are being incoherent. Your original statement was not a qualified one, so your original statement implied that all methods of 'asserting' were equally immoral. Your original statement was a blanket statement that asserting a right of return was not moral. Do you stand by your statement, or do you retract it? And if you stand by your statement, please tell me the basis of this supposed morality.

[Gary Farber]

"This is quite explicable in the sense that very few Jews have asserted that Germany has no right to exist and that very few have bothered to blow up coffee shops in Germany."

Not that we don't have some grounds for a touch of crankiness, and also in regard to Russia, Poland, and all of Eastern Europe (from which my grandparents fled).

But it must be said that post-war German reparations were generally fair, even if I didn't get a personal cut. (I just make do with my allowance from the world's banks, and my vote with the Elders.)

[felixrayman]

The religious view, as well as the view of the Israeli government, in fact...

Was I speaking of the religious view? I was specifically speaking of Israeli immigration policy. What does the Law of Return say, Gary? I am not the one making up psuedo-facts here. Now, are the implementors of the policy that says anyone with one Jewish grandparent is a Jew Nazis, or aren't they?

Just wondering: do Jews have as much right to their nation as Palestinians

All people living in the state of Israel should have equal rights under the law, whether they are Jews or not, and discrimination against non-Jews in Israel should end.

[Phil]

Phil, are you under the impression that people who sympathize with the Palestinians would oppose making the Germans pay full reparations to Jews and all the other people they harmed?

No, I am not. And for symmetry's sake, I would certainly support the Israeli government being required to compensate any still-living Palestinians who were expelled from what is now Israel. Provided that compensation wasn't used to fund the blowing up of more Israelis.

I'm not sure how I actually feel on the whole "right to exist" matter, or on who does or doesn't deserve a state. Does every ethnic or religious subdivision in the world deserve its own nation-state? Presbyterians? The Hmong? The Blue People of Appalachia? Such a thing would seem silly and impractical. So I guess my feelings on the matter derive more from a pragmatic, poorly-thought-out and probably hypocritical combination of the "That Ship Has Sailed" and "Never Again" schools of thought.

[Gary Farber]

"All people living in the state of Israel should have equal rights under the law, whether they are Jews or not, and discrimination against non-Jews in Israel should end."

Duh. Also, water is good. Is anyone arguing otherwise?

But does the Jewish State have a right to exist? Like, you know, all the officially Christian and Moslem States, and all the other national states? Do the Jewish people have a right to a State as equally as Palestinians? Yes? No?

[Gary Farber]

"All people living in the state of Israel should have equal rights under the law, whether they are Jews or not, and discrimination against non-Jews in Israel should end."

And in the State of Palestine?

If you might cite a few examples of the allowance for Jews to live under those conditions in Palestine, or Egypt, or the rest of the Arab and Islamic world, that might be interesting. What have you had to say about that, felixrayman?

I'm forbidden by law to enter Saudi Arabia. I'd assume you'd object to that, felixrayman, but I'm not seeing much to suggest that this concerns you. I've probably missed your relevant missives, though.

Do you believe that, in fact, Israel is the top violater of human rights in the Mideast? If so, cites? If not, what priority do you place on human rights in which country in the Mideast? And the world?

[Phil]

Now, are the implementors of the policy that says anyone with one Jewish grandparent is a Jew Nazis, or aren't they?

Just so we're all on the same page, the Law of Return doesn't say that anyone with one Jewish grandparent is a Jew. It says that they can claim the same right of return as a Jew. And, in fact, it says:

3A. (a) A person shall not be registered as a Jew by ethnic affiliation or religion if a notification under this Law or another entry in the Registry or a public document indicates that he is not a Jew, so long as the said notification, entry or document has not been controverted to the satisfaction of the Chief Registration Officer or so long as declaratory judgment of a competent court or tribunal has not otherwise determined.

Just so we're all dealing in facts and not trying to score cheap points about who is and who isn't a Nazi or a racist. Assuming that is, in fact, everyone's goal.

[felixrayman]

Duh. Also, water is good. Is anyone arguing otherwise?

You could probably find someone in India.

Like, you know, all the officially Christian and Moslem States, and all the other national states? Do the Jewish people have a right to a State as equally as Palestinians?

"Palestinian" is not a religion. If a state were created in the Occupied Territories, it would necessarily be multi-ethic, as around a quarter of the population is Christian.

As for whether states with official religions should be tolerated, as long as they respect the religious freedom of their inhabitants, don't discriminate on religious or ethnic grounds, and don't ethnically cleanse their populations, sure. At that point, what does an official religion mean, though?

And in the State of Palestine?

There's a state of Palestine? Since when?

If you might cite a few examples of the allowance for Jews to live under those conditions in Palestine, or Egypt, or the rest of the Arab and Islamic world, that might be interesting

Pre-1940s you could find closer examples than you can now. What happened? Although it must be said that Israeli settlers in Gaza have been told by the Palestinians they can remain there if they choose to live under the local laws after withdrawal. One hopes that offer is real, and is taken up. The settlers should be allowed to stay, and they should not be discriminated against.

I'm forbidden by law to enter Saudi Arabia. I'd assume you'd object to that

To the extent that the law is based on ethnic or religious discrimination, I would object to it, of course.

Do you believe that, in fact, Israel is the top violater of human rights in the Mideast?

I haven't heard of any prisoners being sent there by the US to be tortured, so no, I don't believe that.

If not, what priority do you place on human rights in which country in the Mideast?

The amount of attention that I give to each country is related to the amount of my money that is being used to finance violations of human rights, as I believe that, "First, do no harm", is a good rule to try to live up to.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Your original statement was not a qualified one, so your original statement implied that all methods of 'asserting' were equally immoral. Your original statement was a blanket statement that asserting a right of return was not moral. Do you stand by your statement, or do you retract it?"

My original statement was not qualified because there is this little thing called "context". The context of the statement was with respect to the 'right of return' that Palestinians assert with respect to Israel and the method that they assert it by blowing up kids in coffe shops. The context was not the 'right of return' I might have with respect to my childhood bicycle which is currently at my parent's house. I wouldn't object to the second. When you raised the German example I distinguished it rather clearly from the Palestinian example. It is not 'incoherent' of me to expect that you are following the rather obvious context of the discussion (Palestine was fairly directly noted a number of times in the conversation). It is not 'incoherent' of me to respond to your raising of another point by noticing how it is arather different case from the main topic of conversation.

Your view of the word "incoherent" seems rather incoherent. It reminds me of Vizzini's use of "inconceivable". "You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means."

[JWO]

I just went back to check to see if my original impression of the reaction of the audience to GG's speech still stood. It does. Compare this response to some of the rabble-rousing political stuff that you see in this country. Just think if that were someone standing up here and saying that we are winning the war in Iraq and "spreading freedom." Compare the two responses. In my opinion, the response of the Arab audience was rather restrained. When they approved, they clapped. When they clapped, I could understand how they approved of what was said. My impression was that GG is not taken all that seriously over there....and maybe should not be taken too seriously over here.

[CharleyCarp]

I don't recall what exactly all the rules were, but a great many Eastern Europeans of German descent were permitted to re-settle in Germany after the Wall came down. German citizenship was long considered genetic -- I believe the relevant code section actually used the word blood -- rather than geographic. I was told at the time that there had to be some level of "Germanness" beyond the genetics too. The joke in the early 90s was that you had to be able to sing 'O Tannenbaum' and say you learned the words from a grandparent.

Rights of return are certainly complicated, but, true to type, I guess, I'd make it dependent on certain legalities: Anyone who can prove title to a specific piece of land of which they were deprived by other than a genuine transaction gets it back.

[rilkefan]

Now I understand why I wanted to divert the thread.

[felixrayman]

My original statement was not qualified because there is this little thing called "context"

I will ask again. You made a statement. The statement was that any assertion of a Palestinian right of return is immoral. You were not limiting that to a specific subset of people. Your statement was general. You said, "Pretty much no one has a multi-generational right of return". No one. Not "suicide bombers", not "Palestinians", no one. You did not say, "people that blow up kids in coffee shops should not have a right of return". You said no one should have a (multi-generational) right of return. You have been evading questions about what you said ever since you said it.

You will neither stand by your statement, nor retract it, but instead you sidetrack into irrelevancies and, yes, incoherencies. I know what the word means - I know it when I see it.

You said, "Pretty much no one has a multi-generational right of return". You said asserting such a thing was immoral. Do you stand by that? If so, what is the basis of this moral standard? If no, retract it and say what you really meant.

[felixrayman]

Anyone who can prove title to a specific piece of land of which they were deprived by other than a genuine transaction gets it back.

I'd approve of that, I can't believe it would be controversial - certainly not among the conservative strong property rights types. The question is if your parent was deprived of a specific piece of land, do you get it back? A great-grandparent? Some guy who may have been a blood ancestor 1000 years ago? The original 2 humans from which we all descend?

[Tad Brennan]

say, uh, rilkefan--how's that Le Creuset pot working out, anyhow? I learned by hard experience that even a few light stirs with a metal whisk can leave fine scrapes in the bottom.

And, uh, how about them Mets? (eagerly trying to change topic).

[rilkefan]

The pot just arrived, haven't had a chance to try it. I got it on sale from amazon, plus they had a deal to get a free au gratin too. But only the pot showed up. It turns out that you need to hit the button next to the free item description to actually get it, as I realized when I looked back at the page. I thought about sending the (extremely heavy) pot back and submitting a new order, but I wrote customer service first and they agreed to send me the au gratin.

[Tad Brennan]

gratis?

[felixrayman]

The pot just arrived, haven't had a chance to try it. I got it on sale from amazon

They sell weed now too?

[rilkefan]

Gratis yes, grass no.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

I stand by my statement that pretty much no one has an extra-legal or 'natural' RIGHT of return. As in some sort of moral right to return to a state against that state's wishes. Which is to be distinguished from say a more general 'right to life' or what we think of a transcendent right as a human being.

That easily distinguishes the German and Palestinian cases. Germany doesn't have Jews trying to exterminate the country, also the number of Jews who are likely to want to come back would not dramatically alter the nature of the state, therefore if Germany chooses to allow resettlement good for Germany. If it chooses not to, I don't really care. Why? Because the 'right of return' is not a transcendent human right that I recognize. It falls under the category of nice things that might be ok in some situations. Which if you will inspect my argument from before, is absolutely no change.

Now that is clear, did you have a point?

[felixrayman]

As in some sort of moral right to return to a state against that state's wishes

So if Germany said, "Nope we don't like Jews, sorry", you would agree that Germany should be able to exclude Jews from being able to return there? Because if that's the case, well, you have some quite odd ideas. To say the least.

Germany doesn't have Jews trying to exterminate the country

Germany during the genocidal years most cetainly made the argument that Jews were trying to exterminate the country. Would you say that was a "good" argument, or a "bad" one, Sebastian? I think it was a putrid, racist argument. You approve of it? Or not?

also the number of Jews who are likely to want to come back would not dramatically alter the nature of the state

And if Germany thought the number of Jew returnees were likely to make Germany too Jewish, you would approve of restrictions on the number of Jews allowed to return? I disagree. I think that is a racist, putrid argument.

Is the right to own property a human right you recognize? And does that right to own property end when someone with a gun decides to evict you from that property on threat of death?

It falls under the category of nice things that might be ok in some situations.

Let's get this straight, you believe that being able to own property is a right that falls under the category of nice things that might be ok in some situations. And, you claim, you are a conservative.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Germany during the genocidal years most cetainly made the argument that Jews were trying to exterminate the country. Would you say that was a "good" argument, or a "bad" one, Sebastian? I think it was a putrid, racist argument. You approve of it? Or not?"

There is a difference between true arguments and false arguments. The German argument was false. The argument that a majority of Palestinians want to destroy Israel is unfortunately true. Policy differences follow as do moral evaluations of the arguments.

[felixrayman]

The argument that a majority of Palestinians want to destroy Israel is unfortunately true

The majority of Palestinians want to destroy Israel? Haha. That's....well, that's just nutty.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Well of course it is nutty, that is why they are rather difficult to negotiate with. Or did you mean that you don't believe it?

cite

A majority (51.1%) of respondents believe that the goal of the current 'intifada' is to 'liberate' all Palestinian lands, i.e., all of historic Palestine, as opposed to 42.8% who say that the aim merely is to end the 'occupation on the basis of UN Resolution 242 and establishing the Palestinian state' alongside, rather than in place of, Israel. This data marks a significant shift in attitude since the survey conducted by the JMCC in December 2001, which discerned that more Palestinians (48.1%) defined the aim of the 'intifada' as ending the occupation, than those (43.9%) who called for the liberation of historic Palestine.

(BTW if I were Israeli I wouldn't be heartened by the good old days when only 43.9% of Palestinians wanted to liberate all of historic Palestine.)
Also note the "68.1% of respondents either 'strongly support' (38.3%) or 'somewhat support' (29.3%) suicide bombing operations against Israeli civilians, compared to only 26% who are 'strongly opposed' (16.2%) or 'somewhat opposed' (9.8%)."

Frankly I would think that even if the numbers were only in the high 30s that Israel would have an excellent argument to avoid the so-called 'right' of return.

[felixrayman]

From a 2003 poll:

But 64% still support a two-state solution (Israel and a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip), while only 12% support a one-state solution (for Palestinians and Israelis). 23% want all Palestine back to the Palestinians.

The question on whether respondents support suicide bombing has nothing to do with whether they want to destroy Israel. Clearly the majority of Palestinians do not support that goal.

But back to the more relevant issue, you claimed that any assertion of a Palestinian right of return is immoral. You did not qualify that statement or limit it in any way - quite the opposite, you clearly stated that it applied to everyone. Do you stand by that statement, or not? And if you do, what is the basis of that morality?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

That question has been both asked and answered repeatedly.

[Donald Johnson]

Sebastian, to be fair (assuming this is a consideration), when you mention the suicide bombing tactic by Palestinians, couldn't you also make an occasional reference to the war crimes and other human rights violations of the Israelis? The two sides have been fighting over land, and both sides have been using immoral means. Scrape away all the noble words and sentimentality that I at least used to believe about Israel and it's just another typically sordid war between two groups with legitimate claims to the same real estate. The ethnic cleansing that occurred in 1948 was accompanied by massacres and the shooting of people who tried to return to their homes (obviously a capital offense) and the current occupation with its apartheid policies is necessarily enforced with a certain degree of brutality. The majority of the civilians killed in the past few years of fighting have been killed by the IDF, and while some of this might be "collateral damage", the human rights groups say that in many cases it's been due to indiscriminate firepower being used, and in some cases deliberate killing of civilians. Your notion of a "distraction" appears to mean any attempt at pointing out Israeli crimes alongside those of the Palestinians.

As for rights of return, there should be a statute of limitations on this, perhaps equal to about one lifetime, but if it is completely eliminated then it seems to be a license for ethnic cleansers to do their thing and then complain loudly if the victims employ equally abhorrent methods to try and return. Which is what happens anyway, license or not.

As for Christian, Muslim, and Jewish states, they are all bad ideas, as I would have thought any believer in the American ideal would agree. In practice we can't go around forcing others to live by our standards--I was about to say the attempt to get Iraq to do this hasn't worked out too well, but I don't really think that was the Bush goal in Iraq anyway.

[felixrayman]

That question has been both asked and answered repeatedly.

It has been asked repeatedly. It hasn't been answered. You said no one should have a right of return, but that was not the question being asked. The question was whether you stood by your claim that that any assertion, by anyone, at any time, of a right of return is immoral, and what the source of that morality is. You have ceaselessy evaded answering that question.

[CharleyCarp]

The question is if your parent was deprived of a specific piece of land, do you get it back? A great-grandparent? Some guy who may have been a blood ancestor 1000 years ago? The original 2 humans from which we all descend?

If you can prove it, yes. Naturally, you proof might also show that you are a co-heir, not sole owner.

(I think the statisticians have pretty well proven that anyone with any amount of European ancestry is a descendant of Charlemagne. One thing I've mused a bit about is whether it would be worth giving a big fat government grant to those researchers looking at the geneaolgy of early medieval Spanish kings: it's just possible that one could end up demonstrating that GWB is a descendant of the Prophet Mohammed.)

A former colleague of mine, an American-born Jewish man, was able to reclaim ownership of a small apartment building in Warsaw in the mid 90s.

Re: Germans allowing Eastern Europeans of German descent back in -- there was plenty of wringing of hands about how this would change society. Lots of fear of '2 million Russians sitting on packed suitcases' and the like. It hasn't worked out that way, but only because the tide of asylum seekers from the Third World has been a yet bigger deal.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Talk about incoherent. I have clearly said that I don't believe in a right of return as an abstract right. Why do you then want to pin me down on whether or not the right of return is immoral? It doesn't exist.

Now if you want to ask me if asserting a non-existant right by bombing children in a coffee shop is moral, I will clearly answer that it is not. And I have answered so.

If you want to ask me whether moving back to Germany if Germany allows it is moral, I will clearly answer that it is. And I have answered so.

If you wanted to ask me whether or not bombing Germans in coffee shops so you can move back to Germany is ok, I would clearly say no.

If you want me to say that forcibly removing from their homes is bad, I will happily do so.

If you want me to say that people living there 40 years later should be forcibly removed from what is now their homes I will generally say no.

The problem is that you are attempting to pin me down to an explanation of an abstract right that I HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED I DO NOT BELIEVE IN. Since I don't believe in it, it is tough for me to map about the exact contours of how it should work because I don't believe in it. You want to talk about an abstract 'right of return' because you do not want to talk about the specific factual situation which makes the Palestinian assertion of that alleged right so pernicious. There is no reason for me to answer in the abstract because the abstract right does not exists as far as I am concerened. Which leaves me with a specific factual question about people living together or not. A specific question which you are desperate to avoid.

If Palestinian's had a demonstrated desire to live at peace with Israelis, I would be engaged in an entirely different calculus instead of contemplating the foolishness of having people (many never having lived in the area to be 'resettled') move in right next to the people whom they have expressed a desire to murder.

There is no abstract right of return that I recognize. As such I don't see a need to try to analyze at that level of abstraction because the right doesn't exist.

None of this is new to my argument. You could have easily discerned this a full day and many posts ago.

[CharleyCarp]

I should add that my colleague was born in the US in the 1960s.

Also that it is well known that GWB -- like a great many people in the Anglosphere (and like George Washington before him) -- is not only a descendant of 12th Spanish kings, but also of a 15th century mayor of Toledo, whose daughter went to England as a lady-in-waiting of a Spanish-born queen, and married a lesser English noble. I think there has been some suggestion that she may have had some small measure of Moorish ancestry.

And no, I don't think this gives GWB a right of return to Spain. Although if a trade of some kind can be arranged, I'd be willing to negotiate . . .

[felixrayman]

I have clearly said that I don't believe in a right of return as an abstract right. Why do you then want to pin me down on whether or not the right of return is immoral? It doesn't exist.

I did not ask about whether the right of return was immoral. I asked whether you stood by your earlier statement that asserting a right of return was immoral in all cases, and I asked what the basis of that alleged immorality is. You still haven't even come close to answering that question. You are still being evasive.

Now if you want to ask me if asserting a non-existant right by bombing children in a coffee shop is moral, I will clearly answer that it is not

You stated, without qualification, that asserting that right was immoral in all cases. Do you stand by that statement, or not? If so, what is the basis of that immorality? Are Jews that assert that they should have a right to return to Germany being immoral, or aren't they?

The problem is that you are attempting to pin me down to an explanation of an abstract right that I HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED I DO NOT BELIEVE IN

I am trying to pin you down on a statement that you made that strikes me as being quite ridiculous, and you are refusing to either stand by or retract that statement.

[Katherine]

"As for Christian, Muslim, and Jewish states, they are all bad ideas, as I would have thought any believer in the American ideal would agree."

Not this one.

I think the "it's a people as well as a faith" aspect of Judaism mucks this up. I think a majority of people who talk about protecting Israel as a Jewish state have very different motivations from people who want to make Egypt into a pure Islamic state or who talk about protecting America's identity as a Christian nation. There is not a desire to get as many people as possible to follow the 613 mitzvot and the rest of orthodox teaching, or profess and live by the theological tenets of Judaism. Plenty of Jews identify as Jews and don't believe in God. It's not a proselytizing religion. It never has been. The desire to keep Israel as a Jewish state is less about a desire for religious orthodoxy than it is about the survival of a people and a culture who have been through hell on earth over and over again.
(Contrary to what Gary said, I don't think it would have happened without the Holocaust.)

In that sense, Israel's citizenship policies have a lot in common with a lot of European countries, which make nationality/ethnicity rather than birthplace the main basis for citizenship & give few opportunities for non-nationals to naturalize.

Now, I don't like those policies, I think they're both immoral or stupid. But I think there is a threat to Israel if it just gave citizenship to Palestinians that's just orders of magnitude different from the threat to European countries from adopting an American-style immigration model.

(The corollary is if you're not granting them full citizenship you are obligated to allow them to form their own state.)

And, you can convert to Judaism. On one level that's like telling non-citizens they have to convert to Christianity to become U.S. citizens; on another level it's like the normal demands of the naturalization process. (The Orthodox conversion requirements, which require a much greater level of practice from converts than from people with Jewish mothers to be recognized as Jewish, raise some problems with the latter analogy.)

Maybe it was a bad idea, maybe they should have gone for a binational state from the start. I don't think it would have worked, based on the track record of multinational states, but maybe it was worth trying. But God, do you know what they had just lived through? Don't you find the impulse for believing that they would never be safe without their own country at least a little understandable? In any case that ship has sailed. If a one state solution was ever possible, it is no longer so.

So I'm with Phil I guess, a not-fully-formed, probably somewhat hypocritical combination of "never again" and "that ship has sailed." Best I can do, though.

[CharleyCarp]

If a one state solution was ever possible, it is no longer so.

This, I think, is unduly pessimistic. One thing we should all have learned from the past 20 years is that much of what looks impossible today will become inevitable later. OK, all generalizations, including this one, are false. Still, though, we have no idea at all what the world is going to look like in 20 years.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Felixrayman, the statement I made was:

Pretty much no one has a multi-generational right of return. If they did no nation would be even nearly as safe as they are now. At this point the Palestinians can exercise a right to be compensated for lost property, but asserting a right of return for descendants of those 'expelled' (and are we only talking real expulsion or are we also counting those who left 'temporarily' while Israel was supposed to be destroyed by Egypt and Jordan) is neither practical nor moral in my book.

This is not a personal statement about all possible assertions of the non-existant (in my opinion) right of return.

Your response was:

You really think the Germans are immoral for allowing descendants of Jews who fled to move back to Germany? What is the basis of this alleged morality?

This is changing the subject. I made no blanket statement about the morality of anyone at any time asserting a non-existant 'right'. I made a statement about the Palestinians and their particular method of assertion.

You have repeatedly made incoherent assumptions from that statement. I have repeatedly clarified. You have repeatedly insisted that I have not clarified. At this point I can't imagine what you want from me.

I leave it to our intelligent readers whether or not I have tried sufficiently to respond.

[felixrayman]

Pretty much no one has a multi-generational right of return. If they did no nation would be even nearly as safe as they are now.

"Pretty much no one" does not mean "Palestinians". "No nation" does not mean "Israel". You made a blanket statement about every one and about all nations. The second statement doesn't even make sense if the context is limited to Palestinians.

I leave it to our intelligent readers whether or not I have tried sufficiently to respond.

Thank you, and you haven't.

[kenB]

You made a blanket statement about every one and about all nations.

One that did not, however, say anything about morality. The mention of what would not be "moral" occurred in the last sentence, where the topic is fairly clearly the Palestinians, not all nations.

[CharleyCarp]

Oops. 14th century mayor of Toledo. And the daughter's employer was the wife of John of Gaunt. Still doesn't give GWB a right of return to Castile, Belgium, or England.

[Tad Brennan]

CharleyCarp--
No, but it would be pretty cool if it could be revealed that GWB is the Hidden Imam. Wouldn't *that* put the cats among the pigeons!

Seriously, though, I always thought it would be a master-stroke if Bush would back up his claim that this is not a war on Islam, by converting to the Islamic faith. Conversion rites to be administered by Ayatollah Falwell.

[kenB]

Sunni or Shia?

[Tad Brennan]

heh, are you trying to make him negotiate with himself?

[kenB]

I was just concerned that your otherwise excellent idea could actually make things worse by breeding resentment among the disfavored denominations. Maybe Bush can become Sunni and he can recruit Cheney to convert to Shi'a, and their odd-couple partnership can set an example for the worldwide Muslim community about setting aside denominational differences.

[Tad Brennan]

Huh? You mean the Sunnis should be the incompetent, half-wit sock-puppets of the Shia all over the world? I don't think *that* proposal is going to go down too well.

[kenB]

Heh, I didn't think about that -- good thing I'm not in charge.

[felixrayman]

The mention of what would not be "moral" occurred in the last sentence, where the topic is fairly clearly the Palestinians, not all nations.

It's certainly not clear to me, due to what Sebastian called "this little thing called 'context'". Two sentences of the three sentence paragraph are undeniably universal statements, and the third does not clearly qualify who he is talking about when he claims that asserting a right of return is not moral. I have been trying to get him to clear that up, but he won't. We know that Sebastian believes that:

1) Palestinians have no right of return.
2) Jews have no right of return to Germany.
3) Palestinians who blow up people in a coffee shop are not moral to assert a right of return.

What we don't know is whether Sebastian thinks that:
4) Palestinians who assert a right of return only by peaceful means and who wish to peacefully coexist with Israel are not moral. It appears from his other comments that he does not acknowledge that such people exist.
5) I am immoral because I assert that Palestinians should have a right of return.
6) Jews that assert a right of return to Germany are immoral.
7) I am immoral because I assert that Jews should have a right of return to Germany.

So hopefully he can clear things up rather than evading and obfuscating.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

You better have a darn good point with these questions because thus far it appears to be a huge waste of time.

4. They exist but there aren't enough of them to form policy as if they were an overwhelming amount.

5. You aren't immoral to assert that Palestinians have a non-existant universal right of return (so long as you do so peacefully--I don't want you to take this as a blanket license) you are merely wrong.

6. Jew don't have a universal right of return to Germany. If Germany has decided to extend such a right as part of their legal process, Jews are welcome to exercise their options under that process.

7. See number 5.

Whew, got that out of the way. Strangely I think all of that was obvious from my other comments, but if not, I await the deeply insightful point that required hours and multiple posts for that clarification.

[felixrayman]

They exist but there aren't enough of them to form policy as if they were an overwhelming amount

And the ones that exist are or are not moral to assert a right of return?

[rilkefan]

SH, it's "existence". In other exciting news, the inner surface of my skillet is looking pretty good - maybe a couple of tiny pits or imperfections, but good enough to try to sauté and deglaze something toothsome.

[Tad Brennan]

rilkefan--

great news about the skillet. Just remember to use wood or nylon spatulas. Was Amazon the best price for Le Creuset, or just otherwise convenient?

Oh--and were you correcting Mr. Holsclaw's use of "non-existant"? Yeah, maybe it's interference from the extent/extant pair.

[rilkefan]

Amazon sorta claims to have the best prices. And as I was spending family and friends' generous wedding gift money, I didn't feel the need to do any off-site comparing, given the excellent service I've always gotten from amazon. I did learn something interesting - the pot was available for $190 from amazon directly and for $170 from a vendor, so amazon sends you by default to the vendor's on-site page when you search for the pot. But amazon's running a $20 discount program on direct purchases, plus giving away the (nominally) $70 gratin dish, so it was worth that much poking around on the site. Plus I broke down and got their credit card for an extra $30.

Never liked wooden spoons/spatulas - I get a bit of the blackboard effect from them. And I haven't had a metal spatula in my kitchen since I started owning non-stick pans in grad school.

[Gary Farber]

There's much I could respond to that I'll reserve to either another time or not at all, but about this: "(Contrary to what Gary said, I don't think it would have happened without the Holocaust.)"

I did not say that the founding of the Israeli State, as recognized by the UN, would have happened without the Holocaust.

What I said was this: "That made for a notable point in the face of the modern world, but it's not actually such a biggie in the face of three thousand years of history and persecution, actually. Anti-Semitism and mass killing of Jews didn't start in 1933. Neither did Zionism or Israel or the Jewish people."

I'll stand by that. But since I apparently was unclear, I'll try to rephrase by saying that I was trying to address the fact that the Zionist movement was a 19th century movement, reflecting a desire of the Jewish people going back millenia. And not "millenia" in the sort of vague, almost non-existent, fantasy, sort of way that it tends to mean to Americans, but in the sort of "we know what we've been doing each century, in tremendous detail, because we've been writing books about it through-out all this time, and we, many of us, anyway, pay a lot of attention to our history, even if we're atheists" way.

And that history, of course, is one, alas, of anti-Semitism hither, thither, and non. To many Jews, 1492 isn't primarily thought of as when Columbus sailed, but as when Spain kicked us all out, or converted us at the point of the sword or slaughtered us. We have the blood libel started in England in the back of our mind. We celebrate our time in Babylonia and the probably not entirely historically correct story of Haman. And so on and so on and so on. My point was that the Jewish movement to restore a nation-state neither grew out of the Holocaust (Shoah), nor was that a tipping point for the Jews, in that desire. That it was for the rest of the world -- well, for the leaders who told their UN ambassadors to vote for the recognition, and those who agreed with that, at least -- is undeniable. It simply wasn't what I was talking about, is all.

[Gary Farber]

Okay, this too.

"In that sense, Israel's citizenship policies have a lot in common with a lot of European countries, which make nationality/ethnicity rather than birthplace the main basis for citizenship & give few opportunities for non-nationals to naturalize."

Yes. And maybe that's a bad idea. But my problem arises when there's a campaign to make Israel drop such a policy first, while no other nation, of the many nations (possibly the majority of nations on the planet, even), is called upon to do so.

I'm all for changing the Jewish nature of Israel. As soon as we've had, say 400 years or so of no anti-Semitism in the world, so we know that we're truly safe. When that happens, sure, there's no need for a Jewish State any more.

Of course, I'd also like a pony. (Actually, not so much; but figuratively speaking.)

Meanwhile, my outlook, like that of many Jews, is infected with a touch of pragmatism, and a notice of the fact that quite a darned few number of people state clearly that they'd like to kill ASAP for no other reason than that I am a Jew.

It's the sort of thing that focuses one's mind, and that tends to lead to identification with one's fellow threatenees, no matter one's views on religion, or the existence of a God.

What I want to know is why is it that it's become such a leftist cause to be most concerned with the migration of people, forced and ugly as much of it was, that took place in Palestine/Israel in 1948, but the cause of returning all the Jews who were expelled from the Mideast countries at the same time isn't, and neither is the far vaster forced migrations and slaughters that took place in what was then India and now is India and Pakistan, in the same time frame. Why is that? Where are the marches and faithful lefists such as felixrayman against the slaughters of Moslems and Hindus, and calling for the end of the Islamic State of Pakistan? (Not that I have the least interest in supporting such a latter cause, myself, mind.)

I'd like to see Israel return to being a "light unto the nations," myself, but neither at the risk of ending its own existence, or the lives of most of its citizens, nor in the sense of being some sort of martyr to justice in a way that is strangely undemanded of any other nation.

Not that Jews aren't used to being singled out. It's just that we're a bit tired of going along with it, if you'll allow me to project that a fair number of other Jews would agree with this sentiment.

And, y'know, yes, I feel that the Palestinian people have absolutely as damn much right to a nation, and to justice. (But, yes, also, do Palestinians have vastly more political and civil rights in Israel than in any other Arab State? No, that's not good enough at all, given many injustices in Israel, but contemplating the question, well, gee. Somehow the "apartheid state" has elected Arab members of Parliament [the Knesset]; funny, that.)

[Gary Farber]

"Meanwhile, my outlook, like that of many Jews, is infected with a touch of pragmatism, and a notice of the fact that quite a darned few number of people state clearly that they'd like to kill ASAP for no other reason than that I am a Jew."

That should have read "they'd like to kill me ASAP for no other reason," etc.

They're pretty chipper about it, incidentally.

[Gary Farber]

I have to take this back: "But, yes, also, do Palestinians have vastly more political and civil rights in Israel than in any other Arab State?"

I intended, and it should be substituted as my Intended Statement, please, this to read "...do Arab Israelies have...."

"Palestinians" is probably defensible in that sentence -- if anyone would care to suggest a country in the region with better protection of law of Palestinian rights in practice, I'd be interested -- but not what I had in mind. The issue of people who desire to have their own nation, and who deserve it, having political rights in another is a fairly complex one.

[felixrayman]

What I want to know is why is it that it's become such a leftist cause to be most concerned with the migration of people, forced and ugly as much of it was, that took place in Palestine/Israel in 1948, but the cause of returning all the Jews who were expelled from the Mideast countries at the same time isn't, and neither is the far vaster forced migrations and slaughters that took place in what was then India and now is India and Pakistan, in the same time frame. Why is that? Where are the marches and faithful lefists such as felixrayman against the slaughters of Moslems and Hindus, and calling for the end of the Islamic State of Pakistan?

You haven't read what I have written Gary. I have made it perfectly clear that I oppose discrimination on grounds of ethnicity or religion. I oppose ethnic cleansing, no matter who does it. And if you scroll up, you will see that I am in favor of the victims of ethnic cleansing being able to return to their former homes, no matter what their religion is, or where their former homes are.

I have also made it perfectly clear why I pay more attention to events in Israel than I do to other countries in the Middle East. You will also search in vain for positive things that I have had to say for the government of Pakistan.

I've explained this to you before, I will explain it to you again. I work for a living. Taxes are taken out of every paycheck I get. Some of the money that is taken out of my paychecks is sent to Israel, with little factual oversight on how it is spent. I think the behavior of Israel towards the Palestinians is wrong. I think it's beyond the pale. And as I am subsidizing that behavior, I feel the need to speak out, and I do.

Yes lots of other countries take actions with which I disagree. If the money I pay in taxes is subsidizing those countries' behavior, you would be doing me a service by pointing it out to me, and I would thank you for that.

But for the most part, your rant comes off as a classic example of the fallacy of tu quoque.

[Gary Farber]

This sort of thing tends to be some of us's background, by the way.

[Gary Farber]

Incidentally, although I have been recently revealed as an anti-Semite, I'm inclined to mention..., oh, frak, I had a point, and my I'm-afraid-it's-Alzheimers melted it away.

But if anyone wants to go to Mars, see here, please.

[CharleyCarp]

It's safe to say that anyone reading this is fully aware of the centuries of oppression suffered by Jews at the hands of everyone. There are plenty of us, though, who also react to the acts of Israel as FRM does: for a number of reasons, we hold Israel to the standard to which we would hold ourselves in the 21st century. The fact that other people are worse now, or that we have ourselves been worse in the past is not mitigation. And judged by that standard, Israel has failed* on a number of occasions.

Expressing this opinion is often met with an accusation of anti-Semitism. Maybe it's justified in some circumstances, although I'd wager that the accusation -- like hating America or hating Bush -- is made much more often than warranted.

A perfect reason to avoid any further discussion of the I/P conflict -- or at least to adopt the suggestion offerted on a prior thread that each utterance in this endless repetition be numbered, and we just recite numbers.

*Maybe the failures would be palatable if they worked, but for a decade the primary goal of the terrorists -- prevention of negotiated peace -- is accomplished by Israel's reaction to terrorism.

[Gary Farber]

"It's safe to say that anyone reading this is fully aware of the centuries of oppression suffered by Jews at the hands of everyone."

Possibly not, possibly not so fully. I wouldn't dream of thinking I was "fully aware" of the history, myself. I'm well aware, instead, of endless tales and stories and histories of what I don't know about it. My own impression is that I barely grasp a small bit of it. I read new informative stuff most every month.

The fact that many folks conclude and think they are, in fact, "fully aware," is one of the things that, in fact, bothers me and others.

I tend to feel similarly about the history of racism in America, and a lot of other stuff, to be sure.

[Gary Farber]

Sorry, I meant to link to my anti-Semitism here, not that it isn't all fun.

[felixrayman]

I read new informative stuff most every month.

A policy with which I can agree.

[Anarch]

One would hope it's one with which we can all agree.

[CharleyCarp]

Fair point, Gary. 'Reasonably aware' is what I meant. On reflection, a better formulation would have been 'sufficiently aware to appreciate the point' and I guess I can appreciate that even this is presuming too much in some cases.

Still and all, I don't think any details about pogroms in the 19th century, forced conversions in the 15th, etc etc etc excuses the failure to build the Wall on the international boundary. Or the failure to offer compensation to owners of land expropriated in Israel proper in 48-49. To me, it cuts the other way: surely no people should be better fixed to recognize the fallacious nature of the 'they abandoned their homes freely and of their own accord' story.

[rilkefan]

The 67 border is not a reasonable barrier route now, given the reality of towns along the border and the necessity of a buffer. However I'm all for eventual territorial exchange in the context of a peace treaty, or lacking that good behavior from the PA. I suggest that every month there's no terror attack on Israel, the barrier should be moved inwards one meter towards the eventual permament line, and out one meter per attack. At the end of the process Israel should hand over an area equivalent to the 67 territories at the few percent level - but that end can't be any time soon given the facts SH notes and the lack of a strong polis to receive the land.

[Phil]

Gary, while I more-or-less agree with what you've written here, be careful with this:

Why is that? Where are the marches and faithful lefists such as felixrayman against the slaughters of Moslems and Hindus, and calling for the end of the Islamic State of Pakistan? (Not that I have the least interest in supporting such a latter cause, myself, mind.)

That way lies madness. It's the flipside of the pro-war contingent's "Where are the ANSWER marches against Saddam's brutality?" nonsense. You can try to get to the bottom of people's principles without resorting to that kind of demagoguery.

[Donald Johnson]

Katherine, I can't find much to disagree with in your post. As a practical matter I think something like the Geneva Accord with a non-demographically threatening very limited right of return for Palestinians would be the best achievable solution to the conflict.

That said, the Geneva accords aren't on the table. The big problem with treating the right of return as a non-issue or worse, as equivalent to a call for genocide against the Jews is that it takes the deepest, most emotional and basically legitimate (even if not achievable) demand of the Palestinians and takes it off the table right from the start. It's fundamentally a slap in the face of the Palestinians to treat it that way, and a convenient way to slant the negotiations so that any bone the Israelis are willing to toss the Palestinians can be described as generous.

I jump into these argumentsbecause in the US the public discussion is heavily stacked against the Palestinians. On the occcasions when I've discussed this subject with friends in real life, in the majority of cases they seem to have a view of the conflict that you find in James Michener's "The Source" (I might also cite Leon Uris, but I haven't read any of his books). They see the Palestinians and the Arabs beaing 90 percent of the blame and to the extent that Israel has done anything wrong, it's the fault of a few extremists that most Israelis condemn. Then I read the revisionist Israeli historians (not that one should have to rely solely on them, but until they said it nobody took the Palestinian side of the story seriously) and find out that, in fact, things have always been a very murky gray on both sides. As I've said earlier, the idea of forced transfer was part of mainstream Zionist thinking from the very beginning and it was one of the more idealist early Zionists (Ahad Ha'am) who wrote (in the early 1890's) that Jewish settlers treated the Arabs with hostility and cruelty. As for recent history, for every killing of an Israeli civilian through some despicable act of terror, you can find Israeli killings of Arab civilians, sometimes by plane and sometimes in those face-to-face situations which for some reason many think are worse. When this is pointed out, it doesn't seem to make any difference with some people. They continue to talk about suicide bombings alone, as though those are the only atrocities that occur or perhaps the only atrocities that have any moral significance. The liberal press is often the worst offender--when Israel invaded the West Bank in the spring of 2002 to suppress suicide bombing and killed hundreds of civilians (though "only" 22 in Jenin), one writer at the New Yorker came up with what he thought was an appropriate historical analogy from US history. Not the vicious atrocities committed by whites and Indians against one another. No, the IDF was like the Union Army occupying the South and the Palestinians who resisted, terrorists or not, were like the KKK. That's moral clarity, I suppose.

Gary is right that it is wrong to single out Israel's ethnic cleansing among all the others that have occurred as the one case that has to be rectified, but while that one-sidedness is the problem in many other countries, that's not the main problem with the debate in the US. The problem is that we pretend to be an honest broker and yet persist in telling the story as mostly good against mostly evil when this is simply not the case, as though the way to fight antisemitism is to tell lies in the other direction. And we've been funding much of what has been going on, so our lies matter more than most.

[Donald Johnson]

BTW, on the comment that the IP debate is always the same thing and that we should just number the arguments, how is that different from most political debates? People say the same things here on almost every issue over and over again and speaking for myself, I'm not sure I've had an original political thought in years. When intelligent design came up a few days ago, I said the same darn stuff I'd said in some earlier thread months ago. Maybe some sort of general storehouse of political arguments should be constructed and we can assign numbers to them all. I wonder what endless political debate pi would represent? At least it wouldn't repeat itself.