by Andrew
It seems so futile to even bother writing about this war, given there seems to be little hope of it being resolved in our lifetimes. With what appear to be punitive strikes in the mix of Israel's attacks on Lebanon, they are likely to stir up desires for revenge among the people of Lebanon just as the Hezbollah strikes are stirring up hatred in Israel.
"This is taking us back 20 years to the Lebanon war," said Rachel Ronen, 54, whose accounting firm was left a shambles by the morning rockets that hit 15 minutes before her secretary was due for work. Asked what Israel should do in return, Ronen, her eyes red from weeping, said, "Hit them."
I certainly can sympathize with Ms. Ronen's anger and frustration; I would doubtless feel the same way under similar circumstances. But I'm sure that the Lebanese who are enduring Israeli strikes that are eliciting similar reactions.
I'm a military guy[see below]. I believe in finding solutions. This isn't one. Israel wants its soldiers back, and support them in that desire. But this operation strikes me as poorly designed at best. To retrieve their soldiers militarily requires one of two things. Either Israel has to lay down an effective cordon around the area the soldiers could possibly be held in and then search that area house by house, or they have to threaten Hezbollah so seriously that they'll agree to give up the soldiers in exchange for a truce. Option A is logistically almost impossible: the cordon the Israelis have laid down around Lebanon has not been tight enough to prevent Hezbollah from getting the soldiers out of Lebanon if they so choose (and if Syria will permit it). So there's no guarantee that the soldiers are anywhere Israel can now search. Then consider the idea of trying to search every nook and cranny in Lebanon where one might hide two soldiers. Houses, caves, businesses...the list isn't infinite, but it's large enough that the soldiers may be dead of natural causes before Israel troops can complete the sweep. (Not to mention the fact such sweeps would have to be conducted among a hostile population, a situation that will almost certainly lead to massive bloodletting.) So from a military perspective, option A seems to have very poor odds of success. Option B is to place pressure on Hezbollah sufficient to make returning the soldiers worth the political costs of giving them up. That means killing members of Hezbollah in wholesale lots. Since I'm not aware of any way to distinguish between a member of Hezbollah and a Lebanese civilian, this will once again lead to major bloodshed, and we already have reports of 161 dead Lebanese, most of whom are claimed to be civilians. (Granted, Hezbollah will try to maximize the number of civilian deaths, but given the Israelis are using airstrikes, even if they're engaging known Hezbollah targets, the odds are good the majority of the casualties with be civilians.) Perhaps Israel can kill enough Hezbollah and Lebanese to convince Hezbollah of the need to return the soldiers, but how many would it take? Ten days of fighting at the current pace is 1,600 dead. Even the United States is not going to be able to stand beside Israel for long with casualties mounting at that rate. How long can the Israeli government hold power with Palestinians, Israelis, and Lebanese all immiserated for weeks at a time? From a military perspective, option B is worse than option A, because it requires a strength of will that no modern democracies appear to have and because it is ultimately little more than inflicting semi-random deaths in the hopes that killing enough of the other side will force capitulation. That does not fall into my definition of a military solution.
So what is to be done? If I knew that...well, I don't know what I'd do, actually. But, as Gary noted earlier, there are no good solutions. I will note, however, that Hezbollah and Hamas obviously want something in exchange for these soldiers, or they would simply have murdered them. Israel has a history of giving up quite a bit in exchange for her soldiers. If they want to change that policy, that's probably a wise move, but the flip side to that is that Israel will have to accept that when her soldiers are captured, they're effectively dead. Striking out in an attempt to achieve capitulation through pressure is unlikely to work. Massive bombing failed to break either the Germans' or the Japanese's will in World War II. Rolling Thunder didn't break North Vietnam's will. Israel's current course of action, while understandable from an emotional perspective, seems unlikely to achieve its goals. I hope they're not willing to go much further down this road to try and get their soldiers back. Which means their only other options are to negotiate or to cut their losses. Harsh? Perhaps, but Israel has already lost more lives in this operation than the three soldiers it hopes to save, and those numbers will only grow from here.
Update: I should note that my intent wasn't to suggest that nonmilitary personnel don't seek solutions. As a soldier, however, I'm trained to visualize the end state of an operation before beginning, something that I'm still not convinced Israel has done.
"Who is this Ken person, and why is he so unpleasant?"
I guess I am just someone with a differing opinion. Why you should find that unpleasant is my question.
Posted by: ken | July 14, 2006 at 06:38 PM
And done play this "Israeli-doesn't-mean-Jewish" game with me, either. When you refer to "solving the problem" by having all the Israelis leave, I think we all know you aren't referring to Israeli Arabs or Palestinian Christians.
Posted by: Phil | July 14, 2006 at 06:38 PM
Mark Twain, Innocents Abroad:
The population of Jerusalem is composed of Moslems, Jews, Greeks, Latins,Armenians, Syrians, Copts, Abyssinians, Greek Catholics, and a handful of Protestants. One hundred of the latter sect are all that dwell now in this birthplace of Christianity. The nice shades of nationality comprised in the above list, and the languages spoken by them, are altogether too numerous to mention. It seems to me that all the races and colors and tongues of the earth must be represented among the fourteen thousand souls that dwell in Jerusalem. Rags, wretchedness, poverty and dirt, those signs and symbols that indicate the presence of Moslem rule more surely than the crescent-flag itself, abound. Lepers, cripples, the blind, and the idiotic, assail you on every hand, and they know but one word of but one language apparently--the eternal "bucksheesh." To see the numbers of maimed, malformed and diseased humanity that throng the holy places and obstruct the gates, one might suppose that the ancient days had come again, and that the angel of the Lord was expected to descend at any moment to stir the waters of Bethesda. Jerusalem is mournful, and dreary, and lifeless. I would not desire to live here.
I think that by "Moslem rule", he means the Ottoman Empire, not Arab rule. Not flattering in any case, and not so many people around in the region at that time.
Posted by: DaveC | July 14, 2006 at 06:45 PM
You know, variations of the 'some of my best friends are...' defense tend to set off shiny neon warning signals for us minority types.
So you have 'jewish relatives' - how exactly does this predispose you from being prejudiced, Ken?
Your analogy re: the brown invasion doesn't exactly bolster my confidence in your egalitarian leanings...
Posted by: matttbastard | July 14, 2006 at 06:50 PM
I guess I am just someone with a differing opinion. Why you should find that unpleasant is my question.
I have no problem with differing opinions, and certainly have opinions myself that diverge from Gary's in this instance. The unpleasantness must be something else then. Your tone, possibly? Or the 'tude?
Posted by: double-plus-ungood | July 14, 2006 at 06:53 PM
Phil, I scrolled down and found a story about Nazis. If that is not what you were referring to you could have made clear what to look for.
But even the existence of Minutemen does not void my point that most people who hate Mexican immigrants generally limit themselves to ranting, writing letters to the editor, marching in protests, calling talk radio and things like that.
But if they were to seize our territory then I could see a lot of Americans joining militias and such to fight them. And from my American point of view I would probably support them.
"And done play this "Israeli-doesn't-mean-Jewish" game with me, either."
It is not a game. It is a distinction that makes rational discussion possible.
"When you refer to "solving the problem" by having all the Israelis leave, I think we all know you aren't referring to Israeli Arabs or Palestinian Christians."
Obviously. I said before I really have no interest in the arabs. I have jewish relatives. I know, love and respect the jewish faith.
But Israel is a nation, an artifice, a place carved out of another place. I have no love for nor hatred toward Israel. But others do. I don't think that hatred is ever going to end.
So I would get out. And I would welcome any Israeli who wants to come to America and start a life here.
I know that most Israelis will not follow my advice. But it the only solution I see for them to have a good life.
Israel was create by thousands of people making individual decisions to immigrate to Palestine and join together to seize land from the inhabitants and form their own country. They had the blessing of the western world to do this.
But the problem never anticipated was that the people there might not ever, ever, accept this new nation.
For me, I am convinced they will never have peace. So I see no point in trying to live there.
Posted by: ken | July 14, 2006 at 07:05 PM
'So you have 'jewish relatives' - how exactly does this predispose you from being prejudiced, Ken?'
Well, in and of itself I guess it doesn't.
But you know what. In conversations like this it is common to have to defend not being anti-semitic. Granted this is not a good defense but then for many people nothing short of all out embrace of Zionism would suffice.
I am not anti-jewish. Will that suffice?
Posted by: ken | July 14, 2006 at 07:13 PM
"In conversations like this it is common to have to defend not being anti-semitic."
ken, you ought to get familiar with the conversation here first - it's something of an insult to the decorum here to come in preemptively defending oneself against slander. And note that you'll often get a doth-protest-too-much reaction with such statements.
Posted by: rilkefan | July 14, 2006 at 07:17 PM
"ken, you ought to get familiar with the conversation here first - it's something of an insult to the decorum here to come in presumptively defending oneself against sander."
Well I didn't think it was so subtle that others did not catch the references Gary was making about me somehow embracing the 'final solution' to the 'Jewish Problem'
My defense was made AFTER his comments.
And FYI it is also pretty insulting to be lectured by someone about this who gets it completely wrong. Perhaps you did not read his comments before you decided to teach me about the 'decorum' here?
Posted by: ken | July 14, 2006 at 07:42 PM
To pick just one nit from the mass: Most countries are "artifices," in that they're carved from another place, and often at the cost of dispossessing (or killing outright) whatever aboriginals were there first. Even the very old nations, like Britain: how many Pryddn or Picts are still around these days?
That modern-day Israelis are mostly immigrants isn't a slam-dunk indictment of Israel. (Just to be snarky, I don't remember hearing about very many anti-Zionists offering to give their homes and land to the Native Americans the property was taken from.)
Israel is a fact of life. That Arabs refuse to accept this is a tragedy. It's also a self-inflicted one.
That some people (who are themselves safely ensconced on what used to be someone else's land) feel free to imagine the benefits, or at least the inevitability, of Israel ceasing to exist is something worse than a tragedy. I really don't have the right word to describe it.
I have a lot of quarels with Israeli politics, but I'm reluctant to voice them. Mostly, because I don't live there. I cannot even imagine what it's like to live in a country that has been under more or less ceaseless attack for its entire modern existence - not just militarily, but politically, socially, and economically.
The country I live in had a collective nervous breakdown after one day of terrorist attacks. The country I live in let itself be taken over by a regime of corrupt madmen; let itself be fooled into mounting a war on a country that had done nothing to it, war that's resulted in chaos, despair, murder and civil war; let itself degenerate into a political culture of polarization, the viciousness of which is equalled only by its sheer meaninglessness. All that, after one day of terrorist attacks.
That Israel is in any way a functioning society - that its politics are vituperative but still meaningful; that Israelis, after everything, are still hoping to someday make peace with their neighbors - is a miracle.
The horrific and dreary stasis of "the Palestinian issue" is primarily the Arab nations' fault and responsibility. They could have not sponsored and supported Hamas, Hezbollah, and the other militant/terrorist groups. They could have joined in a good faith effort to make any one of a myriad peace initiatives work. They could, in fact, have repatriated the Palestinians into their own countries (particularly Jordan, which is a Palestinian nation). They didn't do any of the above - and not, trust me, out of any particular sympathy for the Palestinians, but because it was too convenient and expedient to use Israel as a diversion for popular anger at their own misrule.
Posted by: CaseyL | July 14, 2006 at 07:50 PM
Bernard Yomtov:
There has in fact been a lot of irrational hatred of Jews by Arabs, going back well before 1948. Not to say that many Palestinians don't have legitimate grievances, but as long as we are facing hard facts let's face them all, shall we?
I completely agree -- there has been a great deal of irrational Arab hatred toward the Jews. There is a xenophobic quality to Muslim culture that goes beyond anger about past Western imperialism, and the geatest focus of that anger has been Israel. This has contributed greatly to the conflict.
My major concern is how US policy ends up skewed because of the false meme of Israel as victim and the Arabs as perpetrators. I don't take the reverse view advocated by Palestinian apologists. The current crisis reflects a decision by Israel to greatly escalate the conflict in response to a minor attack on its military -- and yet so much of the news depicts Israel as acting in self-defense. Bombing the Beirut airport and the Gaza power plant were not acts of self-defense, and I believe will not help find peace.
I am still looking for some good analysis explaining the Israeli motivations in this matter.
Posted by: dmbeaster | July 14, 2006 at 07:50 PM
Well, I guess it is official. Andrew sucks and is ruining the site...
(I'm assuming Andrew knows the story behind that line, if you don't, just ask, no insult is intended)
Posted by: liberal japonicus | July 14, 2006 at 07:51 PM
Dude, setting aside that you believe that the morally just, and historically correct, act is for the Jews to all leave Israel, and forget about any silly notion of needing their own nation, whereas the Palestinians simply must have their own nation, and all the land, and there's no no debating that, it's so obvious -- setting that aside, you believe that the Jews should "get out of Israel and move to America."
This doesn't demonstrate significant contact with reality. It ain't gonna happen.
You'd have more luck explaining to the Chinese that they should pack up and leave Tibet, and that Quebecois should all go back to France, the Normans should all do the same, and the Europeans should all pack up from America and go back to Europe.
This is fantasyland politics and discussion, and what you think is the benefit of that kind of self-gratification, I don't know.
"Well I didn't think it was so subtle that others did not catch the references Gary was making about me somehow embracing the 'final solution' to the 'Jewish Problem'"
You're the guy who brought up the "problem" of the Jews: "...over time I can see that if enough Israelis making that choice the problem would take care of itself."
Then you asked: "Gary, what is the Jewish Problem you are referring to?"
"...the references Gary was making about me somehow embracing the 'final solution' to the 'Jewish Problem'[.]"
And yet I said no such thing. Not even close. Feel free to quote what I said, and prove me wrong.
Okay, I'm out of here now; if I show up later in the evening, I'll have been drinking, so ignore anything I say.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 14, 2006 at 08:08 PM
ken, your unfamiliarity with Gary's edge is a case in point.
And note that you're proposing something either vague and possibly radical or something scary, from out of the blue. The better part of valor would be to show the community that you're a reasonable person before approaching possibly dangerous territory.
Posted by: rilkefan | July 14, 2006 at 08:09 PM
lj,
I'm afraid I'm not in the know on that reference. Sounds interesting, though.
Posted by: Andrew | July 14, 2006 at 08:25 PM
Andrew: I wasn't either, and so when basically everyone started writing "Bird Dog sucks and is ruining the site!" as soon as Charles Bird showed up here, I thought that all our previously nice commenters had had some sort of meltdown in unison.
Apparently, though, people used to say that to him on Tacitus, and it got to be a standing joke.
Posted by: hilzoy | July 14, 2006 at 08:31 PM
Gary, dude.
I was referring to the problem of violence against jews living in the middle east. But in some twisted warped way you read into that the 'Jewish Problem', as defined by Adolf Hitler, ie their very existence.
That is why I asked you what you meant. I couldn't believe anyone could seriously think I was advocating or referring to the 'final solution' or anything close to that.
I guess the lesson is that I should never underestimate the vileness potential of a seemingly intellegent person.
Posted by: ken | July 14, 2006 at 08:46 PM
hilzoy,
Thank you for the explanation. I saw some of that in the comments to his last post and wondered about that.
Posted by: Andrew | July 14, 2006 at 09:07 PM
But Israel is a nation, an artifice, a place carved out of another place.
As opposed to . . . ? I mean, which, precisely, countries are you offering as counterexamples here?
Posted by: Phil | July 14, 2006 at 09:11 PM
phil, I am not offering any contrast between countries.
The distiction that I am making is the distiction between Jews and the State of Israel - just like one would make a distiction between Frenchmen and France, Germans and Germany, etc.
Posted by: ken | July 14, 2006 at 09:18 PM
The Myth of Lebanon
I really wasn't going to coment cause I am getting bored and snarky, but Phil set me up.
The underlying point of the link above is that Lebanon really can't reign in Hezbollah and still be Lebanon.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | July 14, 2006 at 09:19 PM
I used "reign" on purpose, hoping to make someone very irate. Really.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | July 14, 2006 at 09:24 PM
So, it's just peachy if there's a spot on the map called "Israel," as long as it's Judenrein? That will solve everything? OK.
BTW, you might want to look into French politics and culture before you start making "distiction[s] between Frenchmen and France."
Posted by: Phil | July 14, 2006 at 09:29 PM
Still, I'm curious as to which nations aren't "an artifice, a place carved out of another place."
Posted by: Phil | July 14, 2006 at 09:30 PM
bob: "I used 'reign' on purpose, hoping to make someone very irate. Really."
I actually have a t-shirt with this character on it.
And yes, lack of sleep does seem to have a bad effect on me.
Posted by: rilkefan | July 14, 2006 at 09:36 PM
FYI, DKOS has a great discussion going on over there about this issue in one of the recommended diaries.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/14/142433/998
From reading the comments it looks like close to a hundred different people are engaged, enraged, thrilled, saddened, enlightened or being misled - all at the same time, all by the same post, all by each other.
Folks, freedom of speech doesn't get any better than this.
I recommend you look for the Carl Nyberg comments. Among them you will find some real wisdom.
Posted by: ken | July 14, 2006 at 10:06 PM
How to link: see here.
"Find" or search to "Link Something."
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 14, 2006 at 10:26 PM
I think that Israel's response to Hezbollah to this point has been correct and within the bounds of my loose understanding of proportionality.
The only reason I think that Israel should consider stopping now is that for (so far as I can tell) the very first time, even reflexive defenders of Hezbollah in Saudi Arabia and Europe seem to have thought that Hezbollah went too far this time. If, and only if, such people can be convinced to take action against Hezbollah (cutting off funding, having the UN put real pressure on Syria) Israel should consider backing down because what they will be getting from the international community is worth it.
But considering the history, I wouldn't blame them for thinking that the international community isn't really going to bother.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | July 14, 2006 at 10:45 PM
The unpleasantness must be something else then. Your tone, possibly? Or the 'tude?
oh gimme a break, his counterpart in this thread exhibits quite an unpleasant tone and 'tude himself - is this a 'regulars vs newbies thing'?
Posted by: novakant | July 14, 2006 at 11:05 PM
"oh gimme a break, his counterpart in this thread exhibits quite an unpleasant tone and 'tude himself"
At times, yes, and often I regret it.
Other times, not.
I thought you'd made quite a number of excellent points of late, nonetheless.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 14, 2006 at 11:09 PM
"They could, in fact, have repatriated the Palestinians into their own countries (particularly Jordan, which is a Palestinian nation)"
Following the earlier suggestion that Israeli Jews move to the US, I feel like some sort of karmic balance has been restored. I've seen this idea proposed countless times before, from Likudniks and Christian Zionists, but let's not let its lack of originality prejudice our minds against it. I'd like to supplement these wonderful ideas with some thoughts of my own--both suggestions could be followed, with Israeli Jews moving to the US and Palestinians going to Jordan. The land without a people would remain that way, and could be run by the Disney Corporation as a religious theme park.
There, I just solved the whole damn problem.
Of course, if people listened to me this thread would have been doused with lighter fluid and burnt to the ground.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | July 15, 2006 at 12:17 AM
Donald, even though it's my comment you're criticizing, I gotta tell you, your idea of Israel as a vast, de-populated Disney Kingdom made me laugh.
And now I'm conjuring all sorts of amazingly, totally un-PC rides, theme hotels, and amenities for the place.
Like, "Tower of Real Terror," and "Bomber Bumper Cars," and "Horsemen of the Apocalypse Buffet," and...
Oh, dear. Somebody stop me.
Posted by: CaseyL | July 15, 2006 at 12:47 AM
"I feel like some sort of karmic balance has been restored."
Note some serious nonparallelism.
Posted by: rilkefan | July 15, 2006 at 12:55 AM
No offense ken, but it’s obvious that Gary has thought about this I/P situation extraordinarily deeply.
You are not his “counterpart.”
Posted by: SomeOtherDude | July 15, 2006 at 02:43 AM
I'd like to thank you and Obsedien Wings for this analysis. If the MSM has anything close to this expertise, detail and even-handedness, I've yet to see it. Again, Thanks.
Posted by: Alan | July 15, 2006 at 04:42 AM
Andrew sucks and is ruining the site...
Maj. Reeves, you'll know that your suckitude and ruination are truly appreciated when a satellite site arises. Cf. Hating on Charles Bird, listed under 'Regulars,' of which LJ is a member.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | July 15, 2006 at 06:48 AM
No offense ken, but it’s obvious that Gary has thought about this I/P situation extraordinarily deeply.
But not objectively or evenhanded, which is why his facts are trustworthy (as usual) but his analysis isn't.
Posted by: dutchmarbel | July 15, 2006 at 07:19 AM
"But not objectively or evenhanded, which is why his facts are trustworthy (as usual) but his analysis isn't."
Dutch, I'm certainly not objective, I agree, but I do try to be fair. I've spent all the decades I've engaged with Israel/Palestine as a peacenik, striving for a fair and just outcome. I've had a number of Palestinian friends, and I've worked closely at times with them. I belive utterly in the right to a Palestinian state, and passionately in the rights of Israeli Arabs to complete justice and equality.
You've read a tiny smattering of words from me as to what I think about the relevant issues, and I love you to death, but you can't possibly be very familiar with most of my stances, opinions, and judgements. Just as I am not with yours.
And, as I said, I love you to death, but elsewhere you did that thing people who aren't very clueful do in calling Israel a "theocracy." That wasn't precisely an accurate analysis, either.
I trust very much in your good will; I don't trust, I'm afraid, and I would wish you not to take it personally, in your strong familiarity with the facts.
I'm sorry, incidentally, that I was harsh with you Over There. As I said, I'm kinda low on the patience with people whose knowledge is such that they claim Israel is a theocracy, and so forth. I do, as I said, trust in your good will, and I know that's what motivates you, no matter that it would be helpful if you, like most people, read a few dozen more books. (And, yeah, no matter how much I know, more reading never hurts, myself.)
I wish I had something wise to say in conclusion about Israel and Palestine, but instead I, like many, merely feel anguish.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 15, 2006 at 08:16 AM
Well, as usual, HoCB is there, if belatedly. Mention my name, you'll get a good seat.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | July 15, 2006 at 08:38 AM
Thanks, Casey. And yeah, I think there are real possibilities with this theme park notion of mine, if current claims to the real estate could be resolved in my favor. (Yes, I have decided to stake my own claim to the property and edge Disney out.) We can be partners--I'll handle the Biblical themes (Davidland, containing attractions for all ages-- a section with Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite for the adults which could be as X-rated for violence and sex as you like, another area where kids test their ability with a sling at hitting someone in the forehead with a rock) and you can take care of the more up-to-date history.
I read your link, Rilkefan. I'm not sure of its relevance--if the Palestinians don't want to move to Jordan it doesn't matter whether someone says Jordan is the Palestinian state. Jordan apparently has no interest in taking back the West Bank, assuming that Israel would hand it over. "Jordan is Palestine" was a favorite mantra of Bill Safire, I believe, but Safire was not the person I'd go to if I wanted a Palestinian perspective.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | July 15, 2006 at 10:20 AM
I don't get the idea that because the Palestinians have a perspective, it must therefore be honored. Or similarly, because both sides "feel" the same way about revenge means that they are on equal footing. If either were the case, then there would never be any moral judgements, as people always feel resentful when they don't get what they think they deserve, and people have a rationalization for any behavior no matter how indefensible.
When I put it this starkly, I doubt that there is mush disagreement. Of course there are some things wrong and some things right. In this world the two are often mixed, and it may be difficult to separate out. But that does not give credence to the idea that any perspective must have some validity.
If the Palestinians ever had a moral case, they have long since forfeited it. They have been willingly used by other states in the region as a beachhead into Israel. Their claim to the land is founded more on their fantasies of how prosperous they used to be on it than it is on any territorial claim that they put forward. There are always disputes about territory, everywhere in the world. Learning to live with that, going on, raising children, building a culture, has been the lot of every tribe on earth at one time or another.
Nearly every boundary in Europe is disputed by someone.
All attempts to adjudicate the conflict have failed, because the Palestinians, with the encouragement of surrounding tribes, will accept no solution but one. No person, no family, no tribe, no nation ever gets that. Their "feeling" that they have a just cause is irrelevant. Everyone, sane or insane, criminal or law-abiding, has the feeling that they have a just cause.
There is an iron law of tribal interactions, fair or unfair. If you keep siding with the people who lose wars, you are going to lose territory. If your friends won't take you in, you have no friends. If you have notheing to sell, no one will buy from you.
Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot | July 15, 2006 at 11:21 AM
Here's the crazy-making thing: anything a country does is critizable.
Israel is a country. It has done some horrible things. There is complete freedom to say so.
But many countries, almost all countries, have done horrible things.
Israel remains the only country -- the only country in the entire world -- where the beginning of the discussion is its entire right to exist.
It starts and should stop there.
The U.S., Britain, China, Russia, India, you name it, have all committed atrocities, and all exist over the bodies of previous peoples.
But no one demands they disband and evacuate.
Only in the case of the Jews does that continue to be the topic brought up in every single discussion, at every moment, at the drop of the hat.
Criticise Israel all you want. Criticism is a virtue; it has healing powers; it's a good.
I've never had a week in my adult life in which I've not criticized Israel.
And oftimes I've vituperatively lashed at its leaders, particularly Ariel Sharon, whom I spent decades calling a war criminal, a horror, an evil piece of work.
But I've done similarly for Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and in recent years, I've had similarly unkind words for President George W. Bush.
But for all the utterly justifiable words of attack upon G. W. Bush, few indeed say that, because of his and similar acts of history of the U.S., that everyone not of American Indian anscestory should evacuate North America, and return to where "they came from."
Few declare that because of the immense, and true and genuine, evil of the European attack and overwhelming assault upon South America, that it should all be returned to those whose ancestors lived there.
Etc., etc., etc., all around the world.
Only upon Israel is this assault made.
Only upon Israel is this logic unloaded.
I'm all for, as I've said a jillion times, just criticism of Israel whenever it fails to do justice, and to do right, in its mission to be a light unto the nations.
But I must and do start from the position that the right of the Jews to have a nation is no less, nor more, than that of the Palestinians, or any other people on the planet.
That is my start and that is my finish.
I could only wish it would be so for everyone else.
But it will never be so.
And thus the fight.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 15, 2006 at 11:22 AM
I agree with everything that you just said, Gary. What pollutes debate from the other side is that often the first response to criticism is to defend Israel's right to exist predicated on the assumption that any such criticism is formed as an attack on that right.
Yeah, I know. When so many arguments are actually framed from that perspective in the first place, it probably shapes many other debates.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood | July 15, 2006 at 11:52 AM
Gary Farber:
As I said, I'm kinda low on the patience with people whose knowledge is such that they claim Israel is a theocracy,
Its not, but there seems to be a lot of forces trying to move it in that direction (as opposed to the more secular view of government by the early Zionists, whose vision of founding a Jewish state was not that of founding a theocracy), and having a some success in doing so. Would be interested in your view on that, and the "Who's a Jew" controversy that's been simmering for a while (don't know its current status, and have not seen any news on it for a while after the blow up a few years ago).
Posted by: dmbeaster | July 15, 2006 at 12:32 PM
The survivors of the Holocaust (and those who did not live through the Holocaust, but shared the victim's ethnicity/religion) were alive to demand justice and argue for a state.
The survivors of the creation of Israel (and those who did not live through the creation of the state of Israel, but shared the victims' ethnicity/religion) are still alive to demand justice and argue for a state.
Posted by: SomeOtherDude | July 15, 2006 at 12:36 PM
What complicates the "right to exist" thing is that in the case of Israel, its right to exist is predicated on denying the Palestinians the right to live in what used to be their homes. For pragmatic reasons I think the Palestinians need to swallow this, though there might be face-saving ways to sugarcoat it. The analogy to the US is a complicated one--Native Americans are citizens like everyone else and can live anywhere they want in the US and it would be a tad awkward to say that this is only the case because there are so few of them. The last time the demographical situation was similar to the I/P conflict was sometime around King Phillip's War.
AVI, lots of people on both sides agree with you. The atrocities of the Palestinians/Israelis have completely negated the claims of the Israelis/Palestinians to the land. The only logical solution, as I have just come to realize, is that they both evacuate forthwith and hand the keys over to me as they all leave.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | July 15, 2006 at 12:46 PM
“Israel remains the only country -- the only country in the entire world -- where the beginning of the discussion is its entire right to exist.”
Let’s see if we can do an ABC for Gary of states that have had a hard time winning acceptance of their right to exist.
Aceh, Biafra, Cyprus, Darfur, East Timor....
I’m stuck for an “F”. Formosa would be cheating, obviously. Any suggestions?
In the nature of the case, some states eventually win acceptance and some don’t. I really can’t see that Israel is unique in that respect. Nations win statehood by being indigestible. If their resistance to being swallowed up isn’t strong enough they will cease to be. My advice to any Arab who thinks of the existence of Israel as an injustice would be to contemplate the example of the Chinese, who seem to have a more realistic idea of how to win back lost territory. Start by developing what you have. In time your superpower status will enable you to get what you want, perhaps without a shot being fired.
Fortunately for Israel, no Arab seems to want my advice. Or perhaps unfortunately, since the Taiwanese have a less stressful relationship with those who plan to absorb them.
Posted by: Kevin Donoghue | July 15, 2006 at 12:59 PM
I actually have a t-shirt with this character on it.
Me, too. I think I might have three different ones. Plus, I do a passing fair imitation of him.
My talents are mostly of the useless-but-occasionally-amusing variety.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | July 15, 2006 at 01:30 PM
"But no one demands they disband and evacuate."
Hmmm......it belongs to them; we've gotta give it back. Nit, I know. And not sure what Peter Garrett meant by "it", exactly.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | July 15, 2006 at 01:38 PM
In all fairness to the Arabs who aren't taking your advice, Kevin, Israel hasn't exactly been encouraging Palestinian economic development to superpower status over the last couple decades. In fact they've spent a lot of time destroying large swaths of Palestinian infrastructure and generally making the populations of the occupied territories economically dependent on Israel.
Posted by: Christmas | July 15, 2006 at 01:45 PM
May I share something with you? In the past I believed in "two states for two nations". I believed that the only solution to the Palestinian problem will be in founding a prospering Palestinian state, probably on the 67` boarders. Now I'm afraid I was wrong.
The Palestinian national movement has been proven as a total failure all over its history. Every time they had to make a decision, they made the wrong one. Even in the last decades they couldn’t bring themselves to found such a state, although they were offered to do it several times. It seems they do not have the positive powers in their national movement, the powers that can found things, and not just destroy the others. Look at the Gaza redrawn: after the redrawn they didn’t try to create a functional economy or culture (they would have gotten any help they want). Compare it to the Zionist's national movement: Most of the energy during the years was invested in developing agriculture, education and so on. The Palestinian did not even try to found a positive society.
I wonder if the Palestinian national movement will disappear, like other national movements in history that didn’t succeed in their demands. I don’t know where it leaves Israel: Maybe it’s the worst think that can happen to Israel.
Posted by: Jonathan E | July 15, 2006 at 01:52 PM
they didn’t try to create a functional economy or culture (they would have gotten any help they want)
Really? Any help they wanted? I seem to recall America and Europe cutting off aid to the PA just a few months ago because they elected the wrong party. I also remember Israel seizing Palestinian tax revenue around the same time. That's a funny way to help someone. Of course, that's all just cherries on the sundae; Gaza is dependent on Israel for everything from power to water purification to steady employment, as you'd expect of a region that's been beggared by occupation and war for three decades. Expecting Gaza to be economically independent a year after the pullout is just crazy.
Posted by: Christmas | July 15, 2006 at 02:13 PM
Christmas,
I wasn't thinking of the Palestinians, who of course have very little control over their own destiny, so much as the Arab states who could have pooled their resources into a formidable bloc. They toyed with the idea in such now-forgotten entities as the United Arab Republic, but they never really got their act together. The Arab League is a farce but it didn't have to be.
Israel's policy towards the Palestinians was discredited many centuries before it was implemented. Pontius Pilate could have told them it wasn't going to work. Either you win them over or you sell them as slaves. Forgive me for being flippant, but the subject is too painful to treat seriously.
Posted by: Kevin Donoghue | July 15, 2006 at 02:24 PM
The Palestinians do depend on Israel (not entirely, because they have a boarder with Egypt). So, I would expect them to make the right decisions. If you elect a terrorist group to be your government, don’t be surprise the world cutting your aid. If you elected this group, you can't seriously expect Israel to cooperate with them. If you fire rockets towards Israeli citizens every day since the new government elected, you will have your men killed. That’s what I'm saying: They bring it on themselves. They even don’t need the Israelis to help them.
Posted by: Jonathan E | July 15, 2006 at 02:52 PM
"Its not, but there seems to be a lot of forces trying to move it in that direction (as opposed to the more secular view of government by the early Zionists, whose vision of founding a Jewish state was not that of founding a theocracy), and having a some success in doing so. Would be interested in your view on that, and the 'Who's a Jew' controversy that's been simmering for a while (don't know its current status, and have not seen any news on it for a while after the blow up a few years ago)."
Unsurprisingly, I tend to take the attitude of Shinui, and I think Shas and the NRP are thoroughly corrupt and outrageous. I've already said a few times that I was a past longtime supporter of Meretz.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 15, 2006 at 03:20 PM
If you elect a terrorist group to be your government, don’t be surprise the world cutting your aid
Except that Hamas didn't run on a pro-terrorist, push-Israel-into-the-sea platform; they ran on clean government and the restoration of the local economy. To you and me, Hamas may be little more than a terrorist organizaton, but to Palestinians they're the ones who often managed to keep hospitals running while Fatah was burning whatever money the Palestinian Authority managed to get. Given that the election was pushed and promoted by America and took place with the sanction of Israel, one might forgive the Palestinians for the mistaken belief that they actually had more than one option when it came time to vote.
Posted by: Christmas | July 15, 2006 at 05:50 PM
Yes. You're right. The Palestinians as individuals are very poor and unfortunate. I am sorry for them and I think we ought to help them (as individuals). But I was talking about their national movement. It hasn’t succeeded in growing leaders that wouldn't be terrorists or corrupts. It seems hopeless.
Posted by: Jonathan E | July 15, 2006 at 06:07 PM
"Except that Hamas didn't run on a pro-terrorist, push-Israel-into-the-sea platform; they ran on clean government and the restoration of the local economy. To you and me, Hamas may be little more than a terrorist organizaton, but to Palestinians they're the ones who often managed to keep hospitals running while Fatah was burning whatever money the Palestinian Authority managed to get."
And if that had been more important to them than their terrorist platform, they could have abandoned the terrorist platform when it became clear that they couldn't have all the EU aid and continue to be about destroying Israel.
We all know which branch of that fork they chose to take.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | July 15, 2006 at 06:32 PM
There's a very snarky comment about the platform of, say, the Texas Republican party floating around in my head, but I'll pass it up just to mention that sometimes, it pays to ignore inflammatory aspects of platforms.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | July 15, 2006 at 07:43 PM
Gary: feel free to critisize all I say (except maybe my English, that would get boring in the repetition...). I'm quite used to people disagreeing with me, being both a centralist and a middle child :)
But no, you are not objective. For example; you report 120 casualities (a word *currently* used for deaths, not wounded) on Israeli side, but do not mention the almost 200 deaths (I didn't even count the wounded) on the Palestinian/lebanese side. A small point, but one in a hugh row. I find that in what you report and how you report it is very colored. I actually assume your intent is good and I am quite convinced that your facts are correct, but your analysis is far from impartial.
In our discussin in HOBC I said theocracy. That might be what we, in our little family, refer to as an 'Wittgenstein'. I mean by theocracy a society where religion defines many/most of the basic rules in society.
I then said that our protestant crownprince (in a country were reformed protestantism is the state religion) married a catholic girl without many problems, whilst in Israel you can only marry if you are both jewish. (I am staying with family, different connection, so I cannot google and quote literally). In your reply you said that marriage was defined by all the religions in Israel and quoted a list of approved religions that could perform marriages. You focussed on the JEWS in my statement.
I however, was more focussed on the BOTH - if you are Jewish (or appearantly any of the other religions) you cannot marry someone who does not belong to your own religion. Not even an atheist Jew. Hence my example of cross religious marriage.
Yes, your basic attitude of "I've been studying this for a zillion years so I know more than you and thus my viewpoint is the only correct one" get to me. Many things get to me - I'm not the rolemodel for patience I'm afraid :)
Reading through this thread there are so many things I disagree with, that I don't even know where to start. And frankly I feel that the American bias is so great that it is as futile as telling them that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 in 2003. So I admire the people who still want to try.
Posted by: dutchmarbel | July 15, 2006 at 07:55 PM