Sunday, February 08, 2009

Putting The Israeli/Arab "Conflict" In Context.

An issue as complicated as the Israeli conflict with the Palestinians can hardly be given adequate coverage in one essay. Accordingly I plan to devote more time and effort to this very important issue. In this article I plan to discuss the genesis of the conflict because I believe the comments received as well as the articles cited in those comments ignore the fundamental problems of the conflict, which can only be found in its history.

Jews inhabited Palestine in Biblical times but were driven out by wave after wave of invaders, from Romans in 135 A.D. to the 7th century when Muslim Arab armies moved north from Arabia to conquer most of the Middle East, including Palestine. The rulers allowed Christians and Jews to keep their religions. However, most of the local population gradually accepted Islam and the Arab-Islamic culture of their rulers. Thus while some Jews remained in Palestine they were a very small community with most Jews having become part of the great Jewish Diaspora.

Jews had never stopped coming to "the Holy land" or Palestine in small numbers throughout the exile. Palestine also remained the center of Jewish worship and a part of Jewish culture. However, the Jewish connection with the land was mostly abstract and connected with dreams of messianic redemption.

See here, from which some of the above is quoted and for a complete history.

It was not until the 19th century that the birth of Zionism made a return to Palestine a matter of Jewish policy, at least for some, and Jews started returning and buy land there. However, the Arabs were a feudal society and so the land being bought was purchased from absentee landlords and the “serfs’ who toiled on the land had no say in their expropriation. As far as they were concerned it was the Jews who threw them off their land. Most Zionists were not concerned about the Arab population, which they ignored, or thought would agree to voluntary transfer to other Arab countries. In any case, they envisioned the population of Palestine by millions of European Jews who would soon form a decisive majority in the land. At the same time, Palestine's Arab population grew rapidly. By 1914, the total population of Palestine stood at about 700,000. About 615,000 were Arabs, and 85,000 to 100,000 were Jews.

The history becomes ever more complicated and those who might want more details should go to the web site indicated above but one thing was consistent. Arabs always considered Jewish settlers to be an alien force, which they did not welcome.

With the rise of Hitler many Jews desperately wanted to emigrate from Germany and Austria. None of the Western countries were willing to open their borders to receive them. How many might have been saved from the Nazi “Final Solution” is hard to estimate but it would not be unreasonable to suppose that it would have been in the millions. Many tried to flee to Palestine but the British blocked their path and turned them back.

On Nov. 29, 1947 The UN General Assembly voted in favor of Palestine being divided into an Arab state and a Jewish state with Jerusalem to be put under international administration.

As can be seen the land assigned to the new Jewish state was extremely small with Jerusalem being deep in Arab territory and the border between what was called Trans-Jordan and Israel far west of the Jordan river. Nevertheless The Jews accepted the UN decision, but the Arabs rejected it, and upon Israel declaring its statehood war commenced, which Israel won handily.



Why is it important to focus on this history? It bears on the rights of Jews in Palestine. It shows beyond doubt that the Arabs were always an occupied people, exploited by the Imperialist powers and by their own land-owning class.

We need to ask ourselves if the UN had decided to give a piece of territory for a Jewish state to be carved out of the US, or out of Mexico, or out of Africa what would the reaction of the indigenous population have been? It is safe to say it would have been hostile. So the hostility of the Arabs should not be a surprise nor can it be condemned as evil.

That is why David Ben-Gurion the founding leader of Israel said, “If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”

Why indeed would they accept that? The answer is reality. Their armies have been defeated again and again. As a result Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with Israel. In desperation they have turned to the only weapon available to the weak, terrorism. Does that make them evil? I don’t think so! Since the dawn of time terrorism has been a weapon used. Even in Biblical times Samson brought down the temple on the heads of the civilian population when he was shorn of his strength. The Jews in striving for a homeland in Palestine used terrorism. On 6 November 1944, Lord Moyne (Walter Guinness), the British Minister Resident in Egypt, was assassinated in Cairo. On 22 July 1946 the King David Hotel was bombed by the Irgun, father to the Likud Party, killing 91 people and injuring 46. The Catholics in Ireland resorted to terrorism with the support of many Americans. And let us not forget the Sabra and Shatila massacres! What was the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki but terrorism? It is a weapon that we would prefer not to see employed but it has a long and storied history. It does not make those who employ it evil by definition.

But even terrorism hasn’t worked. We have ended up with the worst possible situation for all. Israeli’s continue to live without the security that is every people’s desire, and the Arabs continue to live in the squalor of displaced persons camps, which have now become multi-generational and gives them even less security than the Israelis have.

Let’s give Peace a Chance!!!

But peace cannot happen in the face of an expansionist Israel.

As can be seen from the map above, Israel started and accepted a small piece of territory. As a result of subsequent wars Israel grew. It is now accepted that Israel is entitled to all the territory as shown on the map below. Its border with Egypt has now been straightened. Its lands in the north now encompass all the territory to the border with Lebanon. And in the west it has expanded to the Jordan River and the area up to and around Jerusalem. Yet Israel has not been content with its conquered territories. It has built and continues to build settlements on occupied territory in the West Bank despite protests from every American Administration except for the Bush Administration. While it claims to have stopped building new settlements it insists on its right to expand existing ones and in the process continues to seize Arab lands and to destroy Arab homes.



According to Thomas L. Friedman, writing in the NY Times of February 4, 2009:

“The West Bank is so chopped up and divided now by roads, checkpoints and fences to separate Israel’s crazy settlements from Palestinian villages that a Palestinian could fly from Jerusalem to Paris quicker than he or she could drive from Jenin, here in the northern West Bank, to Hebron in the south.”

This is an intolerable situation. What Israel and the Israeli lobby demands is that the Palestinians quietly accept their oppression, accept their ever-diminishing lands, accept their lack of rights, and never fight back. No people would allow such oppression without resistance.

Israel is armed to the teeth. Yet any attempt for its adversaries to arm is treated as an outrage. Where is the balance?

Palestinians are human beings.

And every resistance, whether it is the "intifada", which consists of the throwing of stones against Israeli guns is treated as an outrage instead of the desperation which it represents.

Even the treatment of Palestinian weak claims of “The Right of Return” is treated as an outrage. To be sure Israel could never allow the refugees to return, for that would mean the end of the Jewish state, something that cannot be contemplated. But that does not mean that one should not acknowledge that this “right of return” has been recognized by the International Committee of the Red Cross which holds that persons displaced during armed conflict must be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased even though the language of the Fourth Geneva Convention is not nearly as clear as some would contend. Israel has never, as it should, offered as an alternative the resettlement of Arabs in the West Bank, in permanent communities so they can stop being refugees in their own lands. Israel contends that this is something that the Arab nations need to do, but it is, and must be Israel’s responsibility. With American help, this along with adequate compensation must be the framework for negotiations.

Removing many of the settlements will not be easy, but the problem keeps being compounded by their expansion and by continued illegal (even under Israeli law) settlement activity, which is not being prevented by the Israeli authorities. The increasing support for an ethnic cleansing of Arabs from the West Bank by fanatical orthodox Jews must be denounced and the areas need to be referred to by Israeli authorities as the “occupied territories” or the “West Bank” and “Gaza” and not as “Samaria” and “Judea.”

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bob Simon's recent report on Sixty Minutes showed us that with the expansion of the settlements a two-state solution is becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible. A few of our Presidents have meekly requested a halt to the settlements but the Israelis can politely thumb their noses at us because they know that every President and Congressman fears the wrath of AIPAC and their Evangelical allies.
As things are now, life is a nightmare for many Palestinians. Lands not yet confiscated are becoming increasingly inaccessible as they are broken by walled barriers. Palestinians are often required to pass through multiple checkpoints to get from their homes to their jobs or fields. New highways are for the exclusive use of settlers or Israelis. Many of those interviewed believed Israel was becoming an “apartheid” state.
The situation is likely to get even worse after Tuesday, when Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to win as leader of a new Israeli government. Netanyahu wants to expand the settlements. He believes they need room for "natural growth.” (sounds better than “Lebensraum”). Even more extreme than Netanyahu and his Likud is Avigdor Lieberman, who heads Yisrael Beitenu (Israel Our Home), the fastest growing and third most powerful party in Israel. This increasingly popular promoter of hatred and violence against Arabs including Israeli citizens may get a post in the next cabinet.
Meanwhile, populations of the “moderate” Arab states, fed by a steady TV diet of Israeli “abuses and atrocities” are furious that their governments have done so little to help their besieged brethren. Egypt is perhaps the most vulnerable to a popular Islamist uprising . The fury is carried over to our own country which is seen as the dog wagged by the Israeli tail. There is some hope that Obama, with his Islamic connections, will take a more even-handed approach to the conflict and put some conditions of reasonableness on our $3 billion + annual stipend for Israel. Even if Obama has the guts to stand up to AIPAC, he has no leverage to apply to extremists on the other side and the momentum for an even wider conflict may be too great to stop.

Anonymous said...

Well said. Unfortunately you and I are voices in the wilderness particularly in the Jewish community. I keep asking for a response to my question, "Aren't Arabs entitled to defend themselves?" and the question is ignored. In today's Times there is an article by an Egyptian author who essentially raises the same question I keep asking, why don't we "recognize what we see as a simple, essential truth: the right of people in an occupied territory to resist military occupation."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/opinion/08aswany.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
It seems to me that there is a valid comparison to the murderer who defends his killing of a women by saying if she had only not resisted my rape I would not have killed her, but when she resisted I had no choice.

Anonymous said...

Certainly all of the several sides involved have contributed over the years to exacerbating instead of resolving the problems. So, just as an examples, the Jews and Israelis encouraged or intimidated the Arabs to leave their homes in what is now Israel. But, it was the Arabs who rejected the UN solution with violence and attempted genocide in 1948 and who expelled about 1,000,000 Jews from ancestral homes in the Middle East and North Africa. Doesn't the problem therefore involve the conundrum that Israel is still a desired destination, while Morocco and Syria are not. And isn't it the case that Syria could achieve peace and the Golan's return if it cooperated in Lebanon instead of fostering and perpetrating political assassinations. Sure, the Israelis have intensified West Bank development and constructed the security wall in sometime inappropriate fashion; but it was Hamas AND Fatah who used suicide and violence instead of negotiation AND rejected solutions - the last in 2000 - which would have enabled the entire area to achieve peace.
I was fascinated by the account of the Palestinian doctor living in Gaza who had been working with Israeli hospitals and whose family was killed by tank fire within the last week or so, as I recall, prior to the cease fire. After bitterly and understandably condemning the assault - even though Israel expressed regret - he most recently expressed satisfaction with the Israeli Army investigation disclosing that the tank fire was in response to Hamas fire from the building next door and the entire incident occurred after he and his family had been warned by Israel to move. Isn't Hamas more responsible for starting the mini-war by ending the truce with truly indiscriminate attacks?
Finally, please comment on the educational programs apparently employed throughout the Middle East inculcating race and religious war and hatred.

Anonymous said...

I want to respond to David Hoffman's comment above by quoting his presentation and inserting my reply in capital letters. This follows:
"Certainly all of the several sides involved have contributed over the years to exacerbating instead of resolving the problems. So, just as an examples, the Jews and Israelis encouraged or intimidated the Arabs to leave their homes in what is now Israel. IT IS GOOD THAT YOU RECOGNIZE THIS. But, it was the Arabs who rejected the UN solution with violence OF COURSE WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU HAVE EXPECTED. I REFER YOU TO THE QUOTE FROM BEN GURIAN and attempted genocide in 1948 - I QUESTION THIS-I DON'T THINK IT IS TRUE and who expelled about 1,000,000 - THE FIGURE I FOUND WAS 800,000, BUT LET'S NOT QUIBBLE OVER THIS - Jews from ancestral homes in the Middle East and North Africa. THE EXPULSION WAS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE CREATION OF ISRAEL. BEFORE THAT JEWS HAD LIVED AMONG MUSLIMS FOR GENERATIONS AND WERE NOT HARASSED. IT WAS A CASE OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. THOUGH ISRAEL PROBABLY WELCOMED THE OPPORTUNITY TO SWELL ITS POPULATION. BUT I THINK THIS IS WHEN ISRAEL STARTED TO LOSE ITS SOUL BECAUSE UNLIKE THE ASHKENAZI, THE SEPHARDIC HAVING BEEN EXPELLED CAME WITH HATE TOWARD THE ARABS WHICH THE EUROPEANS DID NOT SHARE. Doesn't the problem therefore involve the conundrum that Israel is still a desired destination, while Morocco and Syria are not. I DON'T SEE IT AS A CONUNDRUM. ISRAEL IS A MODERN WESTERN COUNTRY, THE ARAB COUNTRIES TO A LARGE EXTENT ARE STUCK IN THE MIDDLE AGES. I MENTIONED THAT THEY WERE A FEUDAL SOCIETY. And isn't it the case that Syria could achieve peace and the Golan's return if it cooperated in Lebanon instead of fostering and perpetrating political assassinations. NO! I BELIEVE IT IS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. IF ISRAEL WERE WILLING TO GIVE UP THE GOLAN HIGHTS IT COULD GET PEACE WITH SYRIA AND STOP SYRIA FROM SUPPORTING HIZBULLAH. MEDDLING IN LEBANON MAY BE ANOTHER STORY Sure, the Israelis have intensified West Bank development and constructed the security wall in sometime inappropriate fashion BUT THAT IS I BELIEVE THE CRUX OF THE PROBLEM- NOT TO BE SO EASILY DISMISSED; but it was Hamas AND Fatah who used suicide and violence instead of negotiation AND rejected solutions - the last in 2000 - which would have enabled the entire area to achieve peace. WE DON'T REALY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT ISRAEL OFFERED IN 2000 OR WHY YASSER ARAFAT REJECTED IT BUT WHEN ARAFAT DIED IT SEEMED LIKE AN IDEAL TIME TO REVIVE NEGOTIATIONS BUT ISRAEL KEPT SAYING THAT THERE IS NO-ONE TO NEGOTIATE WITH. IT SEEMED THEY WEREN'T INTERESTED IN NEGOTIATIONS.
I was fascinated by the account of the Palestinian doctor living in Gaza who had been working with Israeli hospitals and whose family was killed by tank fire within the last week or so, as I recall, prior to the cease fire. After bitterly and understandably condemning the assault - even though Israel expressed regret - he most recently expressed satisfaction with the Israeli Army investigation disclosing that the tank fire was in response to Hamas fire from the building next door and the entire incident occurred after he and his family had been warned by Israel to move. Isn't Hamas more responsible for starting the mini-war by ending the truce with truly indiscriminate attacks? HAMAS COULD NOT ALLOW THE BLOCKADE TO CONTINUE INDEFINITELY WITHOUT STRIKING BACK. EVERYONE APPEARS TO BE IGNORING MY QUESTION, IS GAZA NOT ALLOWED TO DEFEND ITSELF?
Finally, please comment on the educational programs apparently employed throughout the Middle East inculcating race and religious war and hatred. PART OF THE OSLO ACCORDS SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED PROVISIONS THAT NEITHER SIDE WOULD SPREAD PROPAGANDA AGAINST THE OTHER. IT IS UNFORTUNATE THEY DID NOT. WHAT IS ALWAYS IGNORED, AND YOU IGNORE IT EVEN THOUGH I MENTIONED IT, WAS THAT ISRAEL DURING THIS PERIOD WAS TEACHING THAT SAMARIA AND JUDEA ARE PART OF ISRAEL, AS INFLAMMATORY AS ARAB HATE SCREED.
WHAT WORRIES ME INCREASINGLY IS THAT ISRAEL IS BEGINNING TO LOSE ITS SOUL. "AVIGDOR LIEBERMAN'S FAR-RIGHT-WING YISRAEL BEITEINU PARTY CONTINUES TO SURGE: THE LATEST POLL, WHICH SURVEYED 1,000 PEOPLE - DOUBLE THE USUAL NUMBER - SHOWED IT WINNING 18 SEATS, UP FROM 15 LAST WEEK. IF THIS FORECAST PROVES ACCURATE, LABOR WILL BE RELEGATED, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ITS HISTORY, TO THE FOURTH-LARGEST PARTY, WITH ONLY 14 SEATS." ALL LIEBERMAN IS REALLY SAYING IS THAT "ANYONE WHO ISN'T PREPARED TO SIGN AN OATH OF LOYALTY TO THE STATE, BECAUSE OF HIS PERSONAL VIEWS, CANNOT RECEIVE EQUAL RIGHTS; HE CAN'T VOTE FOR THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY. PEOPLE HERE ARE GRADUALLY COMING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE CONCERNING A PERSON WHO IS NOT LOYAL." LOYALTY OATHS IN ISRAEL? DISENFRANCHISING THE ARAB MINORITY? POSSIBLY DEPORTING THEM?
HTTP://WWW.HAARETZ.COM/HASEN/SPAGES/1061910.HTML

Anonymous said...

I am responding to Emil Scheller's last post:
My basic problem with his approach is that his perspective is skewed and leads to inappropriate moral judgments. Just to put the situation in modern historical perspective, he equates the Palestinians in the West Bank (children of those about to be raped indeed) with - say - the American Indians at Wounded Knee or captured Black Union troops during the Civil War facing murder. Poor analogy. Though no analogy could ever be precise, and without more extensive thought and research; I think a closer analogy would be to the Japanese and German populations in 1945 - or maybe the Indians under British rule- or even the Romans who certainly brooked no nonsense from their perspective. And how would we or England or the Romans have reacted to internally sponsored suicide bombers? Not to mention cross-border rockets. Excessive internal policing only rarely corrected by the Courts even though training of Fatah police is progressing? Not too bad, though certainly not perfect and moving in the wrong direction in some ways. What's "proportionate" mean anyway? Less than Hiroshima? Sure, but Truman was facing an estimated 500,000 troop deaths if an invasion of Japan proper were ordered. What was his responsibility and to whom owed? To Japanese civilians? I'm sure Emil appreciates the idea(s).
However, ALL the discourse, including the above, and regardless of how one comes down in a particular circumstance; really misses the point. The real difference lies in the fact that when the "occupier" wants to leave; the focus should be on facilitating that departure and defining its terms and what follows. What grounds does one have for assuming that Hamas' or Iran's or Hezbollah subscribe to long term peace as a policy aim - with Israel in existence?
The Israeli left worked hard to achieve peace in 2000. Emil equivocates in blaming Arafat for failure. I believe that it was clearly his decision for which we're all paying - and a lot of people have died - all over.
But more to the point: What about Emil's advocacy helps what they are still trying to achieve? What about his advocacy helps combat the Israeli far right - I'm no more a fan of Lieberman than I am of Hamas, without equating the two? And if he can't abide the Israeli political scene; how is his advocacy helping moderate Hamas and convince them to abandon their suicide complex (national as well as personal)? It can happen.
Time is short and mis-directed effort is costly.

Anonymous said...

I am responding to David's last post.
The analogy to the American Indians is his, not mine, but I think it is a good one. he is right; no analogy is entirely satisfactory. But that is about as close as we can come in my estimation. As for imperialist rule- I find it incredible that David cites it as justifiable and a good example of why Israeli suppression is justified.
As for Hiroshima, I was not discussing whether or not it was justified, only that it was an act of terror that most today believe justified, as David points out.
He asks, "What grounds do I have for assuming that Hamas or Iran or Hezbollah subscribe to long term peace as a policy aim - with Israel in existence?" None, but that is unimportant. They cannot exist in a paradigm where the Arab world has accepted Israel, as Egypt and Jordan have. Once peace is achieved they cannot continue without any support from the population. They must have a basis for hate to justify their existence and right now Israeli policies feed into that.
When I think of how proud I used to be of the Jewish state that made the desert bloom; that had its Kibbutzim full of idealism; that pulled off that fantastic rescue at Entebbe.
One might have thought that as it became more secure, and it is much more secure, it would reach out.
Instead it has become increasingly Bush like. Intransigent and full of hate. Israeli lives are valuable but Arab lives don't count.
I want to be proud again, and I should think David would too.

Anonymous said...

I want to once again rebut Emil Scheller's previous post:
I believe his prior focus is leading him to avoid the consequences of rationally analyzing those points.
For example, my basic thesis is that determining who's on "God's side" in any war, what's a "proportionate" response, when is it justified, what's "terror" as opposed to "jihad (holy war, right?)"; is likely to be a pointless and endless exercise. The bottom line in the current situation is that Israel, while certainly not perfect or blameless in many particular instances, is still dealing in a context where it:
1) Is in the West Bank since '48 (Jerusalem later - during which interim Jordan was not exactly riding a white horse) only because it was successful in defensive wars - and Israel voluntarily exited Lebanon and Gaza and the Sinai - and has been negotiating re: the West Bank and the Golan. Hardly prototypical "imperialist rule"; so why the loaded pejorative description? Re:Hiroshima, I'm not convinced it was justified any more than the prior fire bomb raids which were just as, if not more, destructive though less radical. The example was given only to point out the moral ambiguity, which by definition should lead to its not being used to uselessly inflame, precluding reasonable negotiation.
2) Talk about "incredible" as describing with a degree of understanding Israel's West Bank dilemma; I find his statement: "None but that is unimportant" way beyond "incredible". Think for a moment what he is implying. What if Hezbollah doesn't have to exist in the paradigm you describe because Israel is no more? Would you bet on Christian Lebanon being viable in 15 years?
What if Hamas becomes ensconced in the West Bank and Gaza as Hezbollah has become entrenched in Lebanon?
3) These questions are designed to emphasize my main point; that moralistic judgments are pointless and self-defeating because they don't further the only worthwhile endeavor - finding a way out. I won't get into whether and why liberal guilt feels good - if that's a cogent comment which it may not be. The solution - still recognized as basically the only one which is viable - was devised at Oslo and Clinton came within Arafat's whisker of succeeding. The only meaningful issue to my mind is whether the world gets a second chance.

Anonymous said...

Once again I will rebut David's presentation by recreating his tome and inserting my comments in capitals.
I also believe Emil's prior focus is leading him to avoid the consequences of rationally RATIONALLY? THAT IS USING A PEJORATIVE TO TRY TO PUT ME DOWN. MY VIEW IS THAT DAVID IS NOT BEING RATIONAL- BUT THEN FEW JEWS ARE ON THIS SUBJECT analyzing those points.
For example, my basic thesis is that determining who's on "God's side" in any war, what's a "proportionate" response, when is it justified, what's "terror" as opposed to "jihad (holy war, right?)"; OR FREEDOM FIGHTER- BUT THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT - THE ARGUMENT THAT ANYONE WHO USES TERROR AS A WEAPON IS BY DEFINITION WRONG AND BAD DOES NOT HOLD WATER is likely to be a pointless and endless exercise. The bottom line in the current situation is that Israel, while certainly not perfect or blameless in many particular instances, is still dealing in a context where it:
1) Is in the West Bank since '48 (Jerusalem later - during which interim Jordan was not exactly riding a white horse) only because it was successful in defensive wars - and Israel voluntarily exited Lebanon and Gaza NEITHER OF WHICH WAS DONE FOR PHILANTHROPIC REASON BUT RATHER TO DEAL WITH BEING MILITARILY OVEREXTENDED and the Sinai WELL WORTH GIVING UP FOR THE SAKE OF GAINING A SECURE BORDER ON ITS SOUTHERN FLANK- CARTER GOT THIS FOR ISRAEL AND IN RETURN, BECAUSE HE JUSTLY CRITICIZES ISRAELI POLICIES WHICH ISRAEL SHOULD TAKE TO HEART, HE IS VILIFIED IN THE JEWISH COMMUNITY AS ANTI-SEMITIC. - and has been negotiating re: the West Bank and the Golan. NOT IN GOOD FAITH- NOT WHILE IT CONTINUES TO EXPAND SETTLEMENTS AND CONTINUES TO CLAIM THE RIGHT TO SAMARIA AND JUDEA Hardly prototypical "imperialist rule"; so why the loaded pejorative description? IT WASN'T MINE- IT WAS DAVID'S. DAVID HAD WRITTEN: “I THINK A CLOSER ANALOGY…THE INDIANS UNDER BRITISH RULE - OR EVEN THE ROMANS WHO CERTAINLY BROOKED NO NONSENSE FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE. AND HOW WOULD WE OR ENGLAND OR THE ROMANS HAVE REACTED TO INTERNALLY SPONSORED SUICIDE BOMBERS?" END OF QUOTE.
Re: Hiroshima, I'm not convinced it was justified any more than the prior fire bomb raids which were just as if not more destructive though less radical. The example was given only to point out the moral ambiguity, which by definition should lead to its not being used to uselessly inflame, precluding reasonable negotiation. AGAIN I USED THIS TO SIMPLY ILLUSTRATE THAT THE METHOD USED DOES NOT DEFINE THE LEGITIMACY OF THE ACTOR.
2) Talk about "incredible" as describing with a degree of understanding Israel's West Bank dilemma; I find Emil's statement: "None but that is unimportant" I CAN NOT FIND WHERE I SAID THAT OR IN WHAT CONTEXT way beyond "incredible". Think for a moment what Emil is implying. What if Hezbollah doesn't have to exist in the paradigm you describe because Israel is no more? Would you bet on Christian Lebanon being viable in 15 years? What if Hamas becomes ensconced in the West Bank and Gaza as Hezbollah has become entrenched in Lebanon? NOWHERE DO I CONTEMPLATE OR AM WILLING TO ENTERTAIN ISRAEL BEING NO MORE- WHERE DOES DAVID GET SUCH NONSENSE- AT THIS POINT IT IS ALSO INCONCEIVABLE.
3) These questions are designed to emphasize my main point; that moralistic judgments are pointless and self-defeating because they don't further the only worthwhile endeavor - finding a way out. I won't get into whether and why liberal guilt feels good - if that's a cogent comment which it may not be. The solution - still recognized as basically the only one which is viable - was devised at Oslo and Clinton came within Arafat's whisker of succeeding. The only meaningful issue to my mind is whether the world gets a second chance. HERE I AM GLAD TO SAY THAT WE AGREE. BUT I BELIEVE THAT ISRAEL IS DESTROYING THAT POSSIBILITY- SO IS HAMAS BUT THAT IS ITS INTENT- WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE THE MORAL QUESTION IS PARALLEL TO THE PRACTICAL ONE. THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE-THEY ARE MUTUALLY REINFORCING. THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE ARGUMENT ABOUT THE BUSH POLICIES ON TERROR.
I SUGGEST ONE SHOULD READ THE FOLLOWING:
HTTP://WWW.HAARETZ.COM/HASEN/SPAGES/1062761.HTML
HAMAS AND THE REGECTIONISTS FEAR PEOPLE LIKE ME FAR MORE THAN HARD LINERS WHO THEY FEEL FEED INTO THEIR AGENDA.
THIS WAS ALSO TRUE DURING THE '50 WHEN COMMUNISTS FEARED LIBERALS FAR MORE THAN THE HARD RIGHT.

Anonymous said...

Let me conclude this debate with Emil by saying maybe Hamas and the regectionists fear people like Emil more than hard liners who they feel feed into their agenda.
But, the challenge is to appeal to the Israeli Center Right and increase pressure on Hamas. For example, one is not going to increase leverage and encourage the Israeli military to take a strong position against the "illegal" West Bank settlements by reflexively castigating their conduct through "imperialist" glasses."
In response to Emil's penultimate communication in the form of insertions in red let me say:
1. The statement which Emil couldn't find was a direct quote. He should be able to find it.
2. Concluding that I'm being irrational not Emil, is an irrational reaction - not a response to my argument. If the shoe fits, etc.
3. Sure, "terror" can be justified, as it often is, usually by calling it something else. But, that's nothing new. If Emil again reads what I said as opposed to what he thinks I said; he'll see that if he thinks through what I said, we probably agree on this point; which is that blaming Israel for allegedly "disproportionate response" to "terror" is pointless, problematic and, more important, not productive or counter-productive.
4. Surely, Emil should accept the basic tenet of Judaism that deeds, as opposed to thoughts and rationales, are primary. So that the execution of charity is worthy and primary, although anonymity is an enhancement. The political reasons behind Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai, Lebanon, Gaza and hopefully the West Bank will pale and become meaningless. What's important and worth working for is the result. Long term peace in the Middle East. So why rant about political motivation, when that is present for all in every case (gross generalization which I believe quite sound).
5. As for Israel's survival - I agree that we agree - but how is supporting Hamas, which does not agree, helpful? "Inconceivable" - maybe, but so was the Holocaust in the view of many Germans and German Jews in the '30s - and so was Israel's survival in '48, which I personally recall as being viewed by many as doubtful at best. Other examples abound. Can Emil really blame anyone for working to avoid the "inconceivable" which is being promoted by some increasingly powerful entities?

Anonymous said...

I, like Emil am troubled by the excesses of the Israeli government in dealing with the Palestinians. I feel there was enormous provocation by the Arab world to provoke these excesses. Emil's putting the Palestinian leadership and the Israeli leadership on a moral par however is offensive and wrong.
As Golda Meir said, "the greatest tragedy of the conflict is that the Palestinians force us to kill their children". I do not remember a Hamas or Hezbolah leader echoing similar sentiments.

Anonymous said...

I take exception to Leonard Levenson's claim that I put the Palestinian leadership and the Israeli leadership on a moral par. The only thing I put on a par is that I feel that Palestinian civilian lives are no less worthy than Israeli ones, particularly when we are talking about innocent women and particularly children.
I also maintain that all actions have consequences; that Israel can not keep seizing Arab lands to expand settlements and blockade a people from receiving food and electricity and expect them not to respond. Israel broke the cease fire long before Hamas did, in that Israel as part of that cease fire had agreed to allow supplies to enter Gaza in certain quantities and then allowed only a small percentage of what had been agreed to. But all that is ignored. In any fair discussion Israeli transgressions must not be ignored out of a false sense of loyalty. The right to self-defense cuts both ways, though that is never recognized in the chant, "Israel has a right to defend itself." I have asked again and again "do Arabs not have a right to defend themselves?" and the question is universally ignored.