Gazing at My Navel While Thinking About Israel
Nation piece about J Street and such mentions me in a complimentary light. Woo.
I’m trying to think about this a bit since I’m going to be speaking at the J Street Conference pretty soon. One thing that I think is underdiscussed in this context is the domestic political shifts in Israel. I got the lion’s share of my Zionist indoctrination in the early-to-mid 1990s. At that time, the peace process was a hot-button partisan political controversy in Israel. And the incumbents were the pro-peace, secular, social democratic Labor Party. For the members and leaders of a Reform synagogue in Greenwich Village, it was obvious that to be “pro Israel” meant to be supportive of the pro-peace, secular, social democrats who ran Israel. That also meant being sympathetic to their partners in the Arab world (moderate PLO leaders, the King of Jordan, the government of Egypt) and being hostile to their antagonists on the Greater Israel right. Hostile as well, of course, to the suicide bombers and murderers of innocent Jews.
But being supportive of Israel had relatively little to do with adopting a favorable stance toward tribal nationalism and violence. Yitzhak Rabin and Anwar Sadat were, in some sense, on the same side—the side of peace, reason, and negotiation—while their respective murderers were on the side of violence, fanaticism, nationalism, and war.
Today, though, Israeli politics consists primarily of a debate between two factions of the right-wing opposition to Rabin. The country is governed by what amounts to a right-wing splinter faction from the right-wing party in alliance with a further right-wing party. Obviously, a dramatic rightward lurch is something a democracy is allowed to engage in. But for an American raised on an Oslo-era vision of Israel, working in a context where US politics is moving away from aggressive nationalism it’s a disorienting situation.
63 Responses to “Gazing at My Navel While Thinking About Israel”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 18th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Like many others, I think this mistakes what Rabin and co. were up to in the 1990s: they were also looking for a settler-enabling, apartheid, expulsionist ‘peace’, just like their more extreme opponents. You’ve said before that the Israelis have been looking for a quisling management of the West Bank, and that’s where Rabin was headed, for the remaining arabs there after many of them had been “resettled” elsewhere, that is expelled.
So the disorientation that should be overtaking you is re-understanding how you earlier supported what you now see more correctly as extreme right-wing politics.
October 18th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
The Oslo dream was in illusion. A people were conquered. Something without president in modern history and something anathema to all modern principals. The Palistinians surrendered but refused to be conquored. In biblical times the solution was clear. Wipe them out. This has to be the goal of Israel, and it is, they just won’t say it or even admit it to themselves.
The creation of the Jewish state in Palistine made certain that Israel would eventually adopt a final solution. The ironies are boundless.
October 18th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Anyone interested in learning why opinion in Israel changed so much from Rabin to today? No, I think not. I won’t say anything.
October 18th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Blooming heck Matt, it is fine as far as it goes, but this is a pretty weak acknowledgement of what is going on.
October 18th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Wow, Sadat?
Also, bottomfish is a perfect illustration of why the Rabin nostalgia is dangerous in addition to being wrong. You have to listen to that sort of scum tell lies about how the enlightened, naive, Israelis tried to give away God’s land and sheer, mindless, Jew hatred got them nothing for their generosity.
October 18th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Those were certainly more optimistic times. My reasons for pessimism now relate to everything Yglesias never talks about: Palestinian political development. Above, as usual, he talks only about Israel and its politics. And the history is fractured as well: When Egypt made peace with Israel, Sadat was negotiating Begin (Likud). Rabin was prime minister much later. And as bottomfish says, changes in the Israeli political dynamic didn’t happen in a vacuum.
October 18th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Well Ed Marshall,
I said I wouldn’t say anything, and I was right!
October 18th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
You aren’t right, Matt is just wrong.
October 18th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
What, pray tell, are you yattering about when you say, ‘…working in a context where US politics is moving away from aggressive nationalism…’?
Last I looked we were still raining Hellfire missiles on Afghan wedding parties and indeed are contemplating jumping into the ’stans with both of O’Liar’s two big feet.
Nothing has change here in the states Matt…
No…
Thing…
October 18th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
[...] Filed under: Personal, Politics — by teofilo @ 6:31 pm Matt Yglesias has an interesting post on Israel where he discusses how his own Zionist consciousness was formed in the “Oslo [...]
October 18th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
You really aught to consult the facts as to the Israeli political situation (let alone policy itself) before speaking in front of J street. You’re stating what should be simple objective claims but you’re making fundamental factual errors behind which may be a great misunderstanding (that’s facts, before even delving into principled policy).
October 18th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
As other commentators here have suggested, I would encourage you to read up a bit more on Rabin and his cast of co-conspirators in the Oslo Process. Not only were the mid-90s the fastest period of settlement construction in the entire period since ‘67, but Rabin himself was a former general in the Haganah, a pre-Israel paramilitary organization implicated in terrorist attacks against the British and then war crimes during the Israeli “War of Independence”, as documented by Benny Morris himself. Of course, he was also IDF Chief of Staff during the ‘67 war, rushing to Jerusalem to deliver the first speech after Jews “liberated” the old city from Arab control. Unfortunately, being killed by someone more extreme than you doesn’t make you a moderate by objective measures.
October 18th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Something without president in modern history and something anathema to all modern principals.
rapier is the frontrunner for the Ygelsian comment of the year (emphases mine).
October 18th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Mr. Yglesias continues to dwell in his dreamworld. There is no possibility of a peaceful settlement to the Israeli/Palestinian dispute at this time because there is no agreement that the two parties can agree to. It doesn’t make any difference who is in charge in Israel, or the PA for that matter. Any attempt by President Osama to dictate a settlement will not endure if neither side is willing to accept it. He may be able to apply enough pressure on the two sides to force them to sign on the dotted line but, instead of leading to a lasting peaceful settlement, it will eventually lead to another war as the two sides maneuver for advantage.
The only thing that can be done at this time is to reduce the level of violence. Possibly, if some time passes with a reduced level of violence, there may be a lessening of the hatred and distrust between the two sides and, at that time, something better may become possible.
October 18th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
There is no possibility of a peaceful settlement to the Israeli/Palestinian dispute at this time because there is no agreement that the two parties can agree to.
Why do anti-Semites like SLC fail to use the correct terms for the Fakestinians? And refuse to see the ONLY SOLUTION is HAMA RULES?!?
October 18th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
SLC – I just returned from a month in Israel (the advantages of being retired). Since I have dual passports and 35 relatives living in the settlements, I freely travel all over the West Bank. I can assure you the amount of building going on is SIGNIFICANTLY more than finishing off the 3000 units already started. Existing settlements beyond the Security barrier are establishing “new neighborhoods” sometimes a kilometer or 2 away from the existing settlement. Calling it a neighborhood avoids the stigma of a new settlement but it’s really the same thing. These are going up all over the place.
For example there is building east of Mevo Dotan with road building equipment to build a road to the Israeli miltary base east of Qabatiya and thus linking up with Kaddim. This would put the entire Jenin area into it’s own canton. New hilltop neighborhoods are going up between Shavey Shomeron and Elon Moreh cutting of Nablus on it’s north side. Ariel and the land to the east are being populated to link up with Eli and Shilo and thus cutting off Nablus from the southern west bank.
Talmon, Dolev, Bet El and Ofra are being linked cutting off Ramallah. Everywhere you look, the “reservation” plan is being implemented. That is Likud’s objective and I’ve heard Ze’ev Boim who was Housing Minister under Kadima even use that word.
SLC, the purpose behind this rant is to illustrate there is no time to waste in order to implement a two state solution. In 3-5 years the “reservation” concept will come to fruition and that will be a disaster to Israel.
October 18th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
While you’re looking up Rabin’s history, don’t forget his actions during the intifada in 1988, when he issued the infamous “Break Their Bones” order.
October 18th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Funny, the other day I was gazing at Israel while thinking about my navel. Or maybe I should say that I was gazing lo unto Israel, since I’m pretty sure that you can’t gaze at Israel without gazing lo unto it.
October 18th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
The country is governed by what amounts to a right-wing splinter faction from the right-wing party in alliance with a further right-wing party. Obviously, a dramatic rightward lurch is something a democracy is allowed to engage in. But for an American raised on an Oslo-era vision of Israel, working in a context where US politics is moving away from aggressive nationalism it’s a disorienting situation.
Tell me about it. Having been brought up reading Leon Uris’s novels about Israel, I have traveled a long way in my views, and Israeli politics have traveled even further in the other direction. It’s disappointing to say the least.
October 18th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Was the rightward place that Israeli politics is now in already contemplated by its right wing in the early ’90s? By the Israeli right’s American supporters? The obvious answer is yes, but there’s still a sense that the two rights are further along than they were on a path that no good can come of.
October 18th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
I suppose the question is, is there a point at which “I’m pro-Israel in accord with a certain vision of Israel (good faith efforts at peace, human rights for all people living between the Jordan River and the sea)” becomes “I would be pro-Israel if a certain vision of Israel were viable in Israeli politics, but since it is not, I cannot in good faith consider myself pro-Israel.”
One can call oneself pro-Burmese without supporting the policies of the State Peace and Development Council, because most Burmese don’t like them either. Yet Israel’s democratic status, long held as a reason for exalting Israel over its despotic neighbors in the region, might now become an indictment of it. Most Saudi Arabians and Egyptians aren’t responsible for the actions of their royal family or ruling clique. Yet given that the composition of the Knesset largely reflects what Israelis seems to want — quibble around the edges if you’d like — what can one say for Israel? “If Israelis start thinking more like me, I’d support them in that?”
October 18th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Julian, I could spend a bunch of time trying to unpack all that seems wrong to me about your comments above. But the biggest issue is that once again the Arabs are portrayed as passive agents, not “resonsible” or “indictable” for their collective actions. They’re not considered as agents of their own destiny. It’s exactly this blind spot of Yglesias’s (and not only him) that I think makes it impossible to construct reasonable understandings of what is going on and what might be done about it. The Arabs don’t appear as agents in his narrative. They’re not in yours either.
October 18th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
All settlements are illegal settlements under international law. Theft is theft, no matter how you try to fudge or befog the issue. Whether the thieves under Rabin were more or less honorable than the thieves operating under the Kadima or Likud regimes is a matter of semantic interest at best.
The whole world knows this, and as long as American taxpayers continue to subsidize this thievery the world will laugh at our attempts to play the role of “honest brokers.”
October 18th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Everyone should read and ponder what jdledell wrote in comment #16 above. That is indeed what is happening on the ground, and to see the West Bank settlement enterprise in person (I have) is to understand what a charade Israeli claims of desiring peace are. Sure, they want peace – with the Palestinians ethnically cleansed from the land. It’s bullshit, and anyone who’s been to the West Bank knows it. For those of you who say otherwise, either you’re lying purposefully to serve an agenda, or you’re stupid.
That said, there’s no stopping the reservation plan. The Palestinians are utterly screwed.
October 18th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
They’re not considered as agents of their own destiny.
If you want to bestow the Palestinian Arabs with comparable agency, you’d be arguing for them to receive Israeli passports and the right to vote.
[tumbleweed]
In the meantime, you’re just playing at being a less obnoxious SLC, burying the facts of occupation, settlement-building and the appropriation of natural resources.
As jdledell says, the door on a two-state solution is being closed further with every building project. The question then becomes how Israel makes the institutional transition towards being either a de facto apartheid state with bantustans, or a colonial annexer and expeller — and how the rest of the world deals with that.
October 18th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
the biggest issue is that once again the Arabs are portrayed as passive agents, not “resonsible” or “indictable” for their collective actions.
The biggest issue — the biggest lie — from larry birnbaum is that once again the Arabs are portrayed as the inhabitants of a secessionist province of Israel, dissatisfied with the ample, equal rights and privileges offered to them, and not as an occupied populace living under laws of occupation. Perhaps that’s because larry birnbaum is no more than a flight away from having more rights and privileges in Israel than any Palestinian born in Ramallah.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:01 am
Well, Larry, what do you think? That most Burmese are responsible for the actions of the SPDC? That most Saudi Arabians are responsible for the actions of their king? People are typically responsible for what they do. People in Myanmar, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and everywhere else do many things. One thing that people in Israel do that people in Myanmar and Saudi Arabia don’t is choose their government.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:14 am
I’ve found it curious for a little while that both Zionists and anti-Zionists seem to think time is on their side. Zionists seem to say that the inherent inferiority of Arabs has been temporarily assuaged by oil, but oil will run out and Palestinians will lose their prop and fold. Anti-Zionists, such as myself, say there has been a long anti-colonialist historical trend that Zionism will succumb to. Regional demographics and technological changes will make Israel’s sustenance as a Jewish state by force non-viable.
I see that the disagreement is about a simple and more specific question. It is clear that two-states is becoming non-viable on both sides. The question is between one Jewish state and one non-Jewish state, which will the parties whose support Israel requires to survive choose.
The settlers know they’re destroying any possibility of a Palestinian state but expect to say “oh well, it’s really impossible now. I guess we have to either expel the rest or accept today’s neo-Apartheid situation indefinitely” and expect the US and Europe to buy that.
The Palestinians know that the settlers are destroying any possibility of a Palestinian state and expect to say “oh well, I guess as much as we understand the need for Jews to have a Jewish state, two states is impossible while expulsion and the indefinite extension of the current subject but non-citizen status is an affront to everyone’s values, so I guess Israel has to be able to elect a Palestinian prime minister” and expect the US and Europe to buy that.
I wonder what Obama would say, I wonder what Yglesias would say given a stark choice, a slightly modified status quo or South Africa.
I think very few non-Jews would choose a slightly modified status quo, which puts me in disagreement with the settlers and a lot of Zionists.
But we’re headed towards finding out.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:51 am
Like Yglesias, my memories of Israel/Palestine began around the time of Rabin’s assassination. My views in the 90s were basically a total mishmash of MSM conventional wisdom and left-wing orthodoxy, and it took me a long time to see the contradictions. I thought that a) Israel was absolutely wrong to be in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and b) Israelis realized this and were going to let the Palestinians have their own state. I was totally in the tank about the “peace process” and Rabin. I also thought Yassir Arafat had totally turned his back on terrorism and that Hamas was just a bunch of dead-enders.
Then came the second intifada, and almost everyone lined up on the side of Israel even as Sharon seemed to be proclaiming “occupation forever”. It was shocking to realize how many Americans accepted the occupation, despite the land thefts and lack of consent of the governed. It was especially shocking to see that otherwise liberal people not only supporting what amounted to apartheid, but putting the burden on those who opposed this apartheid to prove that they weren’t racist and pro-terrorist. Not to mention neocons that had grand visions of democracy for the Middle East–for everyone but the Palestinians. Israel was hardly the worst human rights offender in the world, I came to realize. But what was uniquely bad about the occupation was that it showed our liberal democratic values to be a lie. (not the conflict is all about us, but why it pisses me off so often is definitely all about us.)
Of course I’ve had to revise my views on the Palestinians, to say the least, especially after the Hamas election victory. But then again I never felt especially pressured to support Arafat or Hamas.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:02 am
What are you talking about, political Zionism is tribal nationalism and violence. That’s the definition.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:05 am
I’d like you to discuss something that MJ Rosenberg mentioned at TPM some time ago: namely that younger Americans in particular do not feel nearly the same connection with Israel as older generations.
I don’t know if that’s assertion or even relevant as I’m sure the number of Americans in general that focus on the Israel-Palestine are probably small.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:14 am
Ooops: appologies for the comment #4, which must have made zero sense. I was tired, etc. I was referring to The Nation article which seemed to be very understated in acknowledging what was happening on the progressive blogs.
With regards the substance of your post, the topic of your talk is obvious, no–what are the prospects for peace in such a landscape dominated by nationalism? Sometimes this is a prelude to peace–so, it wasn’t until the Paisley’s DUP and Sin Fein represented their communities, after many years of being excluded, that political reconciliation happened in Northern Ireland.
There is probably not a great deal that can be done with this Israeli government which apart from being right wing seems to be also dysfunctional. But one thing they do seem to have succeeded in doing is destroying Abbas (see Avnery’s column this week).
Is peace conceivable between a coalition led by Kadima and another that includes Hamas, perhaps led by Marwan Barghouti? Enquiring minds would like to know.
October 19th, 2009 at 4:25 am
Reflecting on my reaction above, I suppose they are parochial. Time is short and so they are focusing on the politics.
In Britain there has always been a split on the left (and right) where Israel is concerned. I have always been in favour of a fair settlement and critical of Israeli militarism (I started getting interested in politics around Israel’s ‘83 invasion of Lebanon, not the ‘67 war as was the case for my father’s generation).
I would never have thought of calling myself a Zionist until this revolution, led by the bloggers (Seth Freedman was important too). Connecting to the writings Uri Avnery was critical too.
So while Israel has a looming legitimacy problem, the intellectual developments, reflected in the rise of J Street, offer the prospect of more unified left embracing Zionism and Palestinian statehood while condemning Israeli and Palestinian militarism. I bet many in the non-dysfunctional right could sign up to this too (if they haven’t already).
October 19th, 2009 at 4:54 am
Don’t fool yourself; only total idiots on the Left can be persuaded that ethnocentric nationalism is somehow justified. Moreover: as soon as they accept that premise, immediately they have to leave the Left and become “neoconservatives” or “liberal hawks” or some such, and eventually openly embrace wingnuttery, which is the only place where ethnocentrism belongs.
October 19th, 2009 at 5:05 am
…because you know – it seems clear as day, but apparently not to everybody – if one is on the Left, then, as a matter of politics, there is no difference between a “Jew”, “Arab”, or “Eskimo”; none whatsoever. It’s just not in the equation. If you consider the phrase “Jewish state” anything other than abomination – you’re not on the Left, not a humanist, not an enlightened person. And that’s all there is to it.
October 19th, 2009 at 5:26 am
1. Build wall.
2. Shove everyone, Jew or Arab, outside the wall if they won’t swear a loyalty oath.
3. Call it a day.
Who are the Israelis supposed to make peace with? The Palestinians? Which ones? The ones that are calling for the destruction of Israel (Hamas) or the ones who call for the destruction of Israel at home but mouth platitudes to the West (Fatah)?
Stealing land? Whose land? Are you talking the whole ‘67 borders BS? In 1948 all of Israel’s Arabs neighbors tried to destroy the infant Israel in the cradle. Guess who is singing the blues now? To hell with them.
October 19th, 2009 at 5:35 am
That coalition of the rightward lurch is, of course, in alliance with the remnants of the old Labor party, which further complicates the issue.
What I mourn isn’t so much the relative electoral decline of the Israeli left as the seeming total inability of the left to mount any meaningful opposition. That’s a more disturbing situation altogether.
October 19th, 2009 at 6:18 am
the relative electoral decline of the Israeli left
There’s no left in Zionism and can’t be, as I already explained.
What Zionists used to have is a disagreement on how much violence is enough to break the resistance of the native population. Rabin ordered IDF henchmen to break arms of the rock-throwing children, instead of shooting them in the head – for that he was labeled “Left”. But it’s all over now, fantasies of the Zionist “Left” have been empirically refuted: breaking arms doesn’t work; bullet in the head is the only solution. That’s the reason, and the only reason, for the decline of what you call “the Israeli left”.
October 19th, 2009 at 8:08 am
[...] Jewish bloggers leading the new candour identified in the Nation article is Matt Yglesias who was pondering Israel’s disorienting lurch to the right, just as the US is going in the opposite direction, [...]
October 19th, 2009 at 8:48 am
abb1: I appreciate your consistency, and have great sympathy with the ideals you are advocating. But I have to reconcile those views with the real world, and that (I am convinced) demands two states, and that means a Jewish state and an Arab state. They may become so economically co-dependent in time that some kind of union could be considered which would eliminate the contradictions you refer to. The shortest path to such a rational situation is a peaceful one, I am convinced.
As the pingback says above, I have written an article explaining Why I am now a Zionist.
October 19th, 2009 at 9:41 am
You may want to avoid applying ethnic framework, Chris. There is no need for an “Arab” state either (at least not in the ethnic sense of “Arab” as “Semitic”). It’s Palestinian state that will eventually emerge there, a state of people who happen to live in the region, whatever the ethnicity.
October 19th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Honestly, a federal one-state solution with strong protections for minority rights is the only thing that makes sense here; why are we not pursuing it?
October 19th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Sometimes this is a prelude to peace–so, it wasn’t until the Paisley’s DUP and Sin Fein represented their communities, after many years of being excluded, that political reconciliation happened in Northern Ireland.
I think that’s a slight oversimplification: the DUP and SF became the largest parties for their respective communities only when it became clear that sufficient time had passed, along with a good dose of economic prosperity, to prevent a major backslide. Direct rule provided a safety valve, so that people could vote for SF and the DUP in the knowledge that if power-sharing negotiations broke down, they could call a time-out and try again in a couple of years, because direct rule in its post-Good Friday Agreement form was very different from either the direct rule of the 1980s in NI or the current Israeli military rule over occupied territory.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
@42: Because the Israeli right doesn’t want it.
There are a lot of problems with the one-state solution, starting with the name (”Israel” is as one-sided and inflammatory as calling the U.S. “Whiteland”), but it is at least the only one that fits with modern concepts of human rights (human rights are for humans, not ethnic groups).
But openly realizing that would require a reasoned approach to the problem, and it would mean the parties with the current top dog status giving it up or having it taken away from them.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Julian, the relationship between personal and societal responsibility is a complicated one. But to deny that a people has any social, collective responsibility for the type of government it has seems to me a mistake. The only democratic governments in the Arab world are Lebanon (if you count armed mafias as political parties) and Iraq (which is under US occupation)… and maybe the Palestinians (who are under Israeli occupation). Either this is entirely due to the colonialist manipulations of the nefarious West, or there is something else going on in these societies that we need to think about as we try to figure out how a peaceful resolution of this conflict can be achieved, if one is even possible.
pseudonymous, I haven’t the slightest idea where you got the notion that I think the “Arabs are … the inhabitants of a secessionist province of Israel, dissatisfied with the ample, equal rights and privileges offered to them…” This has no resemblance to my views whatsoever. The Arabs in the West Bank are certainly living under occupation. And, while Israel no longer occupies Gaza, it does tightly control its border (although not entirely on its own, in fact — Egypt, which last I looked is an Arab country, also keeps a tight lid on Gaza).
My point was simply that Yglesias never talks about the Arabs, about what is going on in Palestinian politics, about what Fatah’s or Hamas’s goals are, or the means they are using to try to achieve those goals. These subjects don’t exist. It’s all Israel all the time, Likud and Kadima and Labor and Netanyahu and Rabin and Barak and settlements, settlements, settlements. That strikes me as weird.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
“1. Build wall.
2. Shove everyone, Jew or Arab, outside the wall if they won’t swear a loyalty oath.
3. Call it a day.”
And the wall encompasses Gaza and the West Bank, and everyone inside the wall gets the right to vote? Well, then, the Palestinians will be thrilled with that solution, because you will have created a Palestinian-majority state.
Instead, I suspect you mean something like, “Build a metaphorical wall around Israel proper, and expect everyone inside to support Israel. Then build ACTUAL walls around the legal residents of Gaza and the West Bank to keep them economically depressed while you steal their land. Do not allow the people inside the actual wall to vote.” That doesn’t sound quite as commonsensical, does it?
October 19th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
“Julian, the relationship between personal and societal responsibility is a complicated one. But to deny that a people has any social, collective responsibility for the type of government it has seems to me a mistake.”
So, you do blame the Burmese (and the Chinese, the Russians, the Iranians, the…) for their government. Good to know. You sound a lot like Tom Friedman: “Why won’t these people sacrifice their lives in the hopes of getting the political result I want? They’re so selfish!”
October 19th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
The Arabs in the West Bank are certainly living under occupation.
In which case, you might modify your repeated complaint about agency accordingly:
Well, clearly they’re not, and particularly not in your preferred narrative where the Palestinians are supposed to sit quietly in the corner and wait until they’re invited to eat whatever scraps fall under the table.
Perhaps you’d cheer on the assertion of agency that comes with a unilateral declaration of independence and a full-scale guerilla war, or a liberation attempt from without, but given the disparities in force and support, you’re just going to have to suck up the reality that it’s up to Israelis and their elected representatives to decide whether or not to keep kicking the can down the road with inevitable demographic and geographical consequences.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
J Street is at its core much more about warm and fuzzy Jews patting themselves on the back for seeing the humanity of the filthy shvatz goyim (aka Palestinians)than it is about helping to end an evil regime guilty of ethnic cleansing and daily atrocities too numerous to mention. It’s designed to be harmless and feckless, the least amount of risk for the most amount of hugs.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Blame is a tough word. I have no confidence that I personally would act bravely under the circumstances in which these people live. I wouldn’t blame an individual Burmese or Chinese or Russian for not taking bolder action to effect political change in their country. And G-d knows that many Iranians have taken bold action recently, at cost in some cases to their lives, in such an attempt.
But India has a lot of problems and seems to have a functioning democratic society. South Korea and Taiwan transcended authoritarian government to develop functioning democracies. Some of the countries in Eastern Europe did, others didn’t, after the fall of the Soviet Union. It’s worth asking why what we would view as normal politics succeeded in some of these places and failed in others. And there’s no point in denying the manifest reality that it has almost completely failed to develop in the Arab countries.
pseudonymous, apparently your view is that living under occupation completely negates Palestinian agency. Obviously the Israelis haven’t offered a deal to the Palestinians that’s to their liking yet. They don’t need to take a deal they don’t like. But then the point is that pressuring Israel in the meantime is simply a partisan effort to get a better deal for them. Since I think the deal that everyone understands is pretty much the only deal Israel can live with — demilitarized Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza, with guarantees such as US or joint patrols on borders to ensure demilitarization, incorporation of close in settlements into Israel proper with border adjustment elsewhere in compensation, Jerusalem cut up like Swiss cheese, no right of Palestinian refugees from 1948 or their descendents to live in Israel, monetary compensation to same — that strikes me as simply anti-Israel. Which is also your right, or Yglesias’s, except that he dresses it up in the assertion (whether this is disingenous or just a defense mechanism I cannot say) that he is actually trying to help Israel.
October 19th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Israel’s democratic status
Israel is not a democratic state, it’s a Zionist state, officially it is. Zionism (today) is a distinct political movement, all Zionist parties are segments of one Zionist party. They brought in millions of Zionists from all over the world, and expelled millions of indigenous people. That’s exactly the problem: Zionist ideologues getting together and usurping power over a territory where they don’t belong, where other people live. It’s a travesty; no one in the right mind can confuse this with a democracy.
October 19th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
apparently your view is that living under occupation completely negates Palestinian agency.
Apparently your view is that Israel being Israel completely negates Israeli agency as an occupying power. In the meantime, you can go on burying your head in the sand, disingenuously whining about agency and culpability, and deluding yourself that the drift towards a de facto apartheid state is in Israel’s best long-term interests.
October 19th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
…is also a deal that Israel has never offered, and (it seems more and more likely) never, ever will.
October 19th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Here’s a topic for debate: Has immigration to Israel has changed the domestic political climate there?
Specifically, I wonder if the influx of Jews from the former Soviet Union changed the character of the state.
It seems that Israeli society has shifted over the last 25 years from valuing democracy, egalitarianism, and human rights, to placing more emphasis on strength, force, and life-or-death struggle.
Has some of the authoritarian political character of the USSR been transmitted to post-Cold War Israel?
October 19th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Current trends seem to suggest that the future of Israel will be that of a binational state. While this is not something most Israelis want, even many conservatives Israelis have concluded it may be inevitable.
http://watching-history.blogspot.com/2009/10/israel.html
October 19th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
42:
Because it’s unenforceable. No one now can prevent the Israelis from evicting Arabs from their homes, how could any civil rights be enforced if the one-state government decided to discriminate?
October 19th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
potsherd, we have a multiculural society here in Canada that, for the most part, protects everyone’s rights fairly well. I don’t see why the same isn’t possible in Israel.
October 19th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Has some of the authoritarian political character of the USSR been transmitted to post-Cold War Israel?
It’s been discussed here before in the context of Yisrael Beitenyu and its supporters’ penchant for pork products and secular ultra-nationalism. As I mentioned in that thread, it’s ironic that you hear so much wittering from certain blogs about the ‘dhimmification’ of European countries by Muslims, when a relatively small amount of immigration to Israel from the former USSR has had such a significant impact on its political character.
The question for someone like larry birnbaum is whether neo-apartheid is ideologically compatible with the long standing Zionist sympathies, or whether the tacit creation of Arab bantustans is something that requires support because Israel is doing it. The answer, I suspect, is a third way: to pretend that it isn’t happening.
October 19th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
how could any civil rights be enforced if the one-state government decided to discriminate?
The same way we deal with that problem everywhere else.
October 19th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
pseudonymous in nc, the “pretend that it isn’t happening” option leads, inevitably, to my prediction of a binational state.
October 19th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
By all means, let’s discuss Israeli agency, Israeli politics, Israeli ethics, the IDF, and whatever else you like. However let’s also discuss Arab agency, Arab politics, Arab ethics, and Arab military forces. Context matters.
October 19th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
No, larry, you don’t get to play those reindeer games.
You can pretend not to support the creation of a bantustan West Bank consisting of walled Palestinian ghettos while it’s happening, but if that’s what comes about, are you going to wave your pom-poms for it?
October 20th, 2009 at 7:53 am
Would you mind not insulting me while I’m trying to carry on a conversation with you? I understand that this is a medium that encourages typing out our immediate reactions and sending them into the ether. And the other person isn’t present so one feels free to let go with whatever zingers come to mind. But it undercuts the point of having a conversation in the first place.