SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home That All-powerful "lobby" You Hear So Much About

THE PLANK JUNE 5, 2008

That All-powerful "lobby" You Hear So Much About

BY JAMES KIRCHICK

Sderot, population 23,000, is emblematic of the daily life and death struggle with which Israel has to contend. Over 7,000 rockets have been fired on the city in the years since Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, which the town borders. These attacks mainly come from Hamas, but are of course authored in Damascus and Tehran, which fund the organization committed to Israel's destruction (hey, so much for Sunnis never cooperating with Shia's, right?). I visited Sderot in March*, and met with a woman who works with disabled children. Short drives around town, she said, can turn into hour-long ordeals with alarm sirens giving only 15 second warnings of incoming rockets. What country would put up with ceaseless, unprovoked missile attacks on its people? Can you imagine what the United States government would do if terrorists, finding safe haven in Mexico, launched rockets at retirement homes in southern Arizona?

The persistence of Palestinian aggression against Sderot indicates, once again, that the obstalce to Arab-Israeli peace is not Israeli but Arab intransigence. Sderot does nothing to offend Palestinians except, of course, exist.

David Harris, president of the American Jewish Commitee, records a 60-second weekly radio spot broadcast on stations across the country. He recently devoted one spot to the situation in Sderot, which you can listen to here. Amazingly, WQXR, a classical music station owned by the New York Times, has refused to play the advertisement, even though it has played AJC ads in the past.

The station's manager, apparently attempting to imitate his contemporaries at NPR, wrote to Harris informing him that WQXR would not air the advertisement because it might be construed as “misleading, at least to the degree that reasonable people might be troubled by the absence of any acknowledgement of reciprocal Israeli military actions.” So it's "misleading" to condemn terrorist attacks on innocent people unless one simultaneously acknowledges -- and thus equates -- Israeli self-defense? "Reasonable people" are not "troubled" by the "absence" of this comparison. Moral idiots are.

The New York Sun observed in an April editorial:

When Poland, on whose soil so many millions of Jews perished in the Holocaust, canceled a talk that was to be held at its consulate in New York by a professor named Anthony Judt, who feels the creation of the Jewish state was a mistake, the politically correct intelligentsia voiced angry protests. We'll see whether Stephen Walt, John Mearsheimer, and Mr. Judt and their ilk protest the refusal of the New York Times to air the ad on Sderot. 

We're told, endlessly, by the likes of Walt and Mearsheimer, Jimmy Carter, Eric Alterman, Matt Yglesias, J Street, etcetera and ad nauseum, that it's impossible to have an "honest debate" about the Arab-Israeli conflict in this country. These profiles in courage don't know how right they are.

* This visit was part of a trip facilitated by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

--James Kirchick

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 80 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

80 comments

Jackboots - $27

Brown Shirt - $43

James Kirchick - Priceless

- ndmackenzie

June 5, 2008 at 8:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ndmackenzie  gives us the Nazi point of view on Israel.

- jacksondyer

June 5, 2008 at 8:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I see James Kirchick has managed to lick a worm out of Marty's ass.

- ndmackenzie

June 5, 2008 at 9:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Minor correction:

WQXR is not an NPR affiliate. It is a commercial radio station, with a classical music format, owned (like you said) by the NY Times.

- nathanirwin

June 5, 2008 at 9:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If you wonder how mackenzie would know the price of Jackboots and Brown Shirts?  

He has been shopping for them at his neighborhood Aryan general store.

- jacksondyer

June 5, 2008 at 9:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I see James Kirchick has managed to lick a worm out of Marty's ass."

ndmackenzie why don't go fuck yourself you bigoted piece of shit.

- jacksondyer

June 5, 2008 at 9:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The containment field has failed!  The Spine is lose!  Run for your lives!

- ratnerstar

June 5, 2008 at 9:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Meh.  Typical Kirchick.  Is the situation in Sderot bad?  Of course.  But he fails to tell us much about the situation, beyond assuring us that these rocket attacks all originate in Damascus and Tehran (Got prove on that, sparky?).  He further says that the station won't air the ad on Sderot, but doesn't provide us with the text of the ad, a clip of the ad, anything except it's about Sderot and by a guy who usually has an ad.  If you want to make the case for why this is stupid, these are basic things!  However, in typical Kirchick fashion, he'd rather sarcastically mock Jimmy Carter and other people he doesn't like than make his point.  Can we somehow get rid of this fellow from TNR?  Replace him with a decent, rational, sensible pro-Israeli voice?

PS: Why shouldn't Tony Judt speak if he thinks the creation of of Israel was a mistake?  He's a very good historian of Europe since World War II (Indeed, his book Postwar is a tremendous, highly informative read).  Debates on the past are good, and Israel's 60 years old: It's founding is in the history books.  

- Crock1701

June 5, 2008 at 9:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well why would America want anything to do with Palestine with regard to trade?  We have enough rubble as it is, and we can supply our own C4, thank you very much.  Israel is a center of science, and has offered to the globe contributions from software to agricultural-sustaining technology for desert conditions.  I accept that there is a lunatic fringe in Israel as much as there is one here or anywhere else in the world, but no other country is subject to this bulls$%# "honest conversation" trope.  

"... an honest conversation about Thailand..."

"... an honest conversation about India..."

"... an hoenst conversation about Nigeria..."

Do those statements not sound insane?  "An honest conversation about Israel is not possible in this country" is the same damn thing as saying "there are too many Jews that are allowed to care about their values and have them be known in this country".  

- dylanposer

June 5, 2008 at 9:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well why would America want anything to do with Palestine with regard to trade?  We have enough rubble as it is, and we can supply our own C4, thank you very much.  Israel is a center of science, and has offered to the globe contributions from software to agricultural-sustaining technology for desert conditions.  I accept that there is a lunatic fringe in Israel as much as there is one here or anywhere else in the world, but no other country is subject to this bulls$%# "honest conversation" trope.  

"... an honest conversation about Thailand..."

"... an honest conversation about India..."

"... an hoenst conversation about Nigeria..."

Do those statements not sound insane?  "An honest conversation about Israel is not possible in this country" is the same damn thing as saying "there are too many Jews that are allowed to care about their values and have them be known in this country".  

- dylanposer

June 5, 2008 at 9:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I meant, of course, that The Spine is "loose," not "lose."  But on second thought....

- ratnerstar

June 5, 2008 at 9:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rat, how else do you think we ended up with Kirchick?

- Crock1701

June 5, 2008 at 9:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As of this writing:

# of Plank posts today: 8

# about Hillary: 4

# not about Hillary written by infrequent poster James:Kirchick 2

Just saying...

- Lymon1

June 5, 2008 at 9:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This morning (Thursday -- The date and time markers on TNR

seem to be Greenwich), on NPR, the reporter called AIPAC

"the American-Israeli lobby". That's better than the "American Israel"

in AIPAC's name, for expressing NPR's apparent feelings, in a steady ooze.

WQXR maybe taking this kind of thing as a new kind of classical music.

- yerubal

June 5, 2008 at 9:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

" PS: Why shouldn't Tony Judt speak if he thinks the creation of of Israel was a mistake?  He's a very good historian of Europe since World War II (Indeed, his book Postwar is a tremendous, highly informative read).  Debates on the past are good, and Israel's 60 years old: It's founding is in the history books."  

What a crock, Crock!

How is the fact that Judt is a "good historian" about Europe relevant to his views on Israel?

Why shouldn't Richard Herrnstein speak about Black intelligence. He is a very good scientist.

The same  with James Watson who won the Nobel prize in biology.

Just because someone writes an interesting book doesn't make him an expert on morality and certainly not on Jewish history.

Besides Judt is a self righteous prick.

As to Syria and Iran  being behind Hamas that's common knowledge. Look it up.

- jacksondyer

June 5, 2008 at 9:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ratnerstar said:  "The containment field has failed!  The Spine is lose!  Run for your lives!"

hey ratner you have had too good here all by yourself.

try countering mackenzie's bigoted nonsense instead of whining about it. Or are you on the same page as mackenzie about Israel and Kirchik?

- jacksondyer

June 5, 2008 at 9:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ratnerstar said: "I meant, of course, that The Spine is "loose," not "lose.""

That's ok, no one cares what you meant, ratner.

- jacksondyer

June 5, 2008 at 9:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Crock "But he fails to tell us much about the situation, beyond assuring us that these rocket attacks all originate in Damascus and Tehran (Got prove on that, sparky?)."

Would you like a bomb in your house? Would you feel better if it came from Hamas than from Iran?

But I agree with you on the founding side. I also think that the founding and the very right to exist of the United States or of Britain or of any other country, is matter of legitimate debate. Here's my Eastern Europe Jew perspective: I want Israel to exist because I trust no one - and I mean no one- else but the Jews with the security of the Jewish people.

Old people in my hometown had numbers tattooed. Their family had usuaslly gone in flames. Where was the world when that happened? Oh, we know very well. The US and British planes did not bomb Auschwitz even as they destroyed the rubber factory two miles nearby. That is what the world has in store for Jews. 66% of European Jews were murdered. Of those who fell under Nazi, 80% were murdered. Look around you when you are with four friends or family - and imagine of them transfomed into smoke and black soot. And Tony Judt would have me trust the world with my security?!

Tony Judt may say whatever he wants and go to hell as far as I'm concerned, in the same section with Noam Chomsky and Trotzky.

- sleepyavl

June 5, 2008 at 9:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

 As for Iran being behind Hamas this is no secret to anyone except the lazy and morally lax Crock:

"Iran's Khamenei calls on Islamic govts to support Hamas"

asia.news.yahoo.com/.../2g4qr.html

Tell the truth Crock you just don't like Kirchik pointing out that your friends in Gaza are part of the Iranian war machine.

- jacksondyer

June 5, 2008 at 9:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If the security of Israel depended upon the skills of men like Jamie Kirchik and jacksondyer, she'd have not a friend, ally, or prayer in the world.

Fortunately, it does not.

- jfelliott

June 5, 2008 at 9:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jackson, Nazi ndmackenzie is back.

Hey you Nazi shit, aren't you supposed to with your activist pals? How's Leeds? Hanging with your bomber pals?

- sleepyavl

June 5, 2008 at 9:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Or are you on the same page as mackenzie about Israel and Kirchik?"

Shorter jacksondyer: "You are an anti-Semite because I say you are."

- jfelliott

June 5, 2008 at 9:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dylanposer, Crock is just mackenzie with a different sign up name.  Two Jew hating bigots who dwell in a single pod.

- jacksondyer

June 5, 2008 at 9:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Shorter jacksondyer: "You are an anti-Semite because I say you are.""  Fellatioelliot

Wrong, he is a bigot because he uses antisemitic language. You of course are not a bigot, you just stick up for some bigots because of a concern for "freedom of speech."

- jacksondyer

June 5, 2008 at 9:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I basically agree with Crock1701. Is it that hard to quote the radio spot and then explain why it shouldn't be considered controversial? And what is with that weird list - "Walt and Mearsheimer, Jimmy Carter, Eric Alterman, Matt Yglesias, J Street" - and the sarcastic quotation marks around "honest debate?" There's a pretty wide gap between Carter, Yglesias, Anthony Judt, terrorism in the Middle East, and the Polish death camps; yet here they are, all bunched up in a sloppy post with dark accusations directed at no one in particular.

- alittleblackegg

June 5, 2008 at 9:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

blackegg,

I don't understand the term "honest debate".  Here we are talking about the issue... I imagine we're all being honest.  Maybe not totally not being disingenuous (how's *that* for a Minnesota triple negative?!?!), e.g. accusations of nazism from both sides, but, um... them emotions wreak of honesty.  

- dylanposer

June 5, 2008 at 10:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow, Jackson's a little testy.  And he ignored the substance of my post: As usual, it's lazy Kirchick posting.  He makes broad assertions with little or no backup.  It's nice you do his research for him.  It'd be better if he did it himself and shared it with the rest of us.

As for Judt: Zionism and Israel's existence do have their roots in European History.  Judt's writings, especially on the aftermath of the holocaust in Germany and elsewhere following World War II, very much help make him relevent.  

Jackson: I don't have friends in Gaza: I do have friends in Israel, and very much care for them and their safety, and are concerned about them. Maybe you should, i dunno, simmer before accusing me of being some sort of great sympathizer for Hamas or Hezbollah.

- Crock1701

June 5, 2008 at 11:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is presumably the kind of thought the New York Sun used to justify its hideous association of Tony Judt with the Holocaust:

-- The problem with Israel, in short, is not—as is sometimes suggested—that it is a European "enclave" in the Arab world; but rather that it arrived too late. It has imported a characteristically late-nineteenth-century separatist project into a world that has moved on, a world of individual rights, open frontiers, and international law. The very idea of a "Jewish state"—a state in which Jews and the Jewish religion have exclusive privileges from which non-Jewish citizens are forever excluded—is rooted in another time and place. Israel, in short, is an anachronism.

-- In one vital attribute, however, Israel is quite different from previous insecure, defensive microstates born of imperial collapse: it is a democracy. Hence its present dilemma. Thanks to its occupation of the lands conquered in 1967, Israel today faces three unattractive choices. It can dismantle the Jewish settlements in the territories, return to the 1967 state borders within which Jews constitute a clear majority, and thus remain both a Jewish state and a democracy, albeit one with a constitutionally anomalous community of second-class Arab citizens.

-- Alternatively, Israel can continue to occupy "Samaria," "Judea," and Gaza, whose Arab population—added to that of present-day Israel—will become the demographic majority within five to eight years: in which case Israel will be either a Jewish state (with an ever-larger majority of unenfranchised non-Jews) or it will be a democracy. But logically it cannot be both.

-- Or else Israel can keep control of the Occupied Territories but get rid of the overwhelming majority of the Arab population: either by forcible expulsion or else by starving them of land and livelihood, leaving them no option but to go into exile. In this way Israel could indeed remain both Jewish and at least formally democratic: but at the cost of becoming the first modern democracy to conduct full-scale ethnic cleansing as a state project, something which would condemn Israel forever to the status of an outlaw state, an international pariah.

www.nybooks.com/.../16671

- ndmackenzie

June 5, 2008 at 11:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jackson.

1) I am clearly NOT ndmckenzie.  Maybe if you ventured into the rest of The Plank and the Stump, perhaps you'd get to know me better.

2) How am I possibly an anti-semite?  Quite frankly, that hurts.  It hurts because one of my best friends in the world is Jewish, and indeed, is getting married next week in Israel.  One of my best friends was my freshman year roommate, also Jewish. When I was in the Boy Scouts, my Scoutmaster, and many of my fellow scouts, were Jewish. In my life, and in my activities, I have enjoyed the deep true friendship of countless Jewish people, having fun, and working along side them.  I am not exaggerating when I say that some of the best friends I have ever had, from childhood to adulthood, have been Jewish.  To call me an anti-semite betrays a shallow ignorance that is deeply disappointing, because it sticks a knife into my life, my whole, my very self.  I sincerely hope that a few comments on The New Republic should never be enough to convince you that someone is a bigot, a homophobe, a racist, or an anti-semite,

- Crock1701

June 5, 2008 at 11:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Funniest (wisest) comment on the thread

ratnerstar - The containment field has failed!

- ndmackenzie

June 5, 2008 at 11:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Fortunately, neil (mckenzie that is), there are some other options.

And I have to say that Israel is no more an anachronism than any other state with an ethnic minority, particularly one that is in the majority in vast swaths of the globe.  I don't suppose that you would have supported the Nazi project of absorbing any territory with ethnic Germans in it, would you, merely on the grounds that political borders ought perfectly to conform to the distribution of ethnic populations?  Would you?

But maybe you were just quoting without approval.

- roidubouloi

June 5, 2008 at 11:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

By the way neil, under absolutely no interpretation of international law were the 1948 armistice lines borders as your post, by reference, describes them.  They were armistice lines that were clearly understood at the time to be temporary, subject to the negotiation of permanent boundaries.  And why exactly did that negotiation never take place?

I must say, I rather enjoy these slugfests between you and jackson (with the Boy Wonder, sleepy, at his side) because the intellectual content from both sides is in such perfect equipoise.

- roidubouloi

June 5, 2008 at 11:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It's nice you do his research for him.  It'd be better if he did it himself and shared it with the rest of us."  Crock

Kirchik assumes you are a grown up and have some background.  Does he have to tell you that he is not wet if he writes "the sun is shining today?"

"As for Judt: Zionism and Israel's existence do have their roots in European History.  Judt's writings, especially on the aftermath of the holocaust in Germany and elsewhere following World War II, very much help make him relevent."

Zionism does not have it's roots in European history. It has it's roots in Jewish history. Jews in Europe and Jews in the Muslim world and elsewhere have been praying for a returning to Zion since the destruction of the second temple by the Romans.

You obviosuly know nothing about Jewish history.

Judt is a fashionable bigot who likes to play with politically correct antizionists and outright antisemites.

Why don't you demand the same kind of documentation from Judt's work that you do from Kirchik. Judt makes assertions that are not justified any historical evidence.  His books on European history may or may not be good.

I started reading one of his books and it seemed to me that here too he was giving short shrift to historical dare that didn't fit his notions about post nationalism.

He is a tendentious writer with a thesis and doesn’t like Zionism because it spoils his thesis that nationalism is an evil that we should away with. He is ready to expose millions of Jews to an uncertain fate to justify his own academic standing.

- jacksondyer

June 5, 2008 at 11:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Funniest (wisest) comment on the thread  ratnerstar - The containment field has failed! " mackenzie

that was directed at you Jew hater!

- jacksondyer

June 5, 2008 at 11:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dylanposer: I agree, "honest debate" is a weak phrase, and I don't like the "honest" half of it all, since I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. My problem with Kirchick's post is the other half - he isn't an effective debater. Do "Walt and Mearsheimer, Jimmy Carter, Eric Alterman, Matt Yglesias, [and] J Street" really have all that much in common? Are they ALL supposed to be politically correct Nazi / Hamas enablers? I read Matt's blog and I never got that impression. How come Kirchick didn't supply us with the content of the radio spot he's defending?

I'm very much a pro-Israel person. I just think James isn't helping the cause with his muddled arguments and over-simplification.

- alittleblackegg

June 5, 2008 at 11:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So mackenzie has found a 2003 article by Tony Judt which even he has already dishonest claiming that he didn't mean to say what he said.

Judt's either/or in his article are ludicrous and have been proven wrong by subsequent events.

For example:  "Alternatively, Israel can continue to occupy "Samaria," "Judea," and Gaza,..."

yea right, Israel is occupying Gaza. They are also firing rockets at themselves.

Judt is an asshole who would rather make common cause with antisemites than Jews.

He has recently said that if you are critical of Israel it is inevitable that you will be sitting down with antisemites.

I hope he can swallow his next bullshit dinner with David Duke.

- jacksondyer

June 5, 2008 at 11:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi - "there are some other options."

Well, tell us what they are. Although your use of "some" indicates you don't think there are too many other options.

- ndmackenzie

June 5, 2008 at 11:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Crock1701,  I didn't say that you were mackenzie merely that your post and his were equally anti Israel.

If you don't want to be thought of as an ignorant bigot you should do some reading on Jewish history and not accept everything Tony Judt says.

- jacksondyer

June 5, 2008 at 11:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"My problem with Kirchick's post is the other half - he isn't an effective debater. Do "Walt and Mearsheimer, Jimmy Carter, Eric Alterman, Matt Yglesias, [and] J Street" really have all that much in common?"

This is the only legitimate criticism of Kirchik article posted here thus far.

It's a fair question and I am sure that Kirchick could answer it.

All the above people mentioned do have a tendency to see some enormous Jewish lobby at work keeping people like them from expressing their thoughts on Israel.

This has become a standard trope in ant Zionist circles. Never mind that these gush never shut up and seem to get published everywhere. While the Israeli point of view is too often given short shrift by publications like the NY Times.

This too was Kirchik's main point.

- jacksondyer

June 6, 2008 at 12:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi, enjoy your one sided conversation with "I am not an antisemite" mackenzie.

- jacksondyer

June 6, 2008 at 12:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To start with, neil, there is no logical or legal necessity for Israel to withdraw to the 1948 armistice lines that you like to refer to as the 1967 borders.  Once you get past that point, there are a lot of places to put a border that would not require expelling any Arabs from any place, would allow Israel to interdict illicit arms, would not put Israel in jeopardy demographically as a Jewish state, and would also allow Jews who now live in the West Bank to remain there.  Or do you believe that there is some rule that says that while there can be a Muslim minority in a Jewish state there cannot be any Jewish minority in an Arab state, that anything Arab must be Judenrein?

Of course, all these possibilities are ignored by you, and Judt, in order to make the option that you prefer, withdrawal to the lines as they stood before the Six Day War and the expulsion of all Jews from east of that line, seem inevitable.  But, it isn't.  Now, isn't that vexing?

Or, perhaps you like ethnic cleansing and would like to recommend that all Arab citizens of Israel be expelled to the east as all Jewish residents of the West Bank, an area that had always had Jewish residents continuously for thousands of years prior to 1948, are expelled to the west.  Would you, neil?   If you think that any Jewish minority in a Palestinian state is unacceptable, and the willingness of a Palestinian state to deal with a Jewish minority ought not be the sine qua non of peace, then I assume that a Jewish state cleansed of Arabs would be just fine with you.  No?

And, by the way, if the concept of a Jewish state is an anachronism, how is it that the concept of an Arab state, many Arab states, that do not tolerate religious minorities of any kind and kill citizens who choose to leave Islam is not an anachronism?  Or is it?  Are you suggesting, neil, that the world, in the 21st century, ought to create an anachronistic Palestinian state?

It always pretty much comes down to the same thing neil.  Your arguments on behalf of justice sometimes appear to have merit until you are asked whether the Jews are entitled to the same justice you insist upon for everyone else, Moslems in particular.  And the answer always comes out no, or, more typically, you become evasive or fall silent.  Conversely, when asked your opinion about injustices committed by other states, including Arab states, against ethnic minorities, you also become evasive or fall silent.  Your grievances are only with the Jews who, by your lights, must accord others a measure of justice that you demand of no one else and certainly will not grant to the Jews themselves.

There is a name for this phenomenon, neil.  You know what it is.

- roidubouloi

June 6, 2008 at 12:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank goodness, Jamie, for once I can track with your writing, and agree with you, too.

- tomeg

June 6, 2008 at 1:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

BlackEgg,

I agree, Matt is usually very articulate on most matters, so I don't know why he gets tossed in with the Meirscheimer/Walt/Hamas grouping.  I too have family in Israel so I don't see eye to eye with him when the policies he suggests leave Israelis susceptible to maiming, but I think Matt's another case of a bright blogger cast as the "Far-Left Liberal".

- dylanposer

June 6, 2008 at 1:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Kirchick is absolutely correct of course, but maybe he would win more arguments if he took a less Peretz-ian tone.

- marcellusw101

June 6, 2008 at 9:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I...eh...no, no it's Friday. Peace and Love to everyone.

Wrong thread, I know but did anyone see the Dow tank after that unemployment spike? Lot's more downside to come folks, lots. Anyway, sorry for interupting - Jack, Sleepy, you were saying f*cking assh*le piece of sh*t Jew hating bomb loving terrorist supporting...something or other.

- The Ignorant Populist

June 6, 2008 at 11:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Fellatioelliot"

Ooo, so now not only is someone an anti-Semite because they disagree with you, you're a fricking homophobe on a gay Jew's own post.

You're a real schmuck, jacksondyer.

- jfelliott

June 6, 2008 at 12:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi writes:

-- there is no logical or legal necessity for Israel to withdraw to the 1948 armistice lines that you like to refer to as the 1967 borders.  Once you get past that point, there are a lot of places to put a border that would not require expelling any Arabs from any place, would allow Israel to interdict illicit arms, would not put Israel in jeopardy demographically as a Jewish state, and would also allow Jews who now live in the West Bank to remain there.

... and where does the pony live?

- ndmackenzie

June 6, 2008 at 12:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The pony lives with you, neil.  With you.

As predicted, you become evasive as soon as alternatives that you do not want to acknowledge are mooted.  

- roidubouloi

June 6, 2008 at 1:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid: Oh my God. Roid. Is. Right. For. Once.

- liberal reformer

June 6, 2008 at 1:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Far from being evasive, roidubouloi, I pointed out, somewhat economically, that your "solution" was a wish not a solution. They are all worthy goals but they are not in themselves a solution.

The solution favored by most people, including myself, is two states with minor mutually agreed upon modifications to the 1967 border. The point Judt makes, and it is a point gaining credence and acceptance, is that there will come a time when the two-state solution is made impractical by demographic realities. Israelis may believe they are being smart and cunning in avoiding a permanent solution to the Palestinian problem but they are wrong. Judt is absolutely correct in his assessment of the possible futures for Israel. The appropriate behavior for someone who does not like these futures is not to attack Judt but to strive to change the realities and create alternate futures.

Israelis would do well to pay attention to the fate of the once dominant Protestant ascendancy in Ireland. An English domination of that island that started five hundred years ago is finally drawing to a close. Our lives may be short but our memories are long.

- ndmackenzie

June 6, 2008 at 1:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Eric Alterman writes today:

-- (P.S. Walt and Mearsheimer, Jimmy Carter, Eric Alterman, Matt Yglesias, J Street, etc., will be meeting for baba ghanoush, hash brownies, and baksheesh payments over at Sammy the Saudi's house at 7:00. See ya there...)

He also links to John Stewart's filleting of the various Presidential aspirants speeches at AIPAC.

www.thedailyshow.com/.../index.jhtml

- ndmackenzie

June 6, 2008 at 2:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Judt was not making the point that a two-state solution will become impractical for demographic reasons.  He was sort of making the point that a one-state solution is impractical for demographic reasons absent either a perpetual apartheid or expulsion.

Most people do agree with that.  I do.  But that doesn't tell you anything about where the border can, must, or should be.  That is a political question, not one that is much determined by demographics unless Israel wanted to incorporate major Palestinian population centers which, other than a few fanatics, it doesn't.

Beyond that, however, Judt is making the claim that Israel is fundamentally illegitimate, an "anachronism." Why this nation state is more an anachronism that the 120 other odd such states that cover the whole globe is unclear, but, once Judt has made that point, there is really no reason to pay attention to anything else he says, ever, whether he is a competent historian or not.  Likewise the people who applaud him for it.  Because once someone has declared to you their belief that your existence is illegitimate, what is there to discuss?  If you agree, then you commit suicide.  If you don't agree, why should you entertain anything else the person wants to say?  Even if there were merit to some piece of it, there is no reason to hold the discussion with that particular individual.  There will be plenty of other sane, well-meaning people with which to explore any useful idea.

Isrealis don't think they are "being smart" to avoid a solution.  They are just not willing to entrust their security to people who continue loudly to declare that their ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel while engaging in continuing violence to that end.  The problem, neil, is that you want Isrealis to be both stupid and suicidal while you ask, or at least expect, nothing of the Palestinians by way of preparation for a peaceful resolution.  But the Israelis are neither stupid nor suicidal.  Your pony is just a wish, neil, until the Palestinians foreswear violence and make some visible effort to build a viable civil, non-violent polity.  Until then, there is no one with whom Israel can make a viable agreement.  Even the Israeli left has come, reluctantly, to share that view.

While the English may no longer dominate Ireland, I don't see them going out of business in England.  Do you?  Nor do I hear the Irish calling for the destruction of England or, if you take Ireland as a whole, even for its unification.  Maybe the Palestinians would do well to pay attention to that example.  Ireland is not only free and democratic, but increasingly prosperous because it is not mired in revanchist fantasies and those who are are being ignored and left behind.  It is precisely when Ireland got off the Palestinian path of terror and revenge and devotion to myth that it finally began to have a future.  

As well, it is to say the least humorous that you tout memory and history to the Jews.  We wrote one of the first books on the subject, you know, long before the Irish were literate or even Irish.  We have a much longer history as a people than do the Irish, and we will still be here when they are long gone, much to your apparent pain.  Our memories are much, much, much longer indeed.

- roidubouloi

June 6, 2008 at 2:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tony Judt wrote:

-- -- The problem with Israel, in short, is not—as is sometimes suggested—that it is a European "enclave" in the Arab world; but rather that it arrived too late. It has imported a characteristically late-nineteenth-century separatist project into a world that has moved on, a world of individual rights, open frontiers, and international law. The very idea of a "Jewish state"—a state in which Jews and the Jewish religion have exclusive privileges from which non-Jewish citizens are forever excluded—is rooted in another time and place. Israel, in short, is an anachronism.

Judt is absolutely correct. The European colonization of another territory was an anachronism in the 20th century. Almost the entirety of the problem Israel faces today are the result of a wanton and deliberate denial of this anachronism by Israel and its "supporters." There is nothing intrinsically wrong with all anachronisms and I believe the creation of the State of Israel to be fully justified regardless of the fact that its creation was an anachronism.

However, it is almost impossible to solve a problem if you deny its root cause.  And the World has failed both Israel and the Palestinians by its pandering to Israeli denial of this anachronism. The World had a duty to minimize the impact of Israel's creation on the people already living on that land and it failed them - instead standing by uncaring as Israel colonized even more of their land and immiserated the Palestinian people.

The Israeli colonization of the Occupied Palestinian Territories is the worst state-sponsored crime in the Western World since the German occupation of Europe and the horrors consequent to it.  This colonization is an abominable anachronism that has destroyed the morality of Israel and its people. It is an anachronism that should have no place in the civilized world.

In his New York Review of Books article, Judt gave what he saw were the "three unattractive choices" facing Israel: withdrawal from the Occupied Palestinian Territories; continue the occupation and face a demographic anti-democratic nightmare; and take the land, expelling the Palestinians to ensure (Greater) Israel remains a majority Jewish state. And Judt was correct - these are the choices. But there are still far too many people who fail to understand that Israel will be better off making the choices sooner rather than later because in forty years there will not be even three unattractive choices.

- ndmackenzie

June 6, 2008 at 4:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey, roid -- great stuff....

And ndmackenzie:

"The Israeli colonization of the Occupied Palestinian Territories is the worst state-sponsored crime in the Western World since the German occupation of Europe and the horrors consequent to it."  A pretty appalling comment, that. I kept looking at it and that whole 'graf because I couldn't believe that even you would write it.

Were you chuckling, laughing, grinning evilly as you wrote that? Are you really that uninformed about current events, say, since 1930 through yesterday...???? Or, as others here have said, just a plain old antisemite? Or both? That whole 'graf and pretty much all you post on this subject  is willfull and sheer ignorance of current reality and of history.

- LISAH

June 6, 2008 at 4:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Neil, Judt's idea that Israel in particular is an anachronism patent nonsense.  Really and truly stupid.  A Marxist trope.

"The very idea of a "Jewish state"—a state in which Jews and the Jewish religion have exclusive privileges from which non-Jewish citizens are forever excluded—is rooted in another time and place. Israel, in short, is an anachronism."

Every state on the face of the planet gives exclusive privileges to its citizens.  And every state is based on some ethnic core or federation of ethnic cores.  Even the United States which, despite its many contributions from all over the world, is fundamentally a European state in the western hemisphere.  If the Jewish state is anachronistic, then the concept of nation-state is anachronistic, and if the solution to the borders of Israel require that the world first accept the "root cause" that the nation-state is an anachronism, then, quite obviously, we have to wait 1,000 years or more.

The only thing truly and grossly anachronistic is your characterization of Israelis as "colonizing" Occupied Palestinian Territories.  Israel and its people in their land long antedate any idea of Palestine let alone any reality of Palestine.  Your anachronism is as sensible as describing Native Americans as "colonizing" the United States of America.  It is the Europeans who colonized the land of the Native Americans.  It is the Arabs who colonized the land of the Jews, but are still allowed to share it despite having vast other territories available to them while the Jews have only this tiny piece of the globe.

You really have nothing to contribute to anything, be it debate or progress in the world, neil, if you insist on a history so distorted by a polemical view that it bears no relationship at all to reality.

Therefore, the only way to understand Judt is that the very concept of a state with Jews as the ethnic core is somehow anachronistic although the same cannot be said, apparently, of any other state, including those Moslem states that are intolerant of any other religious practice as Israel clearly is not.  Indeed, most of the Moslem states in the world have their origin at the same time and place as Israel, the Treaty of Paris.  Yet the manage to escape being an anachronism.  

This is the essence of anti-semitism, the idea that Jews, uniquely among all the people in the world, suffer from legal and political liabilities, and should suffer from legal and political liabilities, that pertain to no one else.

- roidubouloi

June 6, 2008 at 4:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

LISAH -

You have a phobia for the truth.

- ndmackenzie

June 6, 2008 at 5:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi -

Occupation denial is the Zionist version of holocaust denial.

- ndmackenzie

June 6, 2008 at 5:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, neil, sure, sure.  

While there can be no doubt that the West Bank is currently occupied, as it is neither incorporated into Israel nor politically independent. that is the direct result of aggressive, illegal war waged by the surrounding Arab states against Israel (you do recall that that territory was recognized as part of Jordan, don't you?), it is not a crime by any stretch precisely because it results from aggressive war by Israel's enemies.  Occupation is a recognized legal status although surely one that no one should want to continue for longer than necessary.  You ought to work on China and Tibet for a while, but I somehow doubt you will because they don't engage your energies the way the Jews do.

Settling the final borders between Israel and Palestine other than along, or nearly along, the Green Line an act of occupation.  The authors of the 1948 armistice were quite clear that those lines (which you incorrectly refer to as the 1967 borders) were arbitrary, the result of who happened to be standing where on a given night in 1948, and not intended to be permanent.  It was intended that the parties would negotiate boundaries, but he Arabs refused.  As the Arabs rejected the partition lines by attacking the newly declared state of Israel, the competing claims to Mandatory Palestine, including the claim of the Jews to all of Israel, including Samaria and Judea, the borders remain to be settled.  

If Israel were to incorporate territory without granting citizenship to any inhabitants there, that would be unacceptable.  Otherwise, it can settle the boundaries wherever it finds politically convenient within the territory it claims and over which it currently has sovereignty.  Certainly, politically convenient should include a calculus of what the Arab population would be willing to accept and be reconciled to, and that would require negotiation and agreement.  But, again, that is only a political calculation, not a legal or moral question.  And if the Arabs refuse, as has thus far been the case, to be reconciled to anything, then the only burden on Israel is to see to its own defense and to treat the subject population decently while continuing as the occupying power, or, incorporate territory and accord the inhabitants of the incorporated territory political citizenship.  Not very complicated really.  Only the fantastical claims of reality deniers such as yourself make it so.

Your ideas about occupation, legality, war, nation states are indeed fantastical.  They completely deny the political and legal reality of the world we all live in and plainly have only a single purpose -- to allow you to equate Jews with Nazis.  That, indeed, is the only discernible purpose of your entire intellectual edifice.  It certainly cannot be a desire for justice, either to Arabs or Jews, as you pay no real attention to the claims of either, only to your own insistence on what a settlement should look like.

I have a few ideas about exactly how the Irish should live henceforth.   The failure to adopt them will of course be the equivalent of holocaust denial and the worst crime since Nazism all rolled into one.  I am sure the you and the Irish nation are all waiting to here from me about what they owe to each other and the world.  

- roidubouloi

June 6, 2008 at 6:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi writes:

-- You ought to work on China and Tibet for a while, but I somehow doubt you will because they don't engage your energies the way the Jews do.

I condemn unequivocally the Chinese occupation of Tibet as does every decent American.

I also condemn unequivocally the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories as SHOULD any decent American. Unfortunately, there are several magazines, including this one, and many public intellectuals who openly advocate for the Israel and its occupation of the Palestinian Territories.  By their wanton indifference to the human suffering of the Palestinian people caused by an Israel they claim to support they have allowed bigotry to ruin their intellectual and moral credibility.

The greatest threat to the long-term future of Israel does not come from the Palestinians it comes from American intellectuals who through their advocacy of Israeli colonization of the Palestinian Territories have brought moral ruin on Israel, on the religion it claims to represent and on themselves.

- ndmackenzie

June 6, 2008 at 7:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ndmckenzie writes:  "Israelis would do well to pay attention to the fate of the once dominant Protestant ascendancy in Ireland. An English domination of that island that started five hundred years ago is finally drawing to a close. Our lives may be short but our memories are long."

What exactly are you talking about?  The War of Independence ended in 1921 with the creation of the Irish Free State, becoming the Republic of Ireland in 1949, almost sixty years ago.  The Protestant Ascendency's power had long since crumbled, certainly since the 1880s and perhaps since the Act of Union in 1801.  The Northern Ireland crisis has been going on since the turn of the century, and certainly since 1969, and despite the 1998 Good Friday Agreement is still marked by a demographic impasse, the same demographic impasse between Protestants/Unionists and Catholics/Irish Nationalists that caused partition back in 1921.  However, the real force in Northern Ireland on the Unionist side has been and continues to be the Protestant working class -- the very antithesis of an "Ascendency."

- ironyroad

June 6, 2008 at 7:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad -

I wrote "once dominant." It is pretty much accepted that demographic changes will lead to a united Ireland within a few decades.

- ndmackenzie

June 6, 2008 at 8:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What is a Spine-like thread doing over at the Plank?

- liberal reformer

June 6, 2008 at 8:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, neil, the greatest threat to Israel comes from those who imagine that it is Israel, rather than the Palestinians, that is unwilling to make peace and end the occupation.  Indeed, the strategy of Hamas is to do whatever possible to prevent settlement in the belief that time is on the side of the Palestinians and that, if a settlement can be prevented, they will ultimately have the tools to destroy Israel.  

Had the Palestinians ever evinced any interest in building an economy and a civil society alongside Israel that did not present a threat and would lay the basis for a viable peace treaty, they would have found, and still would find, a viable partner.  But the Palestinians prefer to imitate the doomed strategy of the IRA.

It is extraordinary that you make comparisons between Israel and Ireland yet fail to note that it is only when the IRA abandoned terror as a basis for forcing a settlement that Northern Ireland began to have a future. Indeed, you say that demographic changes will result in a unified island in a matter of decades without violence.  Despite this example, you it never occurs to you that the path to self-government and independence for Palestinians requires that they abandon violence as the means of achieving their political goals.  Nor does it ever occur to you that their violence has been futile and will continue to be futile.

You should consider the morality of urging Palestinians to continue down a path of futile violence.  What does that tell us about your intellectual and moral credibility?  Why do you insist on bringing moral and economic ruin on the Palestinians when that is completely unnecessary?  Why are you so anxious to have them sacrifice their future for your ideology?  That is appalling.

- roidubouloi

June 7, 2008 at 12:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

              at least no one said,"             god gave it to us"

- jmusker54

June 7, 2008 at 4:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's worth mentioning also that the IRA, however one may feel about the ethical or political justification for their armed campaign, was pursuing a goal that at least in theory was a nationalist rather than an ethno-religious goal -- putting it bluntly, there's no equivalent of Hamas on the Catholic/nationalist side in NI.  Generally speaking, parallels between Ireland and Israel-Palestine require a lot of over-simplification and erasure of complexities.  One example of such complexity is the fact that it was Jewish underground groups in the 1940s who first looked to the example of the IRA from 1919-1921 in their struggle against the British Mandate authorities.

- ironyroad

June 7, 2008 at 8:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad -

My intention with raising the issue of Ireland was merely to point out that the conflict there lasted five hundred years. It was not my intention to analogize the strategy and tactics of either side in the conflict - nor indeed to support the strategy and tactics of either side. Indeed, given that the conflict lasted half a millenium I don't think they are worth emulating.

- ndmackenzie

June 7, 2008 at 8:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You raised the issue of Ireland, not me.  My main point was that it's pretty futile to try to draw parallels between the Irish Protestant Ascendency and any party in the current I/P conflict.

- ironyroad

June 7, 2008 at 9:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi - I'm on to you buddy.

"We wrote one of the first books on the subject, you know, long before the Irish were literate or even Irish.  We have a much longer history as a people than do the Irish, and we will still be here when they are long gone, much to your apparent pain.  Our memories are much, much, much longer indeed."

Sounds like "revanchist fantasies" to me Roi, does it not?

- The Ignorant Populist

June 8, 2008 at 6:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nah, lggy, I was merely pointing out how fatuous McKenzie's statements were.

Irony, the Irgun was successfully repudiated by the nascent Jewish state.  Indeed, in the fabled incident of the Altalena, the Palmach used force to do so.

As to your substantive point, Iggy, I distinguish between the unending dream of regaining lost territory and having one small place on the globe to stand.  There is an important difference between something, however small, and nothing at all.  As well, there has never been an Arab polity of  Palestine on the face of the globe.  There was a Jewish state millenia before you and yours leaned how to read and, despite the Diaspora, continued Jewish presence in Israel since well before the rise of Rome.  If the Jews do not have a legitimate claim to their own nation-state in the land of Israel, then no one on earth can make such a claim.  Certainly not you.

If you are going to deploy historical and geographical analogies, try and do it credibly.  An Irishman telling the Jews that the Irish have "long memories" is inane.  Don't pile on to stupidity

- roidubouloi

June 8, 2008 at 10:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi -- perhaps, I'm not an expert, but I was simply trying to point out that there was a dimension to the Palestine struggle in which the Jewish underground rather than the much-later arriving PLO showed certain parallels with the IRA.  I'd also like to underline that -- in case anyone's chronology is fuzzy -- the model was of course the successful War of Independence of 1919-1921, not the modern Northern Irish situation.  Also, the new Irish government found that it had to defeat the section of the IRA that would not accept the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1922 -- perhaps a similar situation to the one you describe in Israel, post-indepdenence.

- ironyroad

June 8, 2008 at 11:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony,

There are many parallels and no doubt some mutual inspiration and actual exchange between elements in Israel and Ireland,   Both of these conflicts, and many others around the world today, have their roots in the flawed diplomacy (chiefly British, with the French co-opted and the Americans sort of refereeing but mostly supporting the Brits) that followed the First World War, much of it coming to full expression after WWII.

The only point I was trying to make is that the terrorist branch of the Jewish struggle was first of all never dominant and that when it became necessary for the proto-government of Israel to put down the terrorists and insist that they subordinate to the regular government and army, they did.  In Northern Ireland, that took eighty years, and is still a work in progress.  In the Republic of Ireland, it happened much earlier which has enabled the Republic to progress faster.  In Palestine, it has yet to happen, and so-celled friends of Palestine, such as ndmckenzie don't want it to.  They would rather encourage it by urging upon the Palestinians their right to continued violence.  They have no such right and cannot expect to realize their aspirations so long as violence is the primary means by which they seek to do so.

Israel has done many things wrong and many that I disapprove of and think were not it its own best interest.  But, the core fact remains that if the Palestinians would foreswear violence and work to build a non-violent civil society and economy, they would find in Israel a deliriously willing partner, anxious to help them build, give them capital and markets, and send them on their independent political way the moment that sufficient stability makes it safe to do so.  But the borders might not be those that mckenzie wants (as if he is in any position to decide let alone arbitrate) and the West Bank may not be purged of Jews as he wants.

- roidubouloi

June 8, 2008 at 1:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The extent of roidubouloi's fantasies demonstrate the poiverty of his argument.

I deplore vioence of any kind be it Palestinian or Israeli. However, the effect of Israeli violence, given the modern nature of its weapons and the its imprimatur, is vastly greater than the effect of Palestinian violence.

Futhermore, the suggestion that I want the West Bank "purged" of Jews is an obscene and outragous lie. I want the war criminals Israel transferred into the Occupied Palestinian Territories indicted for their crimes. They may profess to be Jews but in committing their war crimes they have abandoned their faith and forsworn their (our) God by listening to the siren sounds of Satan. They deserve our contemp - indeed, they deserve more.

As do their supporters and advocates. These advocates create intellectual and moral facade in seeming justification of Greater Israel and the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories.  But this facade, built as it is on  a small smidgin of ancient history and a vast modern myth, is an idol. An idol of the kind God warned Jews (and Christians) against.

The war criminals settled in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are no more Jews listening to a Jewish God than was Hitler a Christian listening to a Christian God. They are idolators who have abandoned the moral tenets of their faith just as they have abandoned the laws of our society. But their claimed faith -  be it Judaism, Christianity or idolatry - has no bearing on the fact that they are war criminals.  And those who support these war criminals show that they too are willing to abandon the God they claim to worship.

- ndmackenzie

June 8, 2008 at 2:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It doesn't take much, neil, does it for your underlying foaming-at-the-mouth race hatred to emerge?  I'm glad you wrote this.  I'm going to save it and reprint it every time you reappear at TNR.  You are able to maintain a facade of rationality for a period of time, but when your vapid and for the most part historically ignorant arguments don't make any headway, you come apart and we all get to see what is really going on.

A disgusting display, I must say.  You really ought to be ashamed to appear in public this way.

- roidubouloi

June 8, 2008 at 3:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, I know about our own history, but admit to my ignorance (see name tag) on Jewish history. I'm not even sure if Zionism is about the Jews as a race, religion or culture. Maybe, someone can help me out on that?

But, that wasn't my point Roi.

I take your argument on historical linkage. You make it well, but you then go onto portray the Palestinians as suffering from "revanchist fantasies". That's one degree of certainty away from miltantism Roi. Can you not see the hypocrisy in that?

Why the zero sum game approach to all arguments on the I/P? Why does every argument in favour of a contiguous, viable Palestine (67, or thereabouts) have to meet with the "end of Israel" speel?

Also, radical Irish Republicanism has more in common, in terms of ideological zeel, with Zionism (Marty style. Sorry, Marty no offence meant.).

I think we were thought that we preceeded those up North by a couple of hundered years, right back to the Norman invasion, "The Flight of The Earls" for the national dream exodus, the similarities are striking to me.

The difference is - we came to our senses (slowly) and realized that flags, symbols and religion don't make a nation, and good States make good neighbours.

It's high time certain strains of Zionism did the same.  

- The Ignorant Populist

June 8, 2008 at 4:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We  even have our own genocide to contend with, but ours was a "famine" for the pedantic out there. If it wasn't for that "economic" failure, the country would be full of Gaelic speakers. I think the promotion of Hebrew and Jewish culture via Israel is a great thing. Speaking of which, how is Hebrew doing? Is it much used outside of Israel? Would your average American or European Jew use it in every day life?

- The Ignorant Populist

June 8, 2008 at 5:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The cliches continue from roidubouloi: "foaming-at-the-mouth race hatred." Pathetic. As I wrote before the extent of his fantasies demonstrate the poverty of his argument.

I believe in the universality of human rights and roidubouloi does not.

I believe that no race should believe itself above another race and roidubouloi does not

I condemn the Israeli colonization of the Palestinian Territories and roudubouloi does not.

I condemn the Israeli subjugation of the Palestinian Territories and roidubouloi does not.

Yet somehow roidubouloi believes that I am somehow at fault. That is almost the definition of chutzpah.

roidubouloi is a morally depraved individual who strews his lies and fantasies across these message boards. Anyone who defends, or otherwise advocates, for the war criminals Israel has transferred to the Occupied Palestinian Territories is a bigot. And if this support is predicated on Israel being a Jewish state then they are also anti-Semitic because in using Judaism to justify morally-depraved human-rights violations they seek to blame all Jews for the crimes of a few. They are truly despicable. And that includes you, roidubouloi.

- ndmackenzie

June 8, 2008 at 6:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As someone who recently graduated college with a BA in the humanities, I cringe when I see the word "colonization." Especially in a sentence like "I condemn the Israeli colonization of the Palestinian Territories." Ugh. Very depressing.

The righteous certainty in mdmackenzie's arguments are way too common in foreign policy debates, but it isn't naked bigotry - we've all seen it before, even in people who really should know better. They're the types who use phrases like "condemn unequivocally" in complex debates involving wealth and poverty, centuries of cultural history, and the murder of innocents. They are so caught up in attacking the dogma of others, they never examine their own - which means they are always on the side of the angels. Politics just isn't that simple, but even with an issue as knotted as this one, there are people on both sides who insist otherwise.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, both Arabs and Jews live this debate everyday, and its not useful to sit in a computer chair on this side of the world and decide who are the "criminals" and who has been "colonized" - as if the reality of thousands of individuals could be shrunk down to the size of those useless words. The Middle East is a complex place - humble yourself a little.

Earlier I criticized James Kirchick for oversimplifying - but mdmackenzie make him look like Isaiah Berlin.

- alittleblackegg

June 8, 2008 at 9:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

alittleblackegg writes:

-- As someone who recently graduated college with a BA in the humanities, I cringe when I see the word "colonization." Especially in a sentence like "I condemn the Israeli colonization of the Palestinian Territories." Ugh. Very depressing.

Whatever. Or is that too Joycean for you? What is truly depressing is there are people who hate the word "colonization" but have no qualms with the act of colonization. And, by the way, before you ascribe quality or disquality to the writing and thoughts of others you might want to ask yourself about the non-sequitur in your first sentence.

- ndmackenzie

June 8, 2008 at 10:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

neil,

You are completely unhinged.  This is normal for anti-Semites (which it is quite apparent at this point includes you). They start out trying to build what sounds vaguely like a rational case appealing to universal values.  Pretty soon, though, the case is so full of holes, so flimsy, that it collapses.  Then all they can do is sputter with rage.  You are now sputtering with rage, neil, because, quite clearly, you cannot sustain the semblance of rational thought and argument for very long.

And you do not "believe in the universality of human rights, neil."  You believe in pointless suffering, loss, and death in the service of rigid, unhuman ideology

- roidubouloi

June 8, 2008 at 10:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Iggy,

There are certain strains of Zionism that resemble the PLO and other less militant strains that you can describe by reference to Peretz with reasonable accuracy.  The point is that they were rejected and continue to be in the minority.  Zionism was not co-opted by its extremists which is why it has been successful.

I am not opposed to a Palestinian state alongside Israel.  I think Israel ultimately has only two legitimate options:  to incorporate territory and its inhabitants and accord them full citizenship and political rights or to let them go their own way.  I do not believe, and have never believed, that "subjugation" is an acceptable state of affairs.

At the same time, I am completely unwilling not to hold the Palestinians responsible for their own behavior.  They are not threatened with extinction by Israel.  Israelis do not run in the streets screaming for Palestinian blood.  And I know, to a certainty, that if the Palestinians were willing to abandon violence, against each other and against Israel, as the medium for their political ambition they would find an Israeli public receptive to encouraging and helping their national aspirations.

That is not the same think as thinking that the ultimate border must be where the Palestinians think it should be.  The Arabs lost the right to fix the border when they repeatedly transgressed them in attempts to destroy Israel.  Nor do I think that it means that the West Bank must be Judenrein.  It was not so before 1948, but the Arabs were so bloodthirsty that no Jews could remain there.  If the condition for peace is a Judenrein Palestine, then it should also be an Arab-free Israel, complete separation both geographically and of the population.  The only problem is that the last thing that Israeli Arabs want is to become Palestinians, even if it is not be moving the population but by transferring to a new state of Palestine sovereignty over the land they live on.

While it is perhaps difficult for you to understand, because the Jews have successfully preserved their identity over thousands of years, there is no possibility of distinguishing the Jewish religion, culture, and nation.  Our nationhood comes from an earlier time when there were no such distinctions because there was no such thing as supra-national religion.  But we are still entitled to our a nation-state, just like the Irish, even though our nationhood is of an older variety.  It is ridiculous to trivialize Zionism as if it were about flags, symbols, and the like.  Ireland has a flag too.  So does every state.  That is not what animates them or gives them coherence.  The meaning and purpose of Zionism is that the Jewish nation should have, and as a matter of justice and right is entitled to, its own state, a peer with every other state, in its own historic homeland, the land of Israel, from which most Jews were ousted and dispersed by the Romans when they destroyed the Jewish state in the first century -- the diaspora.  None-the-less, there has been a continuous Jewish presence in Israel throughout the two millenia of the Christian era.

Israel protects the religious rights of minorities, unlike virtually all of the Arab states that either forbid religious minorities or limit them in harsh ways and accords its Arab Moslem citizens the vote.  There is certainly discrimination in a variety of forms, and that is regrettable to say the least.  But one could rationally expect that discrimination to diminish significantly, and one hopes quickly, if Israel were no longer threatened by surrounding Arabs.

Hebrew is not used as a spoken language outside of Israel except amongst Israelis and their friends and in religious practice.  Jews in most places speak the language of the country they live in.  When they were ghettoized in Europe, they spoke a creole of Hebrew and medieval German called Yiddish.  With the 19th century emancipation of Jews, and the 20th century emigration and Holocaust, Yiddish has been disappearing as an every day language.  It is now used as an every day language only in enclaves of religious Jews of European extraction and amongst elderly Jews from Europe.  My parents, who are second generation Americans, were bi-lingual, speaking Yiddish at home (or speaking English and being spoken to in Yiddish) and English in the street when they were children.  My grandparents who emigrated from Poland around the beginning of the 20th century had Yiddish accents.  My parents had none.  My siblings and I never learned Yiddish as it was only spoken when my parents did not want us to understand what they were saying.  When we would protest they would say, "If we wanted you to understand what we are saying, we would speak English."  I recall assuming as a small child that Yiddish was something you learned as you came to adulthood but was forbidden to children.  Efforts are being made to preserve Yiddish as a spoken language and to preserve its very large literature.  There is a project called the Yiddish Book Center in Amherst, Massachusetts devoted to those purposes.  In southern Europe and north Africa, there was a different creole called Ladino that I know a lot less about, except that little is spoken anywhere today.  There were other such creoles combining elements of Hebrew and local languages in different places, but none nearly as widespread as either Ladino or Yiddish.

- roidubouloi

June 8, 2008 at 11:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close