That may be. I may be working with incomplete information, but I would think the proper response to that (on this baord) would be to fill in the blanks rather than say “you can’t have a valid opinion unless you read a half a dozen books or actually go to Israel and check it out yourself”
I am happy to be educated. So what crucial facts am I missing?
Correct.
A very good review of the data such as it is, with full appreciation of its limitations:
Look the reality is that the reality is complex. Trying to parse reality into cocktail party talking points and GOOD VS EVIL terms is simplistic and in point of fact, harmful.
The issue is how to move forward to create a circumstance that benefits everyone. The current Israeli administration sees the status quo as tolerable and even most Israeli doves have little reason to believe that the current PA can deliver on anything they would promise. This is very unfortunate. Because while it is in Palestinian interest to have a peace accord, and to be able to get to work on building an economy, an educational system, etc., it is also in Israeli best interest that they be able do so as well. Getting the current PA to a point that they CAN deliver requires their being able to show “the street” that they can deliver some goods. Israel needs to move with major good will first. Israel won’t without being pushed some. And Obama, who may realize that that is what it will take, has calculated that he cannot afford to do so in the current political clime.
I don’t know, because I don’t know what you know and don’t know. There are some books I can recommend, if you want. But the thing is, there really isn’t any good way to get educated on the subject besides reading about half a dozen books on the subject or going to Israel to check it out for yourselves. This is a complicated and controversial subject, and I can’t find something that will make you an expert in five minutes.
I’m sorry its another wikipedia entry.
Yeah that’s what they are doing to Palestinians in Israel.
Its possible my memory is flawed but once again Wikipedia seems to identify a lot of recent criticism relative to past criticism.
I’m not saying that criticism of Israel is some thing new and perhaps i shouldn’t have called it a virtual blackout but the criticism in the past seemed muted compared to criticism these days.
cite?
I’m pretty sure it is.
cite?
That’s simply ridiculous. Wikipedia has been an acceptable and reliable cite for the purposes of great debates since I’ve been here. Its pretty weak sauce to say “well thats just wikipedia”
The fact of the matter is that lies do not persist on controversial wikis for very long. There may be omitted facts but I don’t recall seeing persistant incorrect facts on wikipedia, at least not on controversial topics.
Yeah, and what reason is that? I’m sorry but once again it is weak sauce to dismiss claims based on wikipedia cites. dispute and disprove those cites if you want but for the purposes of great debates, wikipedia has been acceptable authority for years.
It may be more thorough and depending on whose books you read it may be more precise but if you don’t want to spend half your life learning about this stuff, I think the reasonable person would say that it does in fact make sense to rely on wikipedia and diplomats.
I could know NOTHING about Israel/palestine but if I can coe up with a cite supporting my position, you can’t dismiss that cite beccause you know more than me. its just the way arguments work.
Once again, wikipedia is considered a credible cite, espcially for controversial topics.
It never ceases to amaze me the energy and vitality of apologists of any brutal regime or occupying force. There are clearly two major rhetorical devices invented by these people.
Every time they are facing indignation from the casual observers and those in the know who are thousands miles away and when pressed with the facts on the ground and with the daily reality of the people suffering two get-out-of-jam cards are pulled.
First one is invoking pseudo-complexity as a method of perpetuating status quo. It goes something like this… you know, you make lot of sense and I acknowledge it but it is much more complex than you might think, not that you are stupid or anything it`s just you have other things to do and you try to solve it quickly which means negating the inherent complexity and on and on until full 180 degrees turn in which you, as a bonus, get accused that your conclusion, always opposite of theirs, is harmful because it is, wait for it… too simplistic. It is the tool of a persistent yet not fully articulate apologist, has nothing to do with debate, facts, logic or arguments but just plain simple ignorance. I’m sure there is some Latin name for this kind of fallacy.
The second one is used in a similar situation, as cop out, when facts and logic clearly point to only one conclusion, which needless to say is, again, opposite of what they would want you to conclude. It is the idea that if you only read something more, on top of what you already read, be it a book, an article, an essay, whatever it is, it assuredly contains stuff that would make you change your conclusion. Because, the cop-out method goes along the lines as… you seem well versed, you show significant knowledge of the subject, you are even congratulated on your interest, but they read much, much more from the sources not available to you, because there is a knowledge available only to them and they are certainly willing to point you in a right direction, they will provide all the resources however, you are warned that to get to the nirvana of the understanding about this conflict that they are at you will need not only years and years of study of new materials but also willingness to subject to mind-blowing truths so you better be open minded, which of course you are. There, another tool that perpetuates status quo.
What’s funny about these tiny minions and pawns of assumed historical determinism is that they are what one would call inside the paradigm so any time you point out to them that they are inside of it they start screaming out of shape.
And next day, while we try to grasp complexities and read yet another book or an article on the subject, people suffer and die.
Well perhaps that is the disconnect. I am willing to spend a few hours reading up on the facts and drawing my own conclusions but I’m not willing to take a graduate course on the subject before I am deemed competant to have an opinion.
I thought the one linked by DSEID was pretty neutral (http://mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm#Modern%20History) but the problem is that everyone has at least a bit of spin. Wikipedia’s adversarial process removes a lot of that spin. So assume that i have read most of the relevant wiki articles … feel free to fill in any blanks.
I also think that conversations I have with diplomats who have undoubtedly studied this issue in significant detail corroborate what i have read on sites like wikipedia gives me at least a little bit of confidence in the general accuracy of those wiki pages.
Now that you’re back to the thread, it’d be nice if you addressed your earlier strange objections to the facts about Abbas suspending negotiations. As well as elaborating where you were going with that derailed train o’ logic.
You mean, in a region where the causes of and resentment caused by issues goes back, at least a century and a half, when multiple political sects, global interests, religious and ideological views, etc… have clashed over a period of a century and a half, each spawning numerous repercussions and unintended consequences… simplistic glosses and solutions will generally miss the point?
The metaphor of cocktail party talking points is actually a very good one. (To say nothing of multiple cocktail parties with multiple unnamed “diplomats”) The situation is complex, in the extreme, like few other conflicts on our planet are. You can spend years reading up on it, experience it first hand, stay up to date on current events, and you’ll still have more to learn. Or you can browse Wikipedia and chat with people at cocktail parties. But, then, being surprised that your understanding is somewhat dilettantish and you’re missing essential facts and context? Not understanding that lacking those facts and context, an overly-simplistic narrative is simply story telling? Well… okay.
So, about your claims regarding Abbas, falsified by something like half a dozen cites about multiple examples which show you’re wrong, and supported by no cites from you, at all…
And if only we could Just Do Something. Because honestly, why worry about acting with uninformed action in one of the most complex and volatile situations on the planet, with nukes?
I am willing to entertain the notion that this situation is more complex than my current understanding allows me to appreciate but I am not willing to accept that it is so complicated that only the people on the Israeli side of the agument can fully grasp the complexity.
Some pro-zionists are not nearly this polite.
I think the fallacy that applies is the either-or one. Either you consider Israel evil incarnate, or you are an Israel apologist.
Yup. I DO use the fallacy of appreciating that real world circumstances are usually a bit more complex than cocktail party talking parts all the time. Actual facts are bound to just confuse people and prevent people from acting on false impressions. Better just shoot now before the bad guy - and it looks at first glance he’s the bad guy, and Joe told me he was - gets away. No need to actually find out what is really going on. Reality. Bah. Who needs it?
Yup, my posting history is solid evidence of a knee jerk Israel apologist. Trying to dispel the myths that come from both sides, myths that “the casual observer” may accept as “truth”, myths which contribute to entrenching positions and which make reasonable compromises that are in BOTH sides better long term interests harder to achieve, is a “rhetorical device.”
Except of course that virtually every “apologist” here agrees that Bibi and company are not doing the right things … Oh, but we don’t jump on board with the mantra that Israel is EVIL, the bastards, so we are “apologists.” Because of course it isn’t really a complex subject, it is just “pseudocomplex”: in reality it IS the Rebel Alliance vs The Death Star.
Sigh.
I maintain as I have maintained for years. Each side needs to get past spending energy demonizing the other, no matter how much each side feels such demonization is justified. Both sides would benefit for a peace accord that can work and from cooperation in future developments. It would take years to get there under the best of circumstances. Most on both sides know more or less what could work and know that some of the hot button issues are of symbolic value but other than that really don’t matter much. Control over water resources, splitting tax revenues, joint development projects, providing mutual security … these things matter. But getting to a point that those things can be hammered out seems to be blocked.
Yes default of 1967 armistice lines with swaps around it is the basic model. The nature of those swaps is part of the tricky part. Until trust is proven Israel will need to be able to continue to have a back up in which they can provide security for themselves if the PA cannot deliver, so the exact border needs to take that into account. But a deal also needs to give the PA a viable country and have enough to show that they have the cred to deliver their side of the deal. The PA’s bargaining position gets weaker and weaker as time goes on; that however is NOT a good outcome for Israel as that makes getting a deal that is acceptable to both sides less likely as Bibi and company feel compelled to press that advantage, and thereby end up with no deal … which is bad for Israel.
This is why, when I’ve made my mind up, I absolutely refuse to learn any more, no matter what anyone says, because it’s a trick by the oppressor.
Really crappy band name!
Well, try to have a bit of empathy. Newcomer figures that the ‘facts’ and ‘logic’ just happen to show that his politics are the correct one, and voicing dissent may indicate trickery or a hidden agenda.
Then some jerk comes along and points out that the things he believes to be factual are fictional, the logic he was using to support his position fails without his premises being true, and he’s got to come up with a reality-based assessment, instead.
I can understand how that might seem wrong.
I’d recommend reading books recommended by people on every “side”. Then make up your own mind.
There are plenty of folks who are not on any identifiable “side”, or whose “side” on particular issues shifts over time and with access to new information.
See for example the battles between the various so-called “new historians” within the ranks of Israeli historians themselves. Is Benny Morris “pro Israeli” or “pro Palestinian” in his analysis of the controversies surrounding the '48 war? He’s accused of both:
It’s not that easy to come up with a really polite rebuttal to what may be paraphrased as ‘no demonstration of the historical facts can deflect me from the essental rightness of my knee-jerk impression - and any attempt to do so just demonstrates you are in the enemy camp’.
It’s about as comprehensive a declaration of closed-mindedness as I’ve ever had the pleasure to read. 
Nothing better illustrates what I am talking about than how this obnoxious attempt at sarcasm is met with full appreciation from certain quarters. I’m sure you couldn’t restrain yourself so you filled the room with a chuckle of self-aggrandizement at how witty you are.
Dude, just in case you follow morality on a planet Mars, be assured that on Earth no amount of books or new information can make keeping people occupied, deposed and in general social chaos for more than half a century somehow seem valid or even understandable.
I don’t think you’re a kneejerk israel apologist but I also don’t think that its as complicated as you say. The fact that there is a lot of misinformation out there doesn’t make it complicated, it just makes it confused. Mythbusting is fine; saying i can’t have a valid opinion unless I read half dozen books or spend time in Israel isn’t.
So perhaps my position isn’t as woefully benighted as some people think?
They can’t help it, they HAVE to drive a hard bargain, if they tried to be fair, their heads would explode! Come on… seriously.
I understand that Israel is in a position to say take it or leave it and they know that the Palestinians are in more desperate straits than they are but this has been the case for decades and it hasn’t gotten them anywhere. I agree taht israel is worse off today because of the conflict. I forget where I read it (wikipedia probably) but I GDP per capita has been estimated to be 40% below where it would be if Israel had accepted a two state solution earlier in their history. The fact that the palestinian GDP is 80 or 90% below seems to be a pretty pyhrric victory.
You have to accept as a first principle that the majority, the overwhelming majority of Palestinians would not take up arms against Israel if they could live in peace and prosperity. The fear seems to be that as soon as they can fill their bellies and put a roof over their heads, every Palestinian is going to devote all their available resoucres to the eradication of the state of Israel. I can’t prove this is not true but it seems unlikely.
I’m a bit confused why so many people are convinced that it’s only members of “the pro-Israeli side” who are knowledgeable about the subject, particularly when the people doing the complaining are, supposedly on the side of the Palestinians.
I’m also a bit surprised that I’m labeled “pro-Israel” because I subscribe to the theory that in order for their to be ethnic cleansing on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip Israel would have to be forcing Palestinians to leave, which they’re not.
I think poor Edward Said would be rolling in his grave if he’d read some of what’s being written on the last two pages and Juan Cole would be far, far less polite than I on the subject considered the spat he got into with Jonah Goldberg a few years ago.
For those unaware, Juan Cole is one of Israel’s strongest defenders who can always be counted on to explain away any criticism of Israel while Jonah Goldberg is a hardcore anti-Zionist who hates Israel and all it stands for.
That said, their spat involved the Iraq War and here is what Cole had to say of his left-wing opponent.
After Goldberg refused to answer Cole’s charge that he had never read a book on Iraq, Cole added
Now, perhaps those on this site who seem to be almost proud of their ignorance on the subject feel we shouldn’t listen to Cole, because he’s an ardent Zionist and should instead listen to Goldberg because he’s a courageous opponent of Israel and all things relating to it but most people tend to feel that you should at the very least read a book on a really complex topic that you are ignorant before shooting your mouth off.
I’m also more than a little surprised because usually it’s those on the “right” in America who are seen as being “anti-intellectual” while those on the left are usually disparaged for the opposite.
Its not a refusal to learn more, its a refusal to go read half a dozen books or visit Israel before I form an opinion about the situation.
What demonstrated historical facts am I missing? There is this constant drone of accusation that I am working with imperfect information and yet noone seems to be able to identify the holes in my knowledge except to say that they must exist because I am anti-Zionist.
Except all those holes that I’ve pointed out, with cites and (freakin’) exhaustive analysis.
But those don’t count.
This is a pretty pathetic to the extreme example of what I was talking about. Nowhere did I claim that zero or no books or information is what I or others go by. It is in fact insulting to even suggest that my position is of an ignorance of those who not only do not read but refuse to read at all.
On top of that, comparing those who disagree with you with the dude who refused to read anything on Iraq you are suggesting that one would go with him only because he is anti-Zionist.
Like we could not figure out for ourselves that war in Iraq is illegal, we needed a light in the tunnel (namely, an anti-Zionist) to align ourselves with.
This is childish - you either cannot comprehend what I am saying or you are purposefully ignoring the point.
I’m not responding to this kind of lowballs anymore.
Speaking of you not responding, care to provide a cite for your earlier claims about Abbas and suspension of the negotiating process or, for that matter, why your point still stands if the facts used to support it were shown to be erroneous?