A righty listens to the “peace movement”* nuts against Israel and reports what they have to say.
Some of these talking points sound really familiar.
I believed some of them about two years ago. :o
*Communists and such are leftists. Sorry.
I’ll refer you to my numerous posts criticizing intransigence on both sides.
It is possible to have a greater sympathy for one side while recognizing that hard-line attitudes in both camps are preventing peace.
Try it sometime. Of course, if one views oneself as a purveyor of the Exclusive Truth™ it may be hard to concede that there is more to the situation than Evil and Good.
When have I ever seen Hamas et al’s suicide bombings as anything other than an obstacle to peace? Neither have I ever potrayed it as good versus evil.
Again I do not view myself as the sole arbitor of truth, but I have done a considerable amount of research on this topic and what I take exception to are ignorant statements from people who have not taken the time to do this.
This is an interesting question.
Historically, the extreme Right also has had a history of anti-Semitism, and would therefore be expected to be anti-Israeli to a much greater degree than the Left. But this is not the case. The Right in America at least is firmly pro-Israel. I expect this to be so for a couple of reasons -
[ul][li]The conservative movement in America disassociated itself from the John Birch society, and other extremist movements, during the 50s. [/li][li]The other reason is World War II, which, to say the least, discredited ultra-right anti-Semitism. I don’t want to get into a hijack about whether Naziism is far-right or far-left. I am saying that insofar as the extreme Right in America identifies itself with fascism, the anti-Semitism associated with that political position has been thoroughly repudiated by mainstream conservatives.[/ul] [/li]I should say that I am not claiming that all anti-Israeli sentiment is entirely motivated by anti-Semitism. But some of it is, and historical events have caused those on the Right who are so motivated to be marginalized.
This has not necessarily been the case on the Left. Much of the Arab world was on the Axis side during WWII, but has not experienced the sort of purges of neo-Nazi sentiment that happened, for example, in West Germany or France.
It would be unfair to say that only extremists are anti-Israel. But it would be somewhat closer to accurate to say that the Right has been more thoroughly purged of those extremists who are anti-Israel because they are anti-Semitic.
Regards,
Shodan
My original post contained an error - a false assertion that you substituted one quote for another. You did not, and I corrected the mistake.
However, you did crop the quote, with the effect of leaving the impression that the bombing of the King David Hotel and the killing of two British Sargents was the work of “some or all of the Jewish military organizations” - by substituting a dash with a period.
Your quote stated as follows:
“There are those who believe that the British evacuated Palestine as a result of the acts of violence committed by some or all of the Jewish military organizations. In particular, the bombing of the King David Hotel (July 1946) and the hanging of the two sergeants (July 1947)”.
The actual quote you were quoting stated as follows:
“The reasons for the British departure are a matter of considerable debate amongst historians. There are those who believe that the British evacuated Palestine as a result of the acts of violence committed by some or all of the Jewish military organizations. In particular, the bombing of the King David Hotel (July 1946) and the hanging of the two sergeants (July 1947) – both perpetrated by the Etzel (Irgun)”
Note the position of the period. In your quote, it is right after (July 1947). In the original, after (July 1947) comes a dash – and then the following information: “both perpetrated by the Etzel (Irgun)”.
Your version of the quote leaves the impression that the two specific acts of violence mentioned were committed by “some or all of the Jewish military organizations”. In the original quote, it is clear that this in not so. They were both committed by Irgun. It is unfortunate that you chose to truncate the quote in the middle of a sentence, thus changing its meaning.
I think that this distinction is important, for the reasons I mentioned. Although I do not believe that your quotation was intentionally misleading I believe you can now see that it was, nevertheless, misleading; and in a rather important way, that indicates one of the clues to this continuing conflict.
I don’t think that Israeli terrorism simply petered out on its own; the record seems quite clear that a deliberate policy decision was made to abandon it. The suppression of the Irgun was key to this policy.
My original post contained an error - a false assertion that you substituted one quote for another. You did not, and I corrected the mistake.
However, you did crop the quote, with the effect of leaving the impression that the bombing of the King David Hotel and the killing of two British Sargents was the work of “some or all of the Jewish military organizations” - by substituting a dash with a period.
Your quote stated as follows:
“There are those who believe that the British evacuated Palestine as a result of the acts of violence committed by some or all of the Jewish military organizations. In particular, the bombing of the King David Hotel (July 1946) and the hanging of the two sergeants (July 1947)”.
The actual quote you were quoting stated as follows:
“The reasons for the British departure are a matter of considerable debate amongst historians. There are those who believe that the British evacuated Palestine as a result of the acts of violence committed by some or all of the Jewish military organizations. In particular, the bombing of the King David Hotel (July 1946) and the hanging of the two sergeants (July 1947) – both perpetrated by the Etzel (Irgun)”
Note the position of the period. In your quote, it is right after (July 1947). In the original, after (July 1947) comes a dash – and then the following information: “both perpetrated by the Etzel (Irgun)”.
Your version of the quote leaves the impression that the two specific acts of violence mentioned were committed by “some or all of the Jewish military organizations”. In the original quote, it is clear that this in not so. They were both committed by Irgun. It is unfortunate that you chose to truncate the quote in the middle of a sentence, thus changing its meaning.
I think that this distinction is important, for the reasons I mentioned. Although I do not believe that your quotation was intentionally misleading I believe you can now see that it was, nevertheless, misleading; and in a rather important way, that indicates one of the clues to this continuing conflict.
I don’t think that Israeli terrorism simply petered out on its own; the record seems quite clear that a deliberate policy decision was made to abandon it. The suppression of the Irgun was key to this policy.
I suspect that there is rather more to it than rejection of anti-semitism.
Since I gave my analysis of why the left supports Palistinians to an irrational degree - causing MC Master of Ceremonies to foam a bit at the mouth (not, apparently, that this is a difficult feat 
) – it is only fair that I turn my guns around and point out why I think that the right supports Israel to an irrational degree.
Why does the right overlook Israeli stomping on human rights, stealing land, and ignoring international opinion?
No doubt, there is a fringe element of milleniallism in all of this - some religious Christians support Israel as an adjunct to the “end times”. These do not explain, however, why many non-fundies and even athiestic right-leaning people support Israel, particularly in the US.
I think that the ultimate key lies in dueling stereotypes.
The pre-WW2 ethnic stereotype of “the Jew” was a rather pathetic creature in the US - aside from Nazi “world domination” fantasies, it brought up images of ghettos, stoop-sholdered scholars mumbling, being beaten by Cossacks - in other words, victims. Those on the right have never been interested or concerned with victims - they tend to believe in success stories.
The holocaust would not have changed their minds. It was just victimhood writ large.
What changed their minds was the post-WW2 change in stereotypes - from “Jew as victim” to “Jew as survivor”. Jews attained seemingly miraculous success - in the creation of Israel; and, in the US, in business and other pursuits.
Now, there is a “story” that appeals to the right, just as much as there is a “story” that appeals to the left. And that story is a triumphalist one. Take “how the West was won” in the US, and you will see that it is much like the “story” of Israel - locals displaced, land stolen, “civilization” brought - along with democracy, high-tech, etc.
Right-wing Americans see their favorite “story” replicated in the “story” of Israel - only more so. Where Americans were fighting only against relatively low-tech tribes of Indians, Israelis are menaced by whole nations of Arabs equipped with modern armies. This makes them even more admirable in the eyes of the right.
In other words, rightist Americans support Israel because they see in the “story” of Israel the same virtues they admire in themselves and their own history (only more so, the threat being greater). To those on the left, these are not “virtues” but successful crimes.
As a reminder, virtually the exact same question about why the left tends to support the Palestinians was posed here by the late and not so lamented december. And as could be expected, it generated about the same level of polite discourse and understanding.
Of course, december was a champion of the concept of arriving at Truth by discarding or ignoring evidence that did not fit his world view. It’s interesting to see the competition nipping at his heels.
Jackmanii, I find it inmdictive of the way that you choose to argue that you again make accusations of discarding evidence without even challenging any evidence in my posts or even presenting your own,. It’s clear that you have nothing to contribute other than ad hominem attacks in which you attempt to paint people as fanatics (which will sound rich to anyone who has ever read your previous posts. You also now use the oft-used accusation that I am a December, a person who whilst here you rigourously defended and even suggested that his banning was to do with the left-wing bias on these boards.
Hi, Malthus -
Do you think the reasons as you’ve listed them were why the Right purged itself of anti-Semitism (to a large degree)? And do you have any thoughts as to why the stereotype switch that you mention appealed so much more to the Right than to the Left?
My personal take on why the Right ignores human rights violations from Israel stems more from the fact that Israel has been both officially and unofficially at war with its neighbors and with the terrorists among the Palestinians since 1948. Since the Right believes that Israel has a right to continue to exist, and since most of her territorial gains have come at the expense of those who attacked her, the Right tends to say that “you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs”, or that you cannot wage a successful war without hurting someone.
And, of course, the spectacularly bad record of the Arabs and Palestinians on public relations. Who was it that said that “the Palestinians never miss a chance to miss a chance”? From support for the Axis powers in WWII, thru popular demonstrations on behalf of homicide bombers, even to Arafat’s blank-faced rejection of the best deal he is likely ever to get from the Israelis - they never seem to make it easy to get on their side.
Regards,
Shodan
The charitable explanation for this statement is that you have confused me with someone else.
The less charitable view is that you deliberately lied.
Anyone who’s been around here awhile knows that I took issue with december frequently, lampooned him in the Pit and deplored his debating “style” even on the rare occasion that I found something of merit in one of his OPs. As to comments on his banning, I said this in the appropriate Pit thread: *"There are people on this board (and in this thread, for that matter) who have behaved more offensively than december. But for long-term consistent baiting in the guise of debate, he will likely never be equaled.
Whether or not he eventually makes a comeback, we can probably use the break.
Which is why I sort of hope he’ll return. After awhile, Mrs. december will need a break.*"
MC, I await a prompt apology for your false statements.
“You also now use the oft-used accusation that I am a December…”
You mean other people have picked up on the similarities too? Why am I not surprised?
Looking at the thread I concede that it was another poster that I was thinking of.
No, it seems that it is a cliche on the boards now to accuse someone of ‘doing a december’.
Well, I think that anti-semitism is, to a degree, merely the propogation of an offensive or negative stereotype concerning Jews (leaving aside wacky world-domination theories that, in the US, only appealed to a fringe of extremists - though some were famous, like Henry Ford).
For the right, the offensive, negative stereotype was always about “cowardly, sneaking, dirty money-grubbing” Jews - all the characteristics associated at the time with “Jew as victim”.
While the events of WW2 clearly discredited the lunatic fringe anti-semitism, they would have done nothing to discredit the more pervasive negative Jew stereotype among the right - if anything, it would have enhanced it; however, the battles for the state of Israel, I think, transformed the (negative) stereotype into one much more flattering and positive – at least, in the minds of the right.
To answer your second question, the position of the left is exactly the reverse. Wheras the “story” of the right is at base triumphalist, the preferred “story” of the left is redemptive – which is just a fancy way of saying that the right prefers to award heroes, whereas the left prefers to succour victims.
In other words, the events surrounding the formation of the state of Israel appear to be “heroic” to the right, and they are willing to overlook the dubious steps taken to achieve that standing; as you said, “can’t make omlettes …”.
To the left, the Israelis appear to have gone from being victims, worthy of redemption and sympathy, to being victimizers. What the right may see as heroic, the left sees as criminal. The Palistinians are now the victims worthy of redemption.
Once that switch was made, it became more and more imperative for those on the left to excuse away or ignore Palistinian behaviour. After all, it seems an inevitable process that a victim cannot do wrong. On the right, a comparable process - a hero cannot do wrong, either …
In other words, poth positions are ultimately based on sympathy calls, which in turn depend on the image or stereotype of the two sides existing in one’s mind.
Thanks, Malthus - interesting stuff.
Regards,
Shodan
Anyone have any additional comments on why the two political positions tend to take different sides when analysing this conflict?
Interesting. I see everyone there as a victim of history. Hard to look at chunks of children on both sides and think there is one side more victimized by violence than the other.
If this dispute was just over land, an accomodation could have been reached long ago. The positon of the Palestinians is that after they get their state there will be no Jews in it, and they plan to export Palestinians into Israel until they control that also.
Israel should turn the tables and suggest that all Palestinians be exported out into the new Palestinian state and the neighboring Arab nations and see how they feel about it. Oh, never mind. I already know how they feel about it, less enthused than the Israelis.
Interesting – sounds like you’re on to something.
I’d only add that the contrasting viewpoints, left and right, are to some extent reflexive. The Left isn’t the Left that doesn’t disagree with the Right, and vice versa. Nearly every political issue in America over which there is significant disagreement has a left/right split associated with it. If the Left starts drifting toward side A, then the Right will have a correlative drift toward side B (because that’s the only place left to go, and because side B becomes increasingly defined by it’s derth of those on the Left).
That is something I had not considered, but on reflection, I think you are probably right that this effect plays a role.
In addition, once a particular position becomes intrenched, that is, identified as being one held by people of a particular viewpoint, it becomes to an extent a badge of faith to believe in it - quite regardless of its intrinsic merits (or lack of merits).
“Sure, I’m OK with the blacks, long as they don’t start moving into my neigbhorhood!”
a) it’s fudging the issue, that I object to pretending that Plaestinian and Arab actions are entirely born out of antismetism rather than the actins of Israel
b) this antismetism finds it’s mirror in the anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab racism that is prevalent in Israel and in much of Zionism.