More than a nitpick: “The Jews” did not do all that, the Israelis did.
American Jews – Diaspora Jews in general – should never forget that Israel is not their country.
Latest: Carter acts as mouthpiece for Hamas, publicly proclaims (spurious) state of “starvation to death” in Gaza, worse than “poorest parts of Africa”:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200804/FOR20080418b.html
Meanwhile:
Yes, but what metric do/can you use?
As a hypothetical, let’s say someone said that even though international law specifically allows military targets to be hit, regardless of civilian collateral damage, Israel should be guilty of war crimes. Within bounds, or not, and why?
What if, instead, someone said that even though every single fact points to massive slaughter, if not actual genocide if a one state “solution” were imposed, that Israel’s citizens and leaders should be forced, even at the point of massive international sanctions, to accept a near suicidal option. Within bounds, or not, and why?
Or if, as another scenario, someone were to say that while every other nation on earth is allowed the right of self defense, and if any other country was being bombed daily they’d be well within their rights to strike back against military targets, even if those military targets were quasi-state militas, for Israel, any action of protecting itself just “continues the cycle of violence”… all while placing absolutely no real pressure on groups like Hamas because “they’re terrorists, and we don’t have to expect much from them. But Israel is a democracy and should be held to a different standard.” Within bounds, or not, and why?
I’m sure we could come up with a dozen other scenarios, but what I’m getting at is that, even on this issue where you disagree with someone of the hardline anti-Israel dopers’ sentiments (or other partisan anti-Israel views) … what logical counter would you use?
Glutton, for instance, seems to feel that it’s beyond an act of chutzpah for a country not to provide, out of their own pocket, extra security for a private individual who orchestrated a campaign of lies and slander and who tries to empower a group of genocidal rejectionists.
Once you’ve already said that it’s okay to be biased against Israel and to hold Israel to a unique double standard, what logical footing are you on when you say that it’s “out of bounds”, other than personal aesthetic taste? You can’t rely on a universal standard, since you’ve already applied a double standard, and you can’t rely on objective rules ,since you’ve already said that you’re going to treat Israel with subjective bias.
After all, while you said that my analogy was a good one… analogies’ strength rest on their ability to describe situations which obey the same general rules and dynamic. But with a double standard, there is no unified rule/dynamic. Someone who feels that way could, quite easily, respond to your comments about the analogy by saying “Yes, but leaders of the ‘black community’ are held to one standard, and Israel should be held to a much harder one to maintain.”
What logical position would you use to counter such a claim?
I hope you don’t mind clarifying… I’m just trying to determine how someone, once they’ve abandoned a somewhat objective system of judgment for a somewhat arbitrary and totally subjective one, can substantiate calling other subjective and biased judgements ‘out of bounds’. Does it just boil down to “I disagree due to aesthetic considerations” or could you present, say, a reasoned argument as to why Glutton’s claims about Israel being ‘beyond chutzpah’ are risible?
I think you need to look at what’s reasonable under the circumstances. Which I realize is a bit of a cop-out, but there’s no easy way to spell out what’s right and wrong for a sovereign state to do.
I don’t think it’s ok to be biased against Israel. Here’s an analogy: In the United States, lawyers and judges are held to a higher standard of conduct than ordinary citizens. Not because people hate them, but because they are (in theory) smarter and more sophisticated than others and because they have assumed a special role. Actually, a lot of people do hate lawyers and judges and spend a lot of time criticizing them. Which sucks, but people in positions of power do need to be scrutinized more.
The fact is that Israel is a nuclear power; it’s populated by the smartest and most sophisticated ethnic group there is; and from a traditional and religious perspective, its people hold themselves as being in a special position vis-a-vis moral and religious law. I’m not saying that Israel needs to keep the gloves on at all times, but I do think that Israel is worthy of special scrutiny.
Eh?
You know, how Semitic people–like Syrians, Lebanese (and, oh yeah, Sephardic Jews)–are smarter than everyone else. Ashkenazi Jews are still dumbasses, though.
(Note for the sarcasm-impaired: the above is not to be taken seriously.)
No, I honestly believe that on a religious “rights” level that both Israel and Palestinians have equal claims to that scrap of holy land, but the Israelis are there now and are heavily armed, so everyone else around Israel better get used to it and try to negotiate peace and a state for Palestianians to live in free from Israeli interference in it’s governance and free from Israeli restrictions on their movements.
Palestinians are reaping what they sowed by electing Hamas, and Israel is just trying to exist (and doing a really good job of it) amidst mortally hostile neighbors.
Fair enough. But when you wrote, “to the victor go the spoils.
And what has Israel won, exactly besides the right to exist,” I put a different interpretation on what you were saying.
In theory, true. It might not be their country, but it is a place that they can go if shit hits the fan wherever they are. That’s why it was created, basically. The big lesson of the Holocaust was that the Jews need to have a place where they can go when their host country turns against them.
Germany turned against them. Romania turned against them. Italy turned against them. Hungary turned against them. France (under Nazi occupation) turned against them. Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania turned against them. Even the United States wouldn’t take Jewish refugees who tried to come here. The S.S. St. Louis.
I feel pretty safe here in America as a Jew. I don’t think anyone’s going to come for me. (And if they do, well, I’m armed.) But you never know. I think the big lesson the Jewish people have learned is that you never know. The Jews in Weimar Germany were positive that they were living in the most enlightened, tolerant, and pro-Jewish place on earth, and that no way could they ever possibly come to any harm. And look what happened to them.
For this reason, I’m glad that Israel exists.
Malthus, getting back (finally) to your earlier post (the analysis of Carter’s Bible lessons), it sounds to me like Miller is committing the fallacy of selective observation. He has apparently combed through Carter’s Bible lessons to find things that sound like they might support his thesis (that Carter “doesn’t like Jews very much”).
The problem with that (as Shodan pointed out) is that Carter is working from the source material of Christianity, namely the New Testament. Moreover, his remarks are being taken entirely out of context. (This is what I meant when I said you are making mistakes in understanding Carter’s theology.)
For example, the bit about referring to non-Jews as “dogs” is from this Biblical passage. Whatever else you may take from that story, it is clear that non-Jews were not highly-regarded. If that’s a “canard” as you put it, it is in Carter’s source material. But Miller, taking Carter’s words out of context, doesn’t tell his readers this.
The linked Biblical passage is often used in lessons condemning bigotry, and I’m quite sure that if we were to hear the full text of Carter’s lesson, that is the point he was making. Ironic, then, that Miller is using a cherry-picked quote from Carter’s lesson to suggest that Carter is promoting bigotry.
I’m rubber, you’re glue
Whatever you say bounces off of me
…and the moderators, too
(apparently)
Moderator’s Warning: FoieGrasIsEvil, please refrain from posting things in Great Debates that a.) appear to be personal attacks on other posters and b.) don’t make a whole hell of a lot of sense in any event.
Moderator’s Note: That said, spoke-, there is no really no need to drag the “Report this post to the moderators” business into the middle of the debate; that’s what the “Report post” button is for. Or there’s always the Pit; at any event, none of that belongs here.
I think a lot of non-Jews simply don’t get it.
And many, of course, simply couldn’t care less or spend the time to wonder about the increasing likelihood, for example, that any outspoken Jew (or many non-Jews) who hold a position on Israel that differs from some leftist-dogmas and rightist-dogmas… will be accused of traitorous dual loyalty. No matter how thoroughly based that position may be on facts, logic, or a close reading of international law.
That’s really, honestly and truly, a red flag for society, that double standard is, and should be, a clarion clear warning sign that some elements in society are beginning to curdle. So to speak. Nobody, for instance, who said that we should support NATO, even if it angered Russia, would be called a “NATO Firster”. We don’t, in this country, scrutinize people’s ancestry and if they happen to have WASP ancestors, accuse them of being totally nonobjective, and probably placing the UK’s welfare first, before their own home’s. But if a (gasp!) Jew were to say that we should support Israel, even without adding in the “and so the fuck what if it angers people who are our ideological enemies anyway”, watch how quick some folks will be ready to hurl the “Israel Firster!” label. Or, for example, the PNAC’s documents, which unambiguously and constantly talked about how the US could use Israel for our own benefit and/or how Israel should be more independent and not use US aid… were cast as being the actions of an “Israel Firster” cabal. Or when folks like Wolfy were shown to be"Israel Firsters" due to such damning evidence as having spent a year in Israel when he was a child, or having a sister who lives there.
Even otherwise rational folks, like tom, will often do linguistic somersaults and rhetorical back flips to classify statements like “most American Jews place Israel before all other concerns.” as meaning anything other than that most American Jews would place Israel before all other concerns. And there is, of course, also the fact that slanders (even incoherent and absurd slanders like The Israel Lobby) are no longer fringe, tinfoil hattist sentiments, but mainstream “academic” sentiments.
And then, of course, as you can see from many a Dope thread or public discussion, once someone challenges the slanderous nature of the “Dual Loyalty” canard, apologists often go on to talk about how “Nobody can ever criticize Israel, at all, without being called an anti-Semite by the powerful Jewish Lobby which blocks all free discussion in America. And, if only Americans knew the truth, they’d be anti-Israel too!”
For instance, I’m sure reading over only Dope threads, folks could come across quotes that are eerily similar to something like, say “You’re a Jewish extremist, supporter of Israel, so you want to bias anyone who criticizes Zionism.” We have at least three or four posters who use that exact language, down to the racist epithet “Jewish extremist”.
Of course, googling for the screed I took that quote from would be best, as folks can see for themselves whether statements like that, and the ones I’m about to quote, would probably find a warm and inviting home with certain factions in the debate. For those in the peanut gallery reading along, does the quote above, or the ones I’m about to supply, sound at all similar to what a certain faction’s rhetoric often ends up as?
-“Do you hate people who don’t want to be controlled? Do you hate Americans who don’t want the Israeli lobby to have Americans fight and die and thousands maimed because Israel wants it in the Middle East? We have a war in Iraq because Israel wanted that war, not for American interests.They lied to us about weapons of mass destruction, and now they’re trying to get America into war against Iran, and I think it would be a tragedy for this country, a tragedy for the world.”
-“Pearl and people like Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser, Kristol, Abrams — we can go on and on. It sounds like a Jewish wedding. They have set American policy and they have hurt American interests in the Middle East. Just as I have said for years, as Walt and Mearsheimer of Harvard have said, it’s a fact. And we are dying right now in Iraq because we’re there for Israel’s interests.”
-“Q: As far as I know, the president of the United States, who is the commander in chief, is not Jewish. The vice president of the United States is not Jewish. The secretary of defense is not Jewish. The national security advisor to the president, not Jewish. The director of the CIA, not Jewish. Are these people simply tools of the Zionist conspiracy?”
“A: They’re not tools of a conspiracy, but they are definitely tools of the Zionist media and political power. Even the “Washington Post” said that 60 percent of the contributions for the Republican Party come from Jewish sources. Plus, if any politician in America dares to criticize Israel, millions will go to his opponents and he will be attacked in the media where Zionists have incredible power.”
A quick google search would reveal the source of those quotes, and why, when (usually) leftists, but sometimes paleocons, are so free using similar slurs, and that their slanders evoke no disgust, but often “academic” agreement (see The Israel Lobby)… there is cause to wonder at just how serious some of the world would be about preventing another Vernichtung, were it to roll around.
Which isn’t to say that the racist positions inherent in the “dual loyalty” or “mighty covert Israel Lobby” or “Zionist Occupied Government” are necessarily a threat, or something to get worked up about. To borrow an analogy, most of those folks are “parlor pinks”, happy to talk the talk, but more likely to look longingly at a diagram of a molotov than to actually start throwing them. They’re harmless.
What the frequency and acceptance of such views shows, however, is that if the shit ever really did hit the fan again, folks could not count on the “anti-racist left” or the “multiculturist” movements to lift a finger. Heck, in many cases, they’re often the ones using the slurs.
Thank you for your prompt reply. I apologise for my absence from this thread for several days, it has wandered into areas of opinion and conjecture. Whereas, you and I can resume our discussion of empirical evidence. This figure you mention of $ Five Billions, (plus): Was it the annual figure, or the sum of the donations given by the Carter presidency to Israel over the four years?
I note your post compares the amount of aid and donations to that given by Reagan and to the current US expenditure in Iraq. A few more questions, if I may to firm up our empirical base:
- Is this figure adjusted for inflation?
- Are you suggesting that the Carter presidency donated Aid to Israel in one term that was nearly equal to that given by the two-term Reagen presidency. To wit c.$5,000,000,000?
- Lastly, does the US donate aid monthly to occupied Iraq to the tune of this same c.$5,000,000,000, or is that the total spending by the US?
I consider that given roughly accurate figures and a sound evidentiary base, we can move to some insightful conclusions. In addition, perhaps you could recommend a site that gives an account of annual (and adjusted) US aid to Israel? Even one that does a comparison by President, if possible?
I have observed that your political opinions are usually considered moderate. Are you aware that your position above, is generally taken to be unthinkable and extreme within US Middle East policy?
I think I recall the evidence you are referring to. However, as I recall the document makes the point that the Israelis are so deep in falsehood and malevolence, so committed to expressing the corruption at their moral core that every quality of humanity is moribund, with their lust for ethnic cleansing and dispossession. They are dead already, in every way that matters.
On your reading, the document suggests it would be a kindness and a generosity to offer them a way out from their condition. However, as I say, I recall it differently and the attitude to Israelis is less generous, merely confining Hamas’s interest to material and political gains, rather than the grand scheme you suggest. Perhaps you could share that evidence and we could review it to a conclusion?
I find your selective parsing pretty amusing, given the frequency with which you engage in the same selective behavior. However, you would be well advised to leave me out of this discussion if I am not actually participating in it, particularly just to take swipes at me.
I realize that you enjoy playing the role of polemecist, but you are really not contributing to this thread with this sort of unsupported and inflammatory rhetoric. I am not a big supporter of the rules against “hate speech,” but I am very definitely opposed to posting stuff that is intended solely to get a negative emotional rise out of other posters and I will consider any future posts of this sort to be trolling.
[ /Moderating ]
Sev, those were annual numbers. I apologize for having stated that imprecisely. No adjustment for inflation or deflation for that matter. No, I have no single site comparing those figures. My reference was for total spending in Iraq by the US.
The insight remains the same. During Carter the United States gave Israel more money than it did during many other administrations. A significant portion was to help implement the Camp David accords. And you are entitled to believe that such should have bought Carter the private citizen some honor in Israel in future years no matter what he has said or done since, or is doing now. But Israel is entitled to place a higher level of importance on those other things.
That’s an interesting take, thanks. I never really thought of Israel as a place non-Israeli Jews would view as a “just in case” place to go if they felt threatened in their “host” country.