In the first place, I don’t think that anything qualifies as “a justification for endless hatred”—we’re all trying to be restrained about hyperbole here, right? In the second place, I don’t see any significant arguments outside the Arab world (and, indeed, the more radical part of the Arab world) that Israel is responsible for a “lesser standard of living” in other states “having little to do with Israel”. Is anybody (other than some of the radically anti-Israel Arabs) seriously blaming Israel for the fact that, say, there is severe economic inequality in Saudi Arabia or high unemployment in Egypt? I haven’t seen such claims.
Oh, sorry, I thought you were intending to respond to arguments that were actually made in this thread.
Where did I say that relative deprivation in itself should be classified as a wrong? It is the role of Israeli power in helping to perpetuate Palestinian deprivation that, as I noted, is widely perceived as a wrong. Relative deprivation alone, say, for Saudis or Egyptians vis-a-vis Israelis, as I pointed out above, is not widely perceived as Israel’s fault.
Isn’t this the same proposal that Puzzler and I were speaking of a few posts ago?
It’s perfectly valid to call attention to specific instances in which you feel this is occurring. But I’d worry more about making convincing arguments and less about overgeneralizations.
If this in fact the case (which I couldn’t attest to), why do you think that might be? Would that in your opinion be because Israelis are more tolerant and open-minded than their supporters in other countries? Or might some forms of harsh internal criticism in Israel be viewed as non-threatening because of the knowledge that even these critics, for the most part, share similar backgrounds and a common vision of deep support for the continued existence of their country?
The Israeli posters likely would have a good perspective on that.
Puzzler --I had never heard of Iraq being a proxy war, until now. It seems an odd notion to me. I have no idea why Bush & Co went into Iraq, except for the laundry list they trot out every now and again. None of it makes any sense–but we have made lots of enemies and angered old friends, so I gues it’s all good…
I can’t sustain the level of discourse here. 1. I dont’ know enough and 2. I have 2 jobs, 3 kids and am in grad school.
I think mhendo and Sam Stone made some good points on this issue starting back in post #105, with mhendo’s remarks on difference in media coverage:
Your point about the Israelis perhaps fostering a broader range of views because they recognize a fundamental perspective in common is plausible too. But I’m inclined to guess that the main factor is simply that in Israel, the issue is much larger and more immediate than in, say, the US or Europe, so more people there consider it worth knowing about and talking about, so a wider variety of opinions gets expressed.
Seems to me you are saying that the ‘facts on the ground’ are that ‘Israel has lots of good stuff; Palistinians, very little’. You now expressly also make the leap of logic (which I guess was implicit in your earlier post) that the reason for the deprivation is Israeli “power”, and thus that the RoTW is justified in holding Israel responsible for this.
I am merely pointing out why that leap is misguidedly simplistic. Here are three issues on point:
(1) As you seem to acknowledge, standards of living in the rest of the ME are not as good as in Israel, and this cannot be (rationally, aside from extremists) blamed on Israel. Therefore, is it logical to assume that the reason for the difference in standards of living is Israeli malfeasance, as opposed to issues internal to the Arab world? Certainly, the Arab world does - but they are hardly unbiased on the subject.
(2) as I discussed (and I believe I mentioned first, though in this long thread I’m not sure), the Shephardim provide a parallel case. The difference in treatment between the Shephardim and the Palistinians by their own ‘side’ is certainly in issue. Do you think that the Arabs are not using Palistinian deprivation as a weapon against Israel? Does not the Arab world bear any moral responsibility for this situation, or is Israel obligated to take care of both Shephardim and Palistinians?
(3) many of the “oppressions” mentioned are directly or indirectly caused by security concerns - such as the existence of intrusive armed checkpoints. How can security precautions which are fully justified by events be morally offensive? If I was an Israeli, I’d insist on 'em too.
Careful: I said that the massive exercise of Israeli power over the Palestinians is helping perpetuate their deprivation, and it’s unreasonable to expect that Israel won’t be blamed for some of the problem. You are overstating my position when you imply that I argue that Israel is solely responsible for it.
(I presume you mean, the “difference in standards of living” between Israelis and Palestinians?) “The” reason, no. Part of the reason, yes.
After all, you yourself said “Nor do I see many here unwilling to address, point by point, actual wrongs committed by Israel.” If you acknowledge that Israel is in fact committing or has committed some “actual wrongs”, then you must agree that those wrongs are partly responsible for the suffering of others, right?
The Arab world certainly does bear some moral responsibility for this situation. However, that doesn’t mean that Israel is completely blameless.
(And IMHO what Israel is primarily obligated to do for the Palestinians is not “take care” of them, but rather allow them to live in the Palestinian state to which the original establishment of Israel/Palestine entitled them.)
True, but many of those “security concerns” are caused by the presence of Israeli settlers living on Palestinian territory, which is IMO not justifiable. If the Palestinians had a viable autonomous state on the lands which they’re entitled to, then as far as I’m concerned Israel could put up a new Berlin Wall between them if it wanted to and never let anybody in or out. Israel’s security concerns are indeed valid and important and I think compromises should be made to accomodate them, but I can’t agree that they completely override the rights of non-Israelis.
Before continuing this particular part of discussing, I must ask for a clarification. Discussions re the OT usually include those territories occupied in ’67. From this post (and others you made in this thread,) it seems to me now you include the ’48 territories. Do you advocate Israel’s withdrawal to the ’48 border? Because if you, the gap between us just widened to width I’m afraid cannot be bridged.
Withdrawal to the ’67 border is, IMO, undoubtedly dangerous, but may be worth the risk. Withdrawal to the ’48 border is nothing less that suicidal.
There is a reason why Israel is not the only state demanding preliminary action from the Hammas government prior to negotiations.
It is important to remind that the ’67 border will place a prospective Palestinian state at a short distance from most major Israeli cities (Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv included). As the Palestinians have shown they are not shy of shelling civilians, while not a thread to Israel’s existence, it is hardly something anyone here would take lightly.
As for the danger of destruction of Israel: I have said before that I don’t think Israel’s existence is assured even as is. Now, for the sake of this discussion, I am willing to ignore the very real possibility on Palestinian shelling of Israel. However, the ’67 borders leave Israel with a width of 17 km (10 miles) at the narrowest point. This distance allows a surprise well coordinated attack to cut Israel in two within the hour. With such a springboard, a combined Arab war is most defiantly a thread of destruction for Israel.
[hyperbole]
Much as I like to take your word, I’m not willing to bet my kids’ lives on it.
Sorry, that was my gut response to it
[/hyperbole]
Now, seriously. Looking from the Israeli perspective, I’m not willing to place such odds on mere faith. How committed do you think Europe will be to the security if Israel at the moment of truth? And no, strong statements do not count here. Do you think there’s a chance, for example, Israel will be allowed to join NATO, hence giving real European commitment to protect it?
eleanorigby:
3 kids, 2 jobs and grad school? I’m surprised you even have time to breath, let alone posting.
However, for the off-chance you will visit here:
I didn’t really think you considered Iraq a proxy Israeli war (although others on the board promote this nonsense). I was trying to hint that I’m sure US media covers much more than Israel…
As for not knowing enough: Isn’t that the whole point of the board? But I guess with your busy lifestyle that can be understood (seriously, not trying to be sarcastic).
There is one point I would be glad if you could find the time for. I asked you before if you really believe Anti-Israel is equal to Anti-Semitism. Do you?
Finn: Off course you’re right. I did not mention the GH as they were not on the context of the discussion, but I agree I should have mentioned them for completeness’ sake.
Noone Special says it well: criticism of Israeli policies is well and good. Using anti-Zionism as a cover for a new and pc antisemitism is not. When anti-Zionism gets mixed up with the Jews controlling the media, the banks, and the government, when anti-Zionism gets so one sided that only Israel does anything wrong, while the most vile offenses by any Arab player is ignored, while much worse offenses elsewhere in the world are of no interest, when the bias is so one-sided and lopsided as to be obscene, well then we wait for that individual to get stopped for driving drunk. That’s all.
To the op: Israel ceased being the easy good guy to the trendy University Left after the Six Day War, when Israel ceased being the underdog pulling off upset wins when attacked against all odds. In Europe it came easy: badmouthing Israel was a cheap way for governments to curry favor with those who controlled the oil, others romanticized the Palestinians as the Rebel Alliance vs. the Empire. And Israeli leadership’s settlement policies only made it easier to do. As bad a decision for Israel as the invasion of Iraq has been for the US.
Hey, I was just directed to it from another thread in another forum GD - about Carter and his use of an inflamatory term, in which the discussion was veering off into the accusations made about making accusations, and it was suggested to come here rather than hijack further, followed the link … and I didn’t realize it was so old. Probably should have just left it there. Sorry. Thought it was in progress. Nevermind.