I say that to people all the time.....no register....zzzppp-zzzzpp, bbeep-beep, must be assimilated, resistance is futile.
Yes, it would be nice.
It seems like it should be so obvious. I can still remember going after guys for messing with my younger brother. An occupation? Christ.
Still at least two years for him to send you to Gitmo, ogged. And I don't see a President H.R. Clinton letting you out.
I think what we have here is a frightening lack of empathy due to nationalism. Can you imagine this Iraqi woman representing your own dear mom? Of course you can't. Your mom is white and shops at the mall. Totally different.
I was teaching Gulliver's Travels last week and really getting into talking about the places where Gulliver attempts to defend British supremacy to all the peoples he visits by explaining that the British are great because they can blow people up. He describes bloody limbs flying through the air, the economic benefits of slavery, etc., and the Brobdingnagians and Houyhnhnms both decide his lack of concern for human life is a pretty good reason why the British should be wiped off the face of the planet. Nationalism is scary.
Iraqi s/b Palestinian, of course, but the comparison is too awful to ignore.
And the Iraqi situation is much worse, since we can't pull the not-very-productive-but-has-a-bit-of-a-point-to-it tit-for-tat of "well, of course we strip search you, because your friend is going to come in and blow up our strategic nightclub facilities."
I don't have much to say on Israel generally, but I can't see how a resolution is ever possible. The country's the size of my apartment. Both sides are pissed off, injured, and everyone knows someone affected. How is anyone supposed to get past the desire for raw revenge?
Sometimes, people make a war.
Don't know what it's for.
Bizness.
Nobody wants war. Life is short.
Yea, come on. That's right.
Check.
What makes me most often empathize with people who are really different from me is the mom thing. Before I had a kid, I always found the way the media focuses on children in a disaster really irritating and sentimentalist, but now I feel like it's the most instantly humanizing thing--not so much because I feel for the kids, as because I am horrified by the thought of being a parent who can't protect a kid in a situation like that.
Although with this video, the woman with CP who is so articulate about being so humiliated really gets to me. Something about the way she describes being helpless (to stop bleeding, to do anything about the situation) really raises my empathetic anxiety level.
'It would be nice if Americans would occasionally ask themselves, "How would I react if I had to watch my mother being strip searched? How would I feel about suicide bombing then?"'
I take it said Americans should imagine at the same time that their mother's bridge partner had tried to blow up a school bus? I'm guessing the number saying, "You know, there's something to be said for blowing up a school bus" would be rather low.
'Or "What would I do if someone invaded my country?"'
Presumably bearing in mind that their govt had disappeared Uncle Bill and forced cousins X, Y, and Z to fight the human-wave attacks from Canada. Sadly the answer might well not be "Let's not futz with Iraq" but "Let's go depose Saddam Hussein then get the hell out" or "Let's not futz with Rwanda".
should imagine at the same time that
No, first they should meditate exclusively on the humiliation. That would be salutary.
13 - that would be before or after American Idol?
Pretty sure the results either way would be even more people convinced the Palestinians need to change their approach because what they've been doing isn't working.
rilkefan,
Just out of curiosity, what approach by the Palestinians do you think would work? Other than just dying, I mean.
I sense fun times ahead with this thread.
For rilkefan everyone should always think of Israel first. I really wish he would detach himself from Rilke, who doesn't deserve this.
Just out of curiosity, what approach by the Palestinians do you think would work?
If they had pursued Gandhian nonviolence, they would have had an independent state within the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capitol by now.
18: Palestinian nonviolence, you say? I have absolutely no idea what that might look like.
18: You forgot the "NOT" at the end.
Cala's correct. Our grandchildren will shake their heads at the intractability of the Israeli-Palestine situation.
I'm guessing the number saying, "You know, there's something to be said for blowing up a school bus" would be rather low.
Seriously, rilkefan, the idea that most Americans have any problem with killing civilians is laughable.
Our grandchildren will shake their heads at the intractability of the Israeli-Palestine situation.
I suspect things will have changed, either markedly for the better or markedly for the worse, by the time our grandchildren are taking notice, if only because of the demographic shifts involved.
the woman with CP who is so articulate
Racist.
Agree with stras in #22. And while "better" or "worse" is going to depend on your perspective, the Israelis need to get a deal done. Time helps the Palestinians, I think. And I think that, bizarrely, this Iraq war has been enormously harmful to maximalist (I'm not sure what the appropriate word is) Israeli interests. The whole thing is just bizarre.
I dunno. Sure, there are going to be lots more Palestinians than Israelis, but the military imbalance is way more than an equalizer. The Israelis have needed "to get a deal done" for a long time now, but there's still no deal. I don't really see what changes that.
We're Americans. We don't have to worry how others feel - they have to worry about how WE feel. See, e.g., "Dick Cheney announced he felt bad today after drunkenly shooting an old guy in the face with a shotgun;" or Laura Bush comments about how bad it is to have to read about people being blown up.
I think Americans (more generally, 'Westerners') do meditate on things like this occasionally. They're called "movies."
I think the problem, incidentally, isn't that the people you (me? we?) disagree with are thoughtless, so much as that they come up with different emotional responses when they do think about it.
On a related note, I'm eager to see The Wind That Shakes the Barley as soon as it comes to the Kendall Theater. Which I'm sure it'll do.
Sure, there are going to be lots more Palestinians than Israelis, but the military imbalance is way more than an equalizer.
It's less a matter of losing force than it is a matter of losing legitimacy. That demographic shift isn't just happening in the occupied territories; it's happening in Israel proper, among Israeli Arabs. There's going to come a point at which Israel is going to either have to make peace with its Arab neighbors or actually become a bona fide apartheid state. The latter course, I think, is unsustainable in the long run, given that it's likely to lead to a significant erosion of American support for Israeli policy.
Israel is going to either have to make peace with its Arab neighbors
Since the avowed policy of several of their neighbors is that the Jews in Israel be killed or driven out, how, exactly, do you propose that they accomplish this? Ogged's post is useful in reminding us of how war happens and continues despite its brutality, but actually says absolutely nothing about how to end it or the relative justifications of the parties' positions.
This post isn't about the long-term solution to the problem (unless you believe, reasonably, that American public opinion is important to bringing about a solution) but about the fact that Paul Wolfowitz and Barack Obama are booed for even noting the suffering of the Palestinians.
Are they booed when they note this in front of a general audience, Ogged? Or is it more of a function of who they're talking to when they say these things?
(This is a real question, I'm not trying to be snarky or rhetorical.)
Right, I understand -- but that's why I'm asking my question. It's no surprise that they get booed for saying this in front of AIPAC, but I don't take AIPAC to be representative of anyone except a bunch of extremist-types. What I'm wondering is... let's imagine that we're watching a CNN-televised Obama-McCain debate on TV next summer. And let's imagine that Obama is asked a question about Israel and Palestine, and he answers in a way that ... say, speaks in support o f a two-state solution. And in the process of answering the question, he notes (among other things) the suffering of both sides. Meaning, specifically, he notes the suffering of Palestinians.
Do you think, in this more-generalist, non-AIPAC situation, he gets booed? Or non-applauded, you know, something along those lines?
What I'm saying is, "getting booed in front of AIPAC" is a completely non-surprising event for me. It's like saying, "Person X was speaking at a rally for the Republican Party, and he got booed for noting that the Democratic Party doesn't always try to maliciously undermine the very foundations of our freedom and Greatness as Americans." Person X would be booed off the stage, but that's not really an amazing assertion.
It seems to me that if a group has an agenda you can't support, you should just stay away from them. But people at Yglesias and at The Poor Man scoff at the idea that Obama and Edwards should have stayed away from the bloodthirsty AIPAC audience. Not good politics, they say -- AIPAC is too important.
Oddly, these may be the same people who scoff at the idea that AIPAC has an undue influence in American foreign policy.
Since the avowed policy of several of their neighbors is that the Jews in Israel be killed or driven out, how, exactly, do you propose that they accomplish this?
There's a fairly obvious discrepancy between public statements made by various Arab and Muslim leaders and their actual willingness to deal with Israel. See, for example, the recently-scuttled-by-the-White-House negotiations with Syria. For that matter, the Camp David accords managed to take place despite Egypt being just as implacably barbaric, Sworn To Israel's Destruction, etc. as the Palestinians, the Syrians, the Iranians and every other Arab or Muslim country are currently believed to be.
It strikes me as odd that seemingly intelligent people would insist on dismissing the possibility of peace with the Muslim world mostly on the basis of bellicose public statements from its leaders, given that the United States managed for decades to negotiate with the Soviet fucking Union. For that matter, the last six years or so of American rhetoric - not merely towards the Mideast, but towards Russia, China, and pretty much everyone outside of Tony Blair - has been actively hostile, but somehow Vladimir Putin was able to take Bush's "we declare war on all tyranny" rhetoric as a light sprinkling of bullshit, instead of cause for breaking up the G8.
There's a fairly obvious discrepancy between public statements made by various Arab and Muslim leaders and their actual willingness to deal with Israel.
Right. I guess those crafty Jews are shooting rockets from Lebanon and blowing up civilians in shops and busses themselves, just to trick us into feeling sorry for them. Those bastards. The '48, '67 and '73 wars were all a hoax, like the fake moon landings, created by the Jewish-dominated US news media. Now I see.
Frighteningly enough, I find myself near, if not in, agreement with stras. Demographics will make a solution more and more necessary. History, culture, and required connection to and identification with the West limit the range of solutions available Israelis. This will be more true, I think, with lengthy-ish periods of relative peace for the Israelis. For whatever reason, I have a fair bit of faith in the importance of justice in (for lack of a better term) Jewish thought--that's going to push, especially in times of relative peace. And, I think, two big drivers are going to be US opinion and that the WWII/Holocaust generation and their kids are going to pass away.
I just think that, absent a deal, Israel's position is going to look less and less legitimate to the most important groups (Israelis, the West, the US, and Jewish Americans). At some point, the Israelis will see that their legitimacy declines with time, and that the sooner a deal is done, the more favorable the terms. It is shocking to me how much the way in which the I/P issue is discussed has changed over twenty years. It has all been in basically one direction, as far as I can see, and I'm not sure why that would change.
37: Good job there, Idealist. That strawman will never menace anyone again.
39 is clever, but notably fails to support your apparent claim that the Jews are just blowing things all out of proportion, and really their neighbors want a just peace, if only the Jews would agree. If I have misunderstood your claim, please let me know. If I have not, I would like to know how you square it with the facts.
Ideal:
You seem to be saying "peace" as if it exists absent specific term and conditions. I doubt you think that there are no conditions under which the Arabs would agree to peace; you just think those conditions are too draconian for the Israelis to accept.
Further to 39.
Since the topic of this post appears to be empathy, put yourself in the shoes of an Isreali Holocaust survivor. You have lived through the camps, the '48, '67 and '73 wars and, more recently, terrorist bombings in busses and shops, rocket attacks, kidnapped soldiers, and foreign-financed terror groups. Some American tells you that you should ignore the rhetoric and stop defending yourself, that you are the problem, and if you just give up land and security, peace will reign and no one will hurt you. What do you think your response would be? What has 60 years of history told you?
According to a friend of mine who worked in Israeli intelligence, two or three years ago the biggest worry is Iran, specifically Iran, with its current government, getting the bomb. The sense I got from him was that everyone else was more or less containable. Iran with a bomb wouldn't necessarily nuke Tel Aviv, but they wouldn't be able to be pushed around.
This doesn't entail regime change in Iran or any clear course of action. But if I had to bet on something that changes the situation in Palestine, I'm not going to bet on demographics so much as what happens when a) Iran gets the bomb or b) the U.S. or Israel decide to invade to make sure Iran doesn't get the bomb.
Yeah, Idealist, our only choice in Israel is tp choose sides and back the Israelis in every single thing they do. The Arabs don't want peace, the Israelis don't want peace, so why should we? Let's just support the Israelis until the Palestinians no longer exist, because the Palestinians, like most Muslims, are evil.
Thank you for your opinion.
Idealist, the US has empathy for the Israelis coming out the yinyang. Ogged was quietly suggesting that we also have empathy for the Palestinians, but that just made no sense to you.
I don't think Idealist is saying anything remotely approaching advocating genocide.
If there's no peace, either the Palestinians or the Israelis will be gone. Not all dead, just dispersed as refugees. One nation or the other will no longer exist.
It's a two way street. You need two nations first, and peace between them second. and to get that you need an honest broker, and that broker has to be the US. But Idealist does not want an honest broker. He wants the US to support Israel utterly, and he doesn't even want Americans to dare to talk about the problems of the Palestinians unless they mention the Holocaust in the same sentence.
your apparent claim that the Jews are just blowing things all out of proportion, and really their neighbors want a just peace, if only the Jews would agree
Where have I made this claim? My initial point was that peace was both possible and within the best interest of Israel; my second point was that an "avowed" stance towards "driving out" Israel said nothing about a given government's actual willingness to negotiate a peace.
What is being blown out of proportion - and not by "the Jews," but largely by American hawks - is both the intractability of the situation and the desire of Arabs and Muslims to see the destruction of Israel. This is not to say that anti-Israeli terrorism doesn't exist; this is not to say that Hezbollah doesn't exist. But the end-all and be-all of Arab-Muslim policy is not the eradication of Israel, and in fact there's plenty of evidence - including those recently aborted talks with Syria - to suggest that even some of the most hostile elements in the region are fairly pragmatic and open to negotiations.
The genuine obstacle to peace is the assumption that the other side is utterly implacable and closed to the possibility of peace. This is more or less the philosophy which has guided the Bush administration's clusterfuck diplomacy for the past six years, and all it's gained us is a never-ending comedy of horrors. Israel certainly has nothing to lose by starting up talks with the Palestinians again, and the sooner they get something accomplished there the better off everyone involved will be.
I think you're being at least mildly unfair to Ideal, Emerson. At a minimum, you seem to be suggesting that the position you characterize Ideal as holding--"He wants the US to support Israel utterly, and he doesn't even want Americans to dare to talk about the problems of the Palestinians unless they mention the Holocaust in the same sentence"--is a matter of bad faith strategy rather than a confusing result of his legitimately held beliefs.
Anytime anyone dares to mention the sufferings of the Palestinians or the Iraqis, even as mildly as Ogged did, there's always someone who will jump in immediately to talk about the Holocaust and suicide bombers and how awful the Arabs are, as Rilkefan and Idealist did. That's the whole story of the Israel-Palestine debate in the US, and it makes honest debate possible.
What am I supposed to say to Idealist? "I don't give a shit about the Holocaust, Idealist, I only care about Palestinians"? "Both sides are equally bad, let's nuke the place and resettle it?" "You're right, Arabs are just no damn good and we should just support Israelis".
The range of opinion the US runs from absolute support for Israel to strong support for Israel to the far left position: a vague wish that something might be worked out if both sides made some concessions. And we vague ultraleftists always immediately have the Holocaust and the suicide bombers thrown in our face.
And we vague ultraleftists always immediately have the Holocaust and the suicide bombers thrown in our face.
Maybe, but those things are being thrown, usually, in good faith. That is, the people believe those things are relevant; they usually--and here I'd except the Likudniks--aren't simply pretending they believe those things are relevant solely to shut the other person up. As I said above, the value of such references is going to decline as time and people pass. You can already see that today.
15, see 18. If Mandela could go from being a terrorist to being a great statesman, I think we were entitled to ask some Palestinian leader to at least follow his example. Setting up a meritocratic organization instead of a collection of factions run by a personality cult to represent them might have been a more achievable approach.
(Of course better leaders in the Arab states, Israel, and the US and Europe and etc. would have helped.)
For that matter, I think a strategy of ruling civilian targets off-limits, especially within the '67 borders, would have led to a much better position.
And of course if Arafat had not chosen to launch the 2nd Intifada, if he had been willing to take advantage of the Clinton/Barak proposals as urged by the Egyptians and Saudis, ...
More salutary meditation topics.
8: How is anyone supposed to get past the desire for raw revenge?
My strategy involves the desire for raw money.
Step 1: The US buys the West Bank off of Israel, buys it again off Jordan if necessary, renames it Palestine, organizes a constitutional convention, and gives it to the Palestineans.
Step 2: US and Israeli businesses invest heavily in industry in new Palestine, and encourage the Palestinean government to maintain policies which keep labor cheap.
Step 3: Discover that most people, given the choice, prefer factory work to suicide bombing.
The idea is to make Palestine a Mexico to Israel's US. There's historical animosity between the US and Mexico; there's a substantial cultural gulf, there's a ton of racism. Yet somehow we manage to get along, because there's a huge amount of money to be made.
37 is why all discussion threads about I/P go to shit.
If I were 17 and a Palestinian who was getting strip-searched, of course I'd want to blow some shit up. If my entire family was composed of the most despicable terrorists, and because of that I was on a special list that made me be strip searched every single time I crossed the border, would I think "oh, I deserve it, because my entire family are terrorists?" Of course not. I would think, "My uncle is right. I going to blow some shit up." I think the Palestinians have chosen the worst strategy imaginable to achieve their ends, but it's not like it's hard to understand.
rilkefan, that's all well and good, but _it's not the subject of the post_. I find it hard to see that your goal is anything other than to prevent any attempt to understand the Palestinian point of view.
"the far left position: a vague wish that something might be worked out if both sides made some concessions."
This, like most of John's statements on this subject above and elsewhere, is a lie. Well, actually it's too obviously false to be a lie - I don't really know how to classify it.
It's the ominous bolding that settles the matter.
Why don't you quit stinking up Rilke's name if your only function on the internet is to be an Israeli hack? That's the only contribution you ever make here.
What would an actual far left position be? It would be strong support for the Palestinians against the Israelis. Does anyone take that position? Sure: the Nation of Islam, The Revolutionary Communist Party, and various other Marxist splinter groups. What proportion of the American population believes that way? Probably 1-3%.
Anyone who offers anything less than strong but slightly critical support for Israel is falsely accused of having an extreme position, whether or not they're accused of anti-Semitism.
That's just a peculiar ObWism.
56 - was responding to a direct question. Topically, I happen to think that meditating on the irrefutable evidence that group X has been betrayed and cheated and abused and has suffered greatly, while ignoring all other facts, is an odd use of our intelligence. If you disagree, perhaps you should spend a few hours thinking about the bad things your favorite group Y has done while ignoring any context. And in any case, my point was that even such meditation would probably often lead to results (e.g. ignoring Darfur) I take it we all dislike.
The "ominous bolding", that is.
Peculiar, because it gives bitter political arguments the look of a gossip column. TAPPED does it, too.
Sam Rosenfeld: will he, or won't he?
55
OK, so finish the thought. Sure, it is understandable that the 17 year old Palestinian you imagine is angry. What next?
Only a complete fool is ignorant of the plight of the Palestinians. What I object to is the notion that this in some way answers the question. So your 17-year old is angry. Does that mean that it is OK to kill Jews for the crime of riding the bus? To advocate killing them or driving them from Israel. Does a mother crying over the death of her son mean more than all the claims of legitimacy of the State of Israel. What, exactly, is your point. And empathy for the Palestinians is a dicey matter in light of the fact that the plight of the Palestinians is a result not just of the actions of Israel but also--and to a very large extent--the actions of their own, often corrupt, leaders and many Arab governments who are happy to cast the Palesitnians as victims and support their war against Israel but are not otherwise much interested in actually making their lives much better.
I believe that there will be peace in the middle east, but it will be a long time. And it will happen only when the Israelis and Palestinians get so tired of the current situation that they both are willing to accept things that are unacceptable now, like the existence of a safe and stable Israel and the existence of a safe, stable and independent Palestine, each embrassed geographically and economically by the other.
62 - Is it? What's the -ism? Bolding someone's name? Bolding only the name John? Words that begin with J?
56 - You have no idea how much time we have spent hearing about the problems of Israelis. There is close to zero sympathy for the Palestinians in the American media.
In 12 Rilkefan tried to change the subject in such a way as to close off discussion of the question originally raised, and switch it to a different topic more pleasing to him: "Aren't the Palestinians awful people?"
64: What I object to is the notion that this in some way answers the question.
Ogged was just trying to have one specific discussion about one specific topic, but you and Rilkefan wanted to make sure that we talked about a different topic instead, because talking at all about the topic Ogged raised might lead to conclusions unfavorable to Israel and/or the US.
Only a complete fool is ignorant of the plight of the Palestinians.
If by "complete fool" you mean " most of the American public," we're in agreement. Seriously, I think few Americans have any idea how utterly crappy the day-to-day existence of an average non-bomb-exploding Palestinian is. Regardless of what follows from it, I think it's a good idea to take a look at how things really are.
Is it? What's the -ism? Bolding someone's name? Bolding only the name John? Words that begin with J?
Bolding someone's name. Makes it a bit easier to track who's responding to whom, particularly since there's no threading.
Seriously, I think few Americans have any idea how utterly crappy the day-to-day existence of an average non-bomb-exploding Palestinian is. Regardless of what follows from it, I think it's a good idea to take a look at how things really are.
Unfortunately, I don't think this is likely to lead to anything productive, and for reasons that are completely unrelated to the specifics of the US/Israeli relationship. You can see the same pattern of behavior when you look at how people react to reports of horrible conditions in prisons: some people react with "that's horrible and we should reconsider how we organize our prisons", others react with "the prisoners deserve it".
55 - You underestimate the number and importance of complete fools. And more importantly, Ogged didn't ask "How would we solve the I/P problem?" He asked "What would you think if you were in the same position?" To understand is not to forgive.
I think few Americans have any idea how utterly crappy the day-to-day existence of an average non-bomb-exploding Palestinian is
I suppose we have a difference of agreement on facts, then. Contra 65, I think the press certainly covers this issue.
I absolutely agree that it's a good idea to take a look at how things really are, but for me, that means looking at all sides and how they got there.
I think few Americans have any idea how utterly crappy the day-to-day existence of an average non-bomb-exploding Palestinian is.
This, I think, is very true. True for me, for example. I was a little surprised by Obama's statement about Palestinian suffering, primarily because of the politics of the matter. I was much more surprised by the ferocious defense of it as obviously true by people like Karon, and the acceptance of such truth by others who are much farther to right on Israel policy. There's a difference between acknowledging that things must be worse for the Palestinians, which is where I was/am, and acknowledging that things are so much worse for the Palestinians that it's considered beyond contention by people who are reasonable.
John, I suspect you know nothing of Rilke's political views, to the extent it's reasonable to say he had any in a practical sense. Suffice it to say that if he could be a fan of Mussolini you can suffer a liberal being a fan of his. It's a strange excuse, and perhaps you don't even think I write well, but give it time.
So your 17-year old is angry. Does that mean that it is OK to kill Jews for the crime of riding the bus?
I think there's a basic failure to understand the exercise here. We attempt to understand what motivates a suicide bomber not to excuse or justify the suicide bomber, but so that we can alleviate the conditions that lead to suicide bombing in the first place. It's that whole "root causes of terrorism" thing. It's not enough to say that Arabs just blow themselves up because they're just crazy, or because they have an irrational, deep-seated loathing of the Jews, or because Islam is an inherently hateful religion, or because they "hate freedom." There are reasons this is happening, and it's in our best interests to understand why it's happening and put a stop to it.
Again, this doesn't absolve Palestinian terrorists of their responsibility for committing acts of terrorism, any more than the insanity of American drug policy absolves a drug dealer from the murder of a rival. It merely explains it, and points in the direction of a deeper problem that needs to be addressed.
(We also should try to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians because that suffering is an evil in and of itself, but that goes without saying.)
72: Sure. But, while I understand your belief that the conditions under which Palestinians live are fully reported on and Americans are well aware of them, do you also think, in addition to that, that terrorism against Israelis is underreported? I mean, I suppose I could understand, while disagreeing with, a position that stories like the ones Ogged was trying to draw attention to were unnecessary because everyone's familiar with them already. I can't imagine thinking that publicizing such stories was actively unjust because there wasn't enough competing information about the past and present suffering of Israelis. It is right that such information should be available, but I don't think there's any question but that it is.
I think the press certainly covers this issue.
There have of course been some articles written about the issue, but it's a question of emphasis. I would say that, no, most Americans don't have a real understanding of the rather apartheid-like situation there.
I can't imagine thinking that publicizing such stories was actively unjust because there wasn't enough competing information about the past and present suffering of Israelis.
So where did I, or anyone else, say that it was unjust to mention the suffering of the Palestinians?
Go ahead, I'll wait for the quote.
That name-bolding thing is really eye-grit. Just sayin'.
They just simple people, want simple life. Simple land, simple thing.
We have so many places. World is big. A place enough.
That's right. C'mon. Yee.
Rilkefan, Rilke was as apolitical as humanly possible, and he died in 1926. I can't take his admiration for Mussolini very seriously, though it doesn't add to my respect for him. He was not a political polemicist.
78: When we started to talk about the sufferings of Palestinians, you butted in and tried to change the subject. But, no! You didn't not use the word "unjust".
I will note Tim and LB's belief that you are arguing in good faith.
64:
OK, so finish the thought. ... your 17-year old is angry. Does that mean that it is OK to kill Jews for the crime of riding the bus?
See, this is not 'finishing the thought', this is someone recognizing (or actually, trivializing - he's 'angry') this thing, then once again reflexively jumping back to a repetition of one's ideology. Here, with moral condemnations and political points which are basically non sequiturs. To immediately go from 'he's angry' to 'but how does mean Israel shouldn't exist?!' is to exactly not do what ogged is suggesting; it means you haven't actually thought about anything at all because it just provokes recitation of strawman points and platitudes. Empathy is precluded by defensively repeating these things to oneself in advance of any possible reflection. Also:
And empathy for the Palestinians is a dicey matter in light of the fact that the plight of the Palestinians is a result not just of the actions of Israel but also--and to a very large extent--the actions of their own, often corrupt, leaders and many Arab governments who are happy to cast the Palesitnians as victims and support their war against Israel but are not otherwise much interested in actually making their lives much better.
Yeah, that stupid 17 year old! All that stuff you mentioned is his fault, so what right does he have to get angry! This is, again, the burning need to make a political judgment running in advance of any actual empathy.
More importantly, the attitude that race is transitive strikes me as one of the major features of the fixed ideologies on either 'side', and always comes up when listening to people take these kinds of sports-team attitudes.
78: Oh, you didn't literally say such a thing, which is why I didn't say that you had. But it seems to follow from your 42, which implies that anything that might arouse empathy for the Palestinians is improper without an immediate reminder of the suffering of the Israelis, which might otherwise be forgotten.
And you know, Ogged remembers the Holocaust, and the Seven Day War, and the bombings within Israel, and so do I, and so does everyone else. No one with an opinion about Israel or Palestine at all is confused about what Israelis are worried about in that regard. And certainly, Israel and Israels are entitled to protect themselves based on all that history and on the current hostility directed toward them -- the question is just what is it that they are entitled to do, and what conduct best serves their legitimate interests. And in that context, there's some value to considering what psychological effects their policies are going to have on the Palestinians affected.
"transitive of responsibility", I should say.
And you know, Ogged remembers the Holocaust, and the Seven Day War, and the bombings within Israel, and so do I, and so does everyone else. No one with an opinion about Israel or Palestine at all is confused about what Israelis are worried about in that regard.
Among people arguing here, I'd certainly agree with that. I don't think it's safe to make that assumption about people having this argument in general. The problem is that the larger context tends to bleed into the smaller.
Ah, a jolly Sunday afternoon flamewar!
Huh. I'd say that there are people who underweight the importance of the history of attacks on Israel and on Jews, and of the current hostility toward Israel, sure. But do you really think there are any substantial number of people who are actually unaware of all that? While I do think that there's real ignorance of what life is like for Palestinians in the other direction.
implies that anything that might arouse empathy for the Palestinians is improper without an immediate reminder of the suffering of the Israelis, which might otherwise be forgotten.
I would not describe this as a reasonable reading of anything I have written.
the question is just what is it that they are entitled to do, and what conduct best serves their legitimate interests. And in that context, there's some value to considering what psychological effects their policies are going to have on the Palestinians affected.
I certainly agree with this. It is not at all apparent to me what the thing I was specifically reacting to--the notion that if only the Jews would make peace, the suffering could be stopped--has much of anything to do with it.
But do you really think there are any substantial number of people who are actually unaware of all that?
According to Emerson, if you bring these up, you are an Arab-hating racist. Do I think there are people who are ignorant of the founding of the State of Israel, the several wars they have fought to protect themselves, the funding and fostering of groups whose sole purpose was to kill the Jews or drive them off the their land and how many Arab governments in the region have treated the Palestinians even worse than the Israelis? You bet I do.
Does realizing all of those things mean that the Palestinians do not also have legitimate claims and have been treated badly, not just by other Arab governments and their own leaders, but by Israel too? Of course not. Does it mean that the anger of young Palestinians is not understandable? Of course nt. What is objectionable is the notion that meditating on the suffering of Palestinians tells you that the simple solution is for the Jews to make peace.
I know it sounds crazy, but some of those Holocaust survivors want peace.
Hive mind: up to date information on Palestinian peace groups and development NGOs is hard to find, which is understandable, since it's not the most plugged-in bit of territory in the world. B'ilin village, Hope Flowers School, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, Zatoun Fair Trade Olive oil and Palestinian Fair Trade and Gaza Community Mental Health Program.. I'll go fishing in these ponds, but does anyone have any more for me to look in?
It would be great if we could impose a tax on internet comments. . .anyone commenting on Israel Palestine peace EVER has to pay a penny to a fund for peace and development groups. How much do you think we'd raise?
Idealist, how is 37 not lowering the discourse? Some people make some polite comments that the Israelis should make a deal now before the demographics make things worse. Instead of addressing this point, you state in 29 that their neighbors are implacably set on destroying Israel. Now you have successfully turned the subject to the evil Arabs. People argue that rhetoric is not reality, the example of Egypt, blah, blah, blah. Instead of arguing _that_ point, you start babbling in 37 about how maybe the Jews attacked themselves, etc. Victory! Discussion successfully disrupted.
I'm wondering if Idealist and Rilkefan watched the linked video.
To say it again, I'm not arguing that any particular policy flows from contemplating the suffering of the Palestinians. I think it's worthwhile, all by itself, to contemplate it. Don't just grant it arguendo, but think about it for a while.
According to Emerson, if you bring these up, you are an Arab-hating racist.
While you're objecting to people misunderstanding you, it's worth noting that he didn't call you an Arab-hating racist, he called you an Israeli hack. It's vituperation, certainly, but it's an accusation of political dishonesty, not of racist motivation.
In fact, he called rilkefan an Israeli hack.
it's worth noting that he didn't call you an Arab-hating racist
You are right, he did not use the word racist (below), he just said that I wanted all Palestinians dead and thought all Muslims were evil. You got me there.
Let's just support the Israelis until the Palestinians no longer exist, because the Palestinians, like most Muslims, are evil.
Thank you for your opinion.
96 - You consistently argued that Israel's Arab neighbors can not be moved from their implacable hatred by any form of negotiation. You didn't go so far as to call them evil, true. What do you want, a cookie?
I'm wondering if Idealist and Rilkefan watched the linked video.
I'm guessing not. If they haven't, maybe they can meditate instead on what it is that's kept them from watching it.
Eh, I'm not improving anything here.
What is objectionable is the notion that meditating on the suffering of Palestinians tells you that the simple solution is for the Jews to make peace.
1. Why is this objectionable? And in what way is peace a "simple" solution? Clearly it's not as simple a solution as lots of idiots continuing to kill each other, since that's the "solution" we've had for the last fifty-odd years, but when confronted with massive suffering of this sort it does seem like the best solution for all parties.
2. Nobody is asking for "the Jews" to do anything; we're talking about the state of Israel. When did the state of Israel achieve identity with the Jewish people?
I'm guessing not.
Actually, I did. No need to apologize, though.
You consistently argued that Israel's Arab neighbors can not be moved from their implacable hatred by any form of negotiation.
Really, where?
102 - 29 and 37.
Nope. Not there. Not anywhere.
Sure you did. It's right there in 29. You can't back away from it now.
Whenever someone challenges you on something you say, you always turn it into a game of lawyeristic gotcha. If you meant something different in 29, then just say what you meant. To me, the clear meaning of 29 is that there is nothing the Jews can do to make peace with the Arabs. But I'm not a mind reader. If you have another point to make, then make it.
it does strike me that something has gone rather awry when one considers that by the standard being used here, Ariel Sharon would have to be counted as wholly ignorant of Jewish history, including being ignorant of a number of wars that he actually fought in. I am pretty sure that Mr Sharon could not, if he recovered from his coma, make a speech to AIPAC which honestly reflected his beliefs, without being booed.
"You consistently argued that Israel's Arab neighbors can not be moved from their implacable hatred by any form of negotiation."
"Really, where?"
"Since the avowed policy of several of their neighbors is that the Jews in Israel be killed or driven out, how, exactly, do you propose that they accomplish this?"
To me, the clear meaning of 29 is that there is nothing the Jews can do to make peace with the Arabs.
No. 29 responds to the statement that it is up to Isreal to make peace with its neighbors which, in the context of the video--have you watched it?--that is a propaganda film designed to show how evil the Isrealis are--meant to me that all that stood in the way of peace was the Israel's stopping their evil ways. I am not sure how else you respond to a propaganda film found on a website with other gems like fils about the evil Zionists. Did you look at the site? Do you honestly think it is about a meditation on human suffering and understanding the point of view of others? It's a collection of films about how evil the Jews are.
So, I wrote: "Since the avowed policy of several of their neighbors is that the Jews in Israel be killed or driven out, how, exactly, do you propose that they accomplish this? Ogged's post is useful in reminding us of how war happens and continues despite its brutality, but actually says absolutely nothing about how to end it or the relative justifications of the parties' positions."
Do you disagree that it is the policy of a number of Arab governments, as well as powerful and well financed by other governments groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, to destroy Isreal? Do you disagree that the films ogged linked to notwithstanding, there are two sides to this story, and seeing a propaganda film about how people felt humiliated being strip searched might not tell us much about the solution to this issue?
My point is that meditating on a propagand film about how Palestinians feel does not say a lot about solutions to this problem, notwithstanding that part of the solution is understanding each side's legitimate claims.
The last paragraph of 64 restates my views.
and seeing a propaganda film about how people felt humiliated being strip searched might not tell us much about the solution to this issue?
Propaganda doesn't mean much in this context -- of course it's propaganda, if all you mean by that is that it's intended to influence opinion (if you think the stories are untrue, of course, that's a different matter). The point is that it might tell us something about the solution to this issue -- part of the problem is unprovoked hostility to Israel, but part of it is provoked hostility, and there are things Israel could do to lessen the hostility that would not be useless in approaching a peaceful settlement.
Propaganda doesn't mean much in this context
If someone posted something against affirmative action and linked to a KKK site which had a video telling stories of white students deprived of a chance to go to the school of their choice, but had no discussion of anything else relating to the issue, except their hurt anger, is it your claim that you would take that as an important statement about affirmative action and that the choice of the site might not imply certain things about the intended message?
there are things Israel could do to lessen the hostility that would not be useless in approaching a peaceful settlement
Of course. But how much does this video tell us about that? Do you agree with the film's premise that Israeli security is all about humilating Palestinians so they will not visit Isreal, and thus it is solely for Isreal to make peace by removing them?
What strikes me as remarkable is how widely perceptions of the general US perspective on this can vary. I suspect that the majority of Americans would say that whatever is happening to the Palestinians, they deserve it. I sense that Ideal thinks that the majority of Americans would say that the Israelis have brought their problems on themselves. (And while those two views aren't inconsistent with each other, I think that most people believe one or the other.) I those differing assumed contexts explain a lot of the weird responses in this thread.
If someone posted something against affirmative action and linked to a KKK site which had a video telling stories of white students deprived of a chance to go to the school of their choice,
These are wildly different types of issues. I'd be more sympathetic to the analogy if we were talking about the KKK going after carpetbaggers, if it was anti-Northern terrorism that the KKK was primarily known for, and if the time period we were talking about was about 150 years ago.
113: Does anyone know of any good independent survey/research on this question? I also assume that most people in the U.S. think Palestinians are evil terrorists who are nonetheless treated well (and better than they deserve), but I could certainly be wrong.
In Berkeley, on the other hand, I think there's an unusually high percentage of people who think that Palestinians are -- in fact -- Native Americans. Strange, but true.
Wow, this thread is really depressing. Honestly, Idealist, is it that hard to express empathy? Why the immediate defensive backlash to the 'big picture' when presented with the no less real experiences of discrete individuals? All the post is doing is pointing out that the big picture necessarily obscures our ability to empathize with and focus on individuals, and that this is a moral problem.
I suspect that the majority of Americans would say that whatever is happening to the Palestinians, they deserve it. I sense that Ideal thinks that the majority of Americans would say that the Israelis have brought their problems on themselves.
Forced to choose between the two, I would agree with you (your first sentence), but I disagree with both propositions. I think there is a lot of sympathy for Israel in the United States. When I was younger, support for Isreal was a tenant of leftist belief, and Republicans were called anti-semites for thinking that there might be two sides to the story (at least calling Republicans antisemites is one thing you can always count on). However, these views were tempered by Soviet support for the PLO. Eventually, through the 70's and 80's, it became fashionable in leftist circles to support the PLO, just as it was to support other supposed anti-Imperalist fighters around the world. That support for the Palestinians has grown on the left and become more mainstream. I think that more broadly, people are much more aware that the Palestinians have legitimate grievances, but reflexively sympathize with the Isrealis for a variety of reasons, some quite good, in my view--compare, for example, the life of an Arab in Isreal to the life of a Jew in an arabic country. For all of its flaws, Isreal tries to be a western democracy that is much more pluralistic than one would expect from a state founded by and for one religious group. On the other hand, not all reasons for support Isreal are good ones. For example, I think there is an undercurrent of support for Isreal because people think of them as "white" settlers taming a foreign land, just like Americans think of themselves as being 300 years ago. Nor, quite obviously, are all reason to support the Palestinian casue bad. More than they did 30 years ago, people have a sense of how hard the life of the average Palestinian is.