Comments on: Discussing Israel

By: Henry

Henry — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 19:09:49 +0000

Discussion is now closed – unfortunately it has demonstrated to my satisfaction the impossibility of having a reasonable conversation about Israel/Palestine, even with strong moderation. Self-evidently ridiculous comments along the lines of “in secular, left-liberal discourse about Israel, and without a doubt on CT, it is the anti-Israel side that engages in uncivil, name-calling, personal attacks,” and their equivalent from people on the other side, make it impossible to talk seriously. I suspect that with a blog with as much readers and commenters as CT, it will be impossible to discuss this sort of thing civilly – certainly, if I post on this set of issues again, I will be turning comments off.

By: abb1

abb1 — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 18:29:46 +0000

Cole’s frequent charge that supporters of Israel are “American Likudniks.” I believe the term “American Likudnik” is applied to only American supporters of Israeli right-wingers (BTW, depending on his/her POV, one might also describe them as enemies of Israel), as opposed to such genuine supporters of Israel as, say, Michael Lerner or Yossi Beilin.

By: abb1

abb1 — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 18:15:51 +0000

...I imagine it was not possible even if Sharon had been so inclined because of the settler vote. I dunno. Certainly not possible for the Sharon's right-wing government, because the settleres is their core constituency. But for a center-left government - why not? It's true, though, that the left there is in a very bad shape these days. According to this BBC item about the "Geneva Accord":

...A few weeks ago, a copy of the agreement was sent to every home in Israel. It was also printed in Palestinian newspapers.

A poll published shortly after suggested that 55.6% of Palestinians and 53% of Israelis backed the principles of the Geneva accord.

By: Ragout

Ragout — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 18:08:32 +0000

Jack, Abb1 set the context for the use of the term propaganda when he explicitly suggested that the Anti-Defamation League was engaged in propaganda and implicitly suggested the same of the critics of Prof. Massad at Columbia. Massad’s most prominent critics are NY newspapers, a US Congressman, and some documentary filmmakers. All are perfectly free actors, and if they’re engaged in propaganda, then so are Cole (at U of M) and Massad. “Cole expresses himself extremely coolly.” That’s absurd, and just shows how debased the discourse has become. I gave one example: Cole’s frequent charge that supporters of Israel are “American Likudniks.” Based on Cole’s writings, I take this to be an accusation of dual loyalties and treason. Here is Cole charging a Pentagon official with treason: “I believe that Doug Feith, for instance, has dual loyalties to the Israeli Likud Party and to the U.S. Republican Party. He thinks that their interests are completely congruent. And I also think that if he has to choose, he will put the interests of the Likud above the interests of the Republican Party.” I’ve also criticized Cole at length on my blog. I’ve gotten discouraged, though, since these criticisms are always met with personal insults. I believe that last time I was called a “moral imbecile,” or something.

By: Jack

Jack — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:26:17 +0000

Ragout, Professors at prestigious universities are hardly parti pris in this and are likely to be free to form their opinons as the facts suggest. To say that university professors with no obvious reason to favour the Palestinians are part of a propaganda machine is just not good enough. Juan Cole for example expresses himself extremely coolly. If you don’t agree, convince someone he is wrong if you can. What you have said would have got you challenged to a duel in earlier times. ABB1, I think building the wall on 1967 borders would have been an excellent thing—security and the moral high ground in one fell swoop. However I imagine it was not possible even if Sharon had been so inclined because of the settler vote. I am surprised at how little pressure Sharon gets over the settlers however. US aid means there isn’t much of a peace dividend for Israel and the imbalance of power makes thes tatus quo sustainable and the settlers have votes. In combination there isn’t much political incentive for Israel to remove the settlers and the situation goes on.

By: SomeCallMeTim

SomeCallMeTim — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:13:26 +0000

David: Isn’t the existence of Israel pretty well founded at this point? Whether or not the Palistinians want to drive all the Israelis into the sea, it doesn’t (from the outside) look like they (or anyone they might get as an ally) are in much of a position to do anything about it. To the extent that people discount the Palistinian vitriol, isn’t it b/c the Palistinians can’t really do anything about it? I mean, I’ve never really worried about UBL, b/c he can’t mortally wound the US and he is statistically unlikely to injure me and mine Am I missing something here?

By: Jonathan Edelstein

Jonathan Edelstein — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:09:13 +0000

But that debate [at The Head Heeb] is only civilized because the position of the author(s) and acceptable debate positions are effectively known in advance. Since my comment policies have been called into question, I will state for the record that I have none; the only comments I’ve ever deleted are commercial spam. Nor do I enforce any kind of “acceptable debate positions,” although I am not and do not claim to be neutral in the debate. And I doubt that there’s any consensus among my commenters (who include Palestinians, right and left-wing Israelis, and interested bystanders) as to the narrative of the conflict. I do, on the other hand, believe that it’s possible to disagree – even vehemently – without name-calling. People who can’t deal with that one ground rule don’t have their comments deleted, but everyone else tends to talk around them (hence the exchange you cited). It really doesn’t seem that difficult.

By: abb1

abb1 — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:57:13 +0000

There is a powerful propaganda machine on the Palestinian side as well. Ragout, I thought you were trying to refute (and categorize as ‘offensive’) my suggestion that Israeli right-wingers operate powerful propaganda machine. Now it appears that you’re only disagreeing with the “only one side” part. Sorry, my mistake. I don’t really agree that those professors are pushing propaganda. They are academics in the field of Middle-Eastern affairs; IOW, they are experts. But you certainly have a right to your opinion and obviously have thought about it a lot. So, FWIW, I do apologize for saying (uncivilly) “think, man” to you. Cheers.

By: David Sucher

David Sucher — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:36:59 +0000

And what is of course bizarre about the discussion (by people with no dog in the fight) is how they can come up with such weird equivalences. For example, one Cranky Professor says: Israel is “… in the wrong on most of the key issues (settlements, Gaza, etc). and then “…..the ultimate goal of the Palestinians and most of their supporters is to utterly destroy (Jewish) Israel and kill or drive away all its citizens.” He makes stupid Israeli policy equivalent to the goal of destroying Israel and seems puzzled about whom to support! (As if supporting one side or the other was particularly at issue.) Henry, can you not understand why this discussion is so depressingly energizing?

By: David Sucher

David Sucher — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:25:27 +0000

“…why do arguments on this issue become so much more heated more quickly than on other issues,…” Henry, perhaps what it might be impossible for non-Jews/non-Palestinians to grasp at a visceral level is that these are visceral issues? This matter is perceived as (and is in fact) an existential issue; sand I think that is the simple answer as to why this matter is so heated. The peoples—Jews at any rate, as I can’t possibly speak for Palestinians—view these matters as literal life-and-death issues. For Jews, in light of the Holocaust, that strikes me as a pretty accurate picture. And, I’d like to emphasisze, not only for Jews in Israel. That’s probably the hardest thing for non-Jews to grasp. In my mind, there is a clear, positive, objective correlation between the existence of an Israeli Army and the tranquility in which Jews in the USA live. Putting it another, simpler way: to some unknowable degree, the existence of an Israeil state and army protects me as an American Jew. As you might imagine but probably cannot really understand, this makes the issue more than purely an intellectual pursuit. I suspect that for Palestinians it is the same i.e. the struggle is seen as an existential one. (I am putting aside the attitudes of non-Palestinian Arabs for whom this struggle seems to be an issue of “humiliation” and historic anti-Semitism and in which the two are combined into a double horror of seeing Jews with guns.) So my answer to Henry’s question—taken seriously and at face-value—is that this is a true life-and-death situation and it should be no surprise that it is a matter of intensity for the princpals.

By: Ragout

Ragout — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:19:36 +0000

Otto, No doubt you’re offering your argument in good faith. But I see no bind. One can logically believe that Israel should ultimately give up all the settlements that aren’t suburbs of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, and also believe that the Palestinians are mostly to blame for the conflict. The Palestinians have made no secret of their desire to drive the Israelis into the sea, they launched the present conflict after Israel offered to make peace and give up most of the settlements, etc. One can also believe that a lot of the settlements should ultimately be removed, but think that this would be a mistake in the absence of a peace agreement. I’m decribing my view, of course, but there are many logically possible views that one could hold that involve supporting Israel but don’t imply support for “settler colonialism.” (And, BTW, “settler colonialism” is a vague and unhelpful term. It’s not a clear statement of a position that might invite discussion. It’s just name calling.) In any event, there’s no “bind,” and it seems pretty clear to me that you are suggesting that supporters of Israel have bad, hidden, motives that they aren’t willing to state.

By: Giles

Giles — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:14:05 +0000

Thomas Dent I was in Jaffa over the summer and its still an Arab town. In fact it could be argued that its a microcosm of how Israel could have turned out in an ideal world – the Jewish settlers built a city in the Dunes North of Jaffa and left the Arabs to carry on as before. But that obviously didnt happen everywhere – otherwise I’m not sure what your point is.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:13:17 +0000

The only reasonable solution to the I/P standoff is pretty much as Matthew Yglesias outlined it near the start of this thread — a two-state solution, some kind of fudging of the Jerusalem issue, and some kind of substitution of money for the right of return. The official positions of Israel, the EU and the US all agree on this. The PA’s bottom line for dropping an across-the-board right of return hasn’t yet been enunciated but most rational Palestinian observers realize that it will have to done.

That has been obvious just under forever. But is there any reason to believe that reasonable/rational solution will be the acceptable solution? If that were all there was to it, this would have been resolved at one of the previous junctures.

By: Giles

Giles — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:46:21 +0000

“Thomas Dent” I went to Jaffa over the summer and you might be surprised to hear that its actaully still pretty arab even the its surrounded by Tel Aviv. In fact jaffa’s a pretty poor example of injustice in the Middle East since its probably the one area where settlement prrecedded smoothly and without a great deal of force – the Jewish settles built Tel Aviv in the dunes where no one lived and the Arabs carried on as before in Jaffa. And despite a few hicups this state of affairs continues to this day. elsewhere the transition was not so smooth though!

By: Ragout

Ragout — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:21:51 +0000

I wrote: Abb1 says “Only one side operates powerful propaganda machine” and other offensive things. Abb1 now replies by directing me to the site of a University of Michigan professor who is a vitriolic critic of Israeli policy, and of US supporters of Israel, who he likes to call “American Likudniks.” The post he’s directing me to defends a Columbia University professor who is also a vitriolic critic of Israel and who says that “white American male sexuality exhibits certain sadistic attributes in the presence of non-white men and women over whom white Americans (and Brits) have government-sanctioned racialised power.” Then Abb1 urges me to think! Abb1, by bringing up these two professors from prestigious universities, I think you have proved my point. There is a powerful propaganda machine on the Palestinian side as well. Abb1, the reason I find your “facts” offensive is because they are not true. Perhaps you should examine more sceptically the propaganda your side is putting out. And perhaps you should stop suggesting that those who disagree with you are not thinking. You’ve also helped proved my larger point: in secular, left-liberal discourse about Israel, and without a doubt on CT, it is the anti-Israel side that engages in uncivil, name-calling, personal attacks.