A Response to Allison
| June 20th, 2003(Note - This post is a response to some comments Allison, of the excellent blog “An Unsealed Room,” has made both in the comments responding to my most recent cartoon, and also in a post on her own blog.)
Allison, I have acknowleged again and again that the wall serves a purpose of saving lives - as you should know, since we’ve discussed this before. I’ve even advocated building a wall along the green line. You can’t reasonably expect a four-panel cartoon to be as nuanced as a prose discussion.
I’m sorry that you (reasonably) found MFB’s post in my comments insulting, but you’ve been pretty insulting yourself. One thing that makes me roll my eyes is someone who suggests that a stance opposing their own must be, as you described my views, “knee-jerk reactions and un-thought-out stances.” I’ve actually thought a lot about these issues, for many years; you may not agree with what I say, but I’m neither knee-jerk or thoughtless.
You complain that I don’t “have a word of sadness or regret for the daily murders that are occurring in Israel in the NON-occupied territories.” Well, of course I’m saddened (and more, infuriated) whenever I read about the murders of civilians (in the occupied territories or not) - that’s a lot of why I care so much about the peace process. I’m sorry if you think otherwise.
I don’t post about every unjust death on my blog, because I don’t see the point; if I did that, I’d feel a need to post about both Palestinian and Israeli deaths, and it would quickly take over the blog. I’d rather not post about individual attacks at all. This blog isn’t a newspaper; it’s not my job to provide a record of deaths.
On your blog, you don’t write about the individual Palestinians who die, even the children and bystanders, but you frequently post about the deaths of individual Israelis. Should I conclude that you don’t feel sadness and regret when innocent Palestinians die? I think the answer is “no, I shouldn’t conclude that” - obviously, you can’t write about every death, and that you don’t write about every tragedy doesn’t mean you don’t regret them.
Nonetheless, your blog does paint a very one-sided picture of the conflict. Someone reading your blog would have almost no idea at all that there have been many more Palestinians than Israelis killed in this conflict; your blog gives the impression that the innocent, saintly Israelis are constantly being attacked for no reason by people who don’t have the slightest cause for complaint, and never vice-versa.
Now, I know that’s not what you really think. I know that when I challenge you, you readily acknowledge that Israel has done wrong in the past. I know that you have a more nuanced view than your basically one-sided blog posts imply. Why? First, because you’re obviously an intelligent, thoughtful person. And second, because I give you the benefit of the doubt. I wish you’d do the same for me.
At Camp David, both Israel’s and Arafat’s delegation (and Clinton’s) negotiated in bad faith and did things which were either wrong or mistaken. The point of view you seemingly argue here - that Israel was utterly sincere, and the only holdouts were Palestinians - is one-sided and false. (Note that the opposite point of view - Arafat was blameless, only the Americans and Israelis negotiated in bad faith - is equally wrongheaded, and I don’t advocate it.)
Israel walked away from negotiations at Taba (to reflect the newly-elected Sharon’s preference for non-negotiation at that time), when the Palestinians there were willing to continue. Israel ignored Saudi Arabia’s offer of recognition in exchange for withdrawal - it didn’t even attempt to use that offer as a starting point for discussions. Yet somehow you’re convinced that the Palestinians are the only ones who have refused negotiations.
There has never been a time - not even today - when the situation is as you describe. The Israelis are not as blameless as you imagine them to be; Palestinians have acted badly in their approach to negotiations (and in many other ways, the most horrible of which is terrorism), but they’re not the only ones at fault.
I’ve seen this tact taken by Israeli partisans many times over the years. “In the past, we weren’t pure. But today, the only holdout is those nasty Palestinians being unwilling to negotiate.” Unless you’re willing to view the current Israeli government’s actions critically, you’ll never see negotiations as anything but angelic Israelis being turned down by demonic Palestinians. And that’s not the reality, Allison. The Palestinians are not the only problem here.
Neither side is angelic here; neither side is doing all they can, or should, to try and reach peace. Neither side is making the concessions they should be making; neither side is acting in entirely good faith. Both sides have been cursed with leaders who love land and power more than they love life; both sides are willing to make provocations that they know will lead to reprisals in which their own countrymen and women will suffer and die.
Read over this blog and look for me making excuses for wrongful Palestinian actions, or defending the deaths of Israelis (or Americans who go there to support Israel), or claiming that Israel is now the sole problem. You won’t find it. It’s true, I criticize Israel much more (and for good reason; as a Jew, I have a personal connection to Israel, plus many more of my tax dollars go to Israel than Palestinians), but I don’t post excuses for Palestinian actions, I don’t claim that the current Palestinian leadership is interested only in trying “to figure out how we can best repair past errors and build a real future for both of us” (how naïve can you get?), and I don’t claim that only one side is the problem in the here and now.
Do I take a side? Yes. I’m not objective, and I’ve never claimed to be. But for you to imply on your blog that my view is any more “lop-sided and unidimensional” than your own is ridiculous.
By the way, I do welcome you posting here (or posting replies to me on your blog), and I hope you keep on doing so. We don’t agree, but I for one think it’s valuable - and maybe a minor miracle, given the current dismal state of public debate - that we can disagree with respect. I remain a fan of your blog. (And here’s a link to a post of yours - not because I have anything to say about that particular post, but because I’m hoping you’ll win that contest Bear is running!)
June 20th, 2003 at 7:03 am
Ampersand: I think that what you have just posted is one of the most balanced views I have read anywhere. I think it is similar to mine except you are diplomatic whilst I tend to rant. That’s because I care about the injustice and like you I can see both sides.
I think it’s about seeing the whole picture which unfortunately a lot of people are not prepared to do.
What is even more surprising to me is that you are seeing the whole picture even though you are yourself of the Jewish faith. In those circumstances I cannot understand why so many American non-Jews wade into this subject with fists flying so to speak and will not countenance any view that does not see ALL Palestinians as terrorists.
I say again, it was refreshing to read your posting.
This comment was written by Roy.Report this comment to the moderators
June 20th, 2003 at 9:35 am
A parable of Israel and Palestine
This comment was written by Steve.The Hatfields and the McCoys have a family picnic. They have a three-legged race for 26 miles. At any given moment, both Hatfield and McCoy participants randomly switch partners within their families. Both sides claim that what the other side is doing is dirty cheating. This is Israel and Palestine.
Israel and Palestine, respectively, are not homogenous unified group entities. Look at the number of Israelis political parties and the bizarrely contradictory coalition governments they form, and reform. Religious Jewish equivalent of manifest destiny, Ethnic Jewish desire for a safe harbor state, etc. The palestinians are both christian and muslim, and various denominations of each. Some are Israeli citizens, some are not. Some live in the occupied territories, some do not. Each side sees the mass of contradicitons on the other side and uncharitably characterizes it as “negotiations in bad faith”, etc.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 20th, 2003 at 9:53 am
Good post, Barry. And I think Allison should be commended for her forthrightness, intelligence and the clear articulation of her views. I don’t always agree with them, but then I don’t come away thinking I’ve just heard the ravings of a lunatic, either (as can so often be the case in discussions of Middle Eastern politics.) Passions run high in this debate. It’s hard to keep a cool head. So kudos to Barry and Allison.
And I like the Hatfield-McCoy analogy. It works too well.
This comment was written by Kevin Moore.Report this comment to the moderators
June 20th, 2003 at 10:05 am
This is only peripherally relevant but this post made me think of an old cartoon you did and I went and looked in the archives and I have to say that no matter how many times I see it, your Neither Can God cartoon always brings tears to my eyes.
This comment was written by Jake.Report this comment to the moderators
June 20th, 2003 at 10:40 am
You know a lot of this all goes back to Camp David/Taba and I infer by your link to the NYRB discussion of the events there that you accept their account. There have been many others–including Dan Meridor’s in Haaretz–that express different biews. I have no direct knowledge, so I can’t be sure (don’t know how you could either), but I wonder.
Briefly (I have to work on my new book), Arafat walked out of the talks with the complaint that the Israelis were offering only 85% percent of what he wanted. The Israelis put the percentage higher, but let’s accept Arafat’s figure. I have a question for you, when you have been in a negotiation that offered you 85% of what you wanted did you continue to negotiate… or did you walk out and start a violent Intifada? My assumption if you did hte latter was that you didn’t really want peace, that want you wanted was the illusion of wanting peace while you sought the total destruction of ISrael. In the old days I didn’t think that but now, alas, I am reconsidering.
This comment was written by Roger L. Simon.Report this comment to the moderators
June 20th, 2003 at 11:07 am
Roger, your summary of what happened is entirely the Israeli’s point of view. If you assume that the Israeli point of view is 100% legitimate, and all other views are 100% lies, then the way you put things is valid. Otherwise it is not.
I linked to the article because, first of all, the article’s author (an American negotiator on Clinton’s team) was there; and second of all, I find his account - which suggests that all sides of the dispute are human, and none are fully perfect or fully evil - is by far the most plausible account I’ve read. I don’t find “my side was perfect, their side was evil” accounts as plausible, somehow.
In my view, Israel did not offer 85%; Arafat didn’t end negotiations (they continued after Camp David); and the infitada didn’t start out in the incredibly simplictic and one-dimensional way you describe. You’ve described the extreme pro-Israel perspective on events, but I don’t think that one perspective describes the entire truth of the matter. Therefore, your final question, based as it is on a number of beliefs I don’t think are true, doesn’t make much sense for me to answer.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 20th, 2003 at 12:26 pm
first, I think Kevin is right, the Allison has been reasonable and articulate (and good enough to refrain from using Nazi imagry in a pro-israel statement, which is so rare)
the Hatfeild/McCoy analogy is rather well framed, although at bit cartoon-y and simplistic (although still a working model)
amp, I’d like to thank you for the link to the Camp David summary, it’s one of the deeper statements I’ve seen, showing just how much effort any steps to peace in a conflict with this much history takes. when talks do break down, it isn’t a unilateral thing, but a series of perceived problems that each side takes.
the “everyone messed up” approach to thinking is much more conductive towards future peace efforts, and really should be embraced by all.
but then, I’m not saying anything you don’t already know
This comment was written by karpad.Report this comment to the moderators
June 20th, 2003 at 12:47 pm
See, what set up my warning bells was Allison saying “The wall is a security wall, and the reason that it is encroaching into the West Bank is to protect more human beings - who live in settlements.” Not even acknowledging that perhaps those settlements were illegally (according to all sorts of UN resolutions) built in the first place.
“If you assume that the Israeli point of view is 100% legitimate, and all other views are 100% lies…” You know, even Israeli writers don’t subscribe to that point of view. Why do so many American Jews?
This comment was written by Elayne Riggs.Report this comment to the moderators
June 20th, 2003 at 1:33 pm
This discussion about the negotiations and the start of the intifada has reminded me of a couple of good articles I read a while ago in Foreign Affairs having to do with these topics, which I would recommend checking out. FA requires payment to view them online, but they should be available at any public library.
I’ll try to summarize their central points as best I can remember.
The first is “Palestinians Divided” by Khalil Shikaki, from January/February 2002. This article deals with how the intifada got started. Shikaki separates Palestinian politics into three competing groups: the ‘Old Nationalists’, the ‘Young Nationalists’ and the Islamists. The Old Nationalists are the members and leaders of the PLA-in-exile in the 1980s (like Abbas), who ‘gambled on’ the Oslo peace process in 1993. The Young Nationalists were the ’street’ leaders in the first intifada. The Islamists include Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Shikaki claims that the intifada was organized by the Young Militants with the goal of simultaneously replacing the Old Nationalists as the leders of the Palestinians and forcing Israel to unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza. Arafat tried to balance himself between Old Nationalists (who had gambled on the peace process and tried to salvage it) and the Young Nationalists in order to keep his power and status/position/influence.
Shikaki also has a lot of interesting data from Palestinian opinion polls about views of the peace process and the use of violence against the various ‘categories’ of Israelis (soldiers, settlers, civilians). He also summarizes what he sees as three possible paths Israel can take to deal with the intifada:
1) Restart negotiations, which Shikaki claims would benefit the Old Nationalists who gambled their political capital on negotiations in the 1990s.
2) Withdraw, which Shikaki claims would benefit the Young Nationalists, who would claim the withdrawal as the successful conclusion of their intifada.
3) Stick to the present state of affairs (raids, roadblocks, possible negotiations in the future), which Shikaki claims would benefit the Islamists as the cycle of violence and retaliations continues and further radicalizes those involved.
The second article is “The Last Negotiation” by Hussein Agha and Robert Malley, from May/June 2002. This article looks at the end of Israel/Palestinian talks at Camp David and Taba. It argues that any future negotiations should just start off where the last negotiations ended and not try to set up any interim conflict-reducing and trust-building agreements or periods.
What I found most fascinating in this article was its detailed look at the specifics of the last negotiations. Since I don’t have it with me, I won’t trust my memory and try to put down the details given in the article (which included percentage of the Occupied Territories that would be included in Palestine, the amount of Israeli land that would be transferred to Palestine to compensate for portions of the West Bank that would be annexed by Israel, etc.)
I thought these were both balanced and enlightening articles that really impressed me and stuck in my mind. And, since a vigorous debate is still going about the negotiations and the intifada, they seem relevant to the current discussion. Sorry for going on so long.
This comment was written by David Schaich.Report this comment to the moderators
June 20th, 2003 at 2:41 pm
(Note: I don’t know nearly enough about Israel/ Palestine and I regularly get trounced for my ignorance, so please excuse anything that strikes you as particularly stupid in this comment.)
I have been wondering lately if there is a big mental gulf between those of us who hold some countries and peoples to a higher standard than we do others and those who hold everyone to the same standard; and whether to hold someone to a higher standard shows your respect for her or is an act of injustice.
I thought of this originally in relation to the Gitmo prisoners. Anytime they are mentioned, some people on the right immediately say that the prisoners America is holding indefinitely are much better off than Iraqi prisoners under Saddam were.
Of course they are. But since when does the U.S. set its metric of humanity by a brutal military dictator? I respect America so I expect better.
The same is true of Israel. It is a democracy expressly guided by religion, has American support and appears to be an economically successful and internally just society. I think of Israel as operating from a position clearly higher and more secure than the Palestinians, so I expect reactions to violence to be more rational and long-sighted.
But I think people who have what has been termed “Likudnik” views may see Israel and Palestine very differently, and consider Israel to be much more vulnerable and less able to be a thoughtful or generous party than I do.
In relation to the wall, I think Israel should recognize how worried Palestinians are that their land will be swallowed up forever, and build the wall within the bounds of land that definitely will not be ceded in any future peace agreement.
This comment was written by PG.I see Israel as better able to do this than the Palestinians are able to view the wall as no threat to them.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 20th, 2003 at 5:35 pm
After the wall is built, will George W. Bush, in emulation of his hero Ronald Reagan, stand before it and exclaim: “Mister Sharon, tear down this wall!” ?
I think not.
And Elayne is right—the inclusion of settlements by the wall would provide tacit official approval to illegally occupied territory.
This comment was written by Kevin Moore.Report this comment to the moderators
June 21st, 2003 at 7:00 am
Amp.,
your blog gives the impression that the innocent, saintly Israelis are constantly being attacked for no reason
this is what happens most of the time
by people who don’t have the slightest cause for complaint
they do, but they are taking their “complaints” to the wrong address, which is exactly what constitutes their crimes
, and never vice-versa
what do you mean? that Allison never writes about innoncent, saintly Palestinians attacked by Israelis who do not have the slightest cause for complaint?
This comment was written by Miranda.Report this comment to the moderators
June 21st, 2003 at 10:35 am
PRIVATE LYNCH UP
The hospital staff also said that on the night of March 27, military officials prepared to kill Ms. Lynch by putting her in an ambulance and blowing it up with its occupants — blaming the atrocity on the Americans. The ambulance drivers balked at that idea. Eventually, the plan was changed so that a military officer would shoot Ms. Lynch and burn the ambulance. So Sabah Khazal, an ambulance driver, loaded her in the vehicle and drove off with a military officer assigned to execute her.
“I asked him not to shoot Jessica,” Mr. Khazal said, “and he was afraid of God and didn’t kill her.” Instead, the executioner ran away and deserted the army, and Mr. Khazal said that he then thought about delivering Ms. Lynch to an American checkpoint. But there were firefights on the streets, so he returned to the hospital. (Ms. Lynch apparently never knew how close she had come to execution.)
Kampfner has never fully explained the many problems with his report, and this only makes it worse.
This comment was written by Anonymous.Report this comment to the moderators
June 21st, 2003 at 7:52 pm
I find his account - which suggests that all sides of the dispute are human, and none are fully perfect or fully evil - is by far the most plausible account I’ve read. I don’t find “my side was perfect, their side was evil” accounts as plausible, somehow.
I think the above highlights the typical naivette of “bleeding heart” liberals. Some humans are fully evil, or at least more that others, as incomprehensible as it may be to the rest of us. Ampersand’s mistaken assertion is what drives a “blame the victim” mentality. The victim must have done something, so the thinking goes, because it’s implausible to think the perpetrator was completely wrong. Unfortunately, history and even everyday scanning of your local paper show otherwise.
This comment was written by Hasidic Rebel.Report this comment to the moderators
June 21st, 2003 at 10:44 pm
Hi, HR! I keep on meaning to link to your blog, which I quite like.
To be a bit more specific, given Israeli actions over the years, I find the depiction of Israel as being the utterly innocent victim, which didn’t do anything at all blameworthy, to be a tad implausible.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 22nd, 2003 at 6:38 pm
Amp,
I think the idea of trying to establish some overall innocent-hood is pretty silly. It’s like purity or virginity or something, and then we can all be sure we’re on the right side and feel really good about ourselves and better than other people.
Knocking on some straw man of supposed innocence really misses the point, which is that this is not a simple situation, that conflicting needs and desires are not about innocence/purity, and attaching abstract adjectives like innocent or guilt to practically any group ultimately just serves lets you forget about the humanity and individuality of the people involved. It’s these sweeping concepts of guilt vs. innocence that lets Hamas describe every single Israeli, from the 60 yr old new immigrant to the 19 yr old soldier to the two year old infant as guilty Zionists and appropriate targets for murder.
But pointing to different histories, differing versions of events, and presenting them, and even supporting them, is exactly what EVERYBODY is doing. You’ve already decided what you’re supporting, and of course you think it’s right and everybody else’s is wrong, otherwise you wouldn’t have chosen yours. But you have to understand that the facts and versions and histories you’ve chosen are not posted on some heavenly wall, with God’s affadavit written beneath.
And it would help if you didn’t respond to other people’s versions, facts, and histories, by reading them in pieces and picking out pieces to set up as straw men and claim to be writing fair unbiased posts.
This comment was written by Tara.Report this comment to the moderators
June 23rd, 2003 at 1:44 am
Ampersand, I appreciate your taking Allison’s side on this matter out of politeness, but unfortunately this seems to exemplify what I was talking about in my brief post.
Zionists — virtually all, as far as I can see –talk about the wall as something which saves lives; that is, it assists them in preventing Palestinians from fighting against their oppression, which along with political assassination and mass terror, may eventually help the Israelis to crush all Palestinian resistance so that the present system of racial and political oppression lasts for a thousand years.
This is hideous, even in principle. There is simply no point in debating with people who adopt this position, however nice they may be as people in other ways. They do not see Palestinians as human beings; there is the problem. They see Palestinians as obstacles to the permanent security of the Jewish state.
The issue of Palestinian terrorism, lack of democracy, or anything else, is actually irrelevant to the question of the legitimacy (both moral and political)of Israeli behaviour, which is why Zionists hide behind it. And why Zionists deal with criticism of any kind with personal abuse and utterly spurious pretensions about their own moral purity.
There are, no doubt, Zionists who do not fit the above categorization. That does not invalidate the criticisms. There were also, no doubt, sincere supporters of apartheid in South Africa, although I never met one.
This comment was written by MFB.Report this comment to the moderators
June 23rd, 2003 at 6:39 am
Actually, this particular Zionist sees the wall as something that will make it possible for Israel to get the hell out of the WB and Gaza with a reasonable degree of safety, thus facilitating the creation of a Palestinian state with a clearly demarcated border. I wonder if MFB realizes that he’s making the same kind of sweeping generalizations about Zionists as he accuses us of making about Palestinians.
This comment was written by Jonathan Edelstein.Report this comment to the moderators
June 23rd, 2003 at 7:13 am
MFB, I’m also curious about your statement that Palestinian terrorism is “irrelevant to the question of the legitimacy… of Israeli behavior.” Unless you believe (1) that Israel has no legitimate right to self-defense or (2) that the sole cause of terrorism is the occupation and that it will disappear if the occupaton does, then Palestinian terrorism is a genuine self-defense issue for Israel.
To give you an idea of where I’m coming from, I consider the I-P conflict roughly equivalent to the Algerian war of independence. One thing that has come up time and again in my discussions of Algeria is that France, unlike Israel, had a safe avenue of retreat - it had the Mediterranean as a natural border between it and Algeria. Most Israelis at this point want to disengage from the Palestinians, but the lack of a defensible natural border combined with Palestinian terrorism presents a serious self-defense problem. There are thus two ways to bring about an end to the occupation: stop all Palestinian terrorism (which isn’t possible by military means) or build a border. That’s why the wall is so damned important - it will be for Israel what the Mediterranean was for France, and enable the IDF to take a defensive posture on the Israeli side of the wall.
I’m at a loss to understand exactly how Palestinian terrorism is “irrelevant” to all this, either politically or morally. Politically, terrorism has dictated Israeli military strategy, made disengagement much more difficult and radicalized the Israeli electorate in much the same way that the occupation has radicalized the Palestinians. Morally, as Amp says, there’s plenty of blame to go around, and the Palestinian terrorists are among the blameworthy.
This comment was written by Jonathan Edelstein.Report this comment to the moderators
June 23rd, 2003 at 8:28 am
Unfortunately, it’s more as if France had the ability to control where the Mediterranean is and chose to place it in such a way that guaranteed France access to the best land and water resources. There is such a thing as an unjust peace, and I think that’s what the Wall, as currently constructed, is going to create.
Jonathan, I don’t think “dictated” (”terrorism has dictated Israeli military strategy”) is the correct word; that implies that Israel has had no choice at all, which I don’t beleive is true. Israel had no choice but to acknowlege and respond to terrorism, but it did have choice of what responses to make.
Finally, I agree with you that MFB is doing to the Zionists (by which I think he means people who defend Israel’s actions in Palestine, not people who support Israel’s continued existance at all; perhaps he could clarify this point) what he accuses Zionists of doing to Palestinians. But the two things aren’t, as you seem to be implying, morally equivilent; Zionism (if I’m interpreting MFB’s meaning of the word correctly) is a political stance, not a race or ethnicity. Just as dislike of Republicans isn’t as bad as dislike of Jews, dislike of Zionists isn’t as bad as dislike of Palestinians.
However, that depends on what he means by “Zionist.” In these debates, people often refuse to acknowlege that the word is used for different meanings as an aggressive debate tactic.
I say this not to defend MFB (who seems happy to be undefended by me, and whose arguing style I think is counterproductive), but just to make the point.
* * *
Tara, to quote from my post, “Do I take a side? Yes. I’m not objective, and I’ve never claimed to be.”
So yeah, I disagree with Roger Simon’s version of events; I think it’s a thinly-disguised attempt to say “negotiation with Palestinians is impossible, and therefore whatever Israel does that seems to make negotiations harder or less likely is justified.”
Also, I think the “Palestinians/Arabs are the only people who refuse to negotiate” meme is obviously inconsistant with recent history; to quote my post again, “Israel walked away from negotiations at Taba (to reflect the newly-elected Sharon’s preference for non-negotiation at that time), when the Palestinians there were willing to continue. Israel ignored Saudi Arabia’s offer of recognition in exchange for withdrawal - it didn’t even attempt to use that offer as a starting point for discussions.”
In general, I think the “wah wah, poor victimized Israel” thought pattern is one of the most subtantial barriers to a negotiated peace. Most Israeli partisans can’t even see the point in not building a security wall in an obviously provocative fashion that sets up a border that no sane Palestinian leader could ever agree to; why bother doing something that would make negotiations possible, since it’s a given that for Israel to do such a thing is pointless?
Similarly, since most Israeli partisans refuse to acknowlege that Israel bears any portion of the blame for the failure of negotiations at Camp David and Taba, they beleive there is nothing Israel could do to alter its own behavior in order to make future negotiations more successful. This is an anti-peace, anti-negotiations stance; more to the point, it’s factually wrong. Even if you accept Roger’s version of events entirely, there is more Israel could have done; for instance, Israel could - and should - have offered one-to-one land swaps so that what was being offered was 100%, not 85%.
I think any story, on either side, that supports the conclusion “negotiations are pointless and peace is impossible” is horribly wrong, and is part of the problem.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 23rd, 2003 at 10:54 am
Amp, I agree that Sharon is building the wall in the wrong place. As I’ve said before, I’d rather see it built along either the 1967 border or a modified 1967 border such as what was proposed at Taba. I’m responding to the characterization of the wall, in and of itself, as an exercise in “apartheid” or preservation of racial supremacy. If it were that, then the primary domestic opposition to the wall within Israel wouldn’t be coming from the settler movement.
Agreed on the use of the word “dictated.” As you say, though, Palestinian terrorism is politically relevant in that Israel had no choice but to fashion some response to it. Agreed, also, on your response to Tara (although it’s amazing how true the response would still be if the word “Palestinian” were substituted for “Israeli” throughout).
I’ll have to respectfully disagree with you about MFB. He isn’t just disagreeing with Zionists’ politics - he is attributing certain personality traits and styles of argument to Zionists in general and is effectively claiming that Zionism cannot be a sincerely held political position. His attack on Zionists is at least as personal as it is political, and as such it is no more ethical than a stereotype-based personal attack on any other group. It’s the difference between saying “Democrats are too liberal” and “Democrats are simpering traitors” - the one is political argument, the other is political bigotry.
This comment was written by Jonathan Edelstein.Report this comment to the moderators
June 23rd, 2003 at 12:42 pm
“Good fences make good neighbors.”
This comment was written by PG.At least, they might prevent neighbors from killing each other.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 23rd, 2003 at 4:05 pm
[Note: this person put in the username “Amp.” Just to clarify, I’m not the one who wrote this post - Ampersand]
I’m not sure who you mean by Israeli partisans? Zionists?
Have you noticed that there isn’t exactly a comfortable atmosphere for discussion? “Israel has not always acted as morals and hindsight say it should have” goes very quickly to “Israel is an illegitate state built on the backs of Palestinians, terrorism is Israel’s fault, and as soon as Israeli abandons any pretense at security, borders, military, and statehood, everything will be dandy.”
The kind of nuanced approach you say you never see requires a certain safety, which just does not exist almost anywhere for Zionists. Or else how would you explain the lack of it? They’re dumb? Evil? Bad and imperialist?
This comment was written by Amp (note: not Ampersand).Report this comment to the moderators