Comments on: “Strong Supporter of Israel” and “Pro-Israel” shouldn’t mean “right wing”

By: Eurosabra

Eurosabra — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:23:27 +0000

Curiousgyrl: “Control of land and water and expulsion of undesirable people is” [Israel’s goal.]

Umm, yeah, right, that’s why SO MUCH of the territory (Golan/Jerusalem) has been annexed and placed under Israeli civil law over the past 40 years. Means the State of Israel itself regards 90% of the land as disputed and under belligerent occupation. Because you sure want to get stuck in anarchy while trying to give de facto and de jure control away (Oslo) and deny yourself de jure sovereignty, or even an explicit claim of de jure sovereignty, if your final goal is all of the land and none of the people. Makes perfect sense.

By: Barry

Barry — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:49:57 +0000

IMHO at this point, after over 30 years of Israeli behavior under a variety of governments, ‘pro-Israel’ and ‘right-wing’ are indeed the same. Now, given a rather unlikely and highly radical reorganization of the Israeli system of government, that might not be. But only ‘might’.

By: curiousgyrl

curiousgyrl — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:25:40 +0000

I am sure we could endlessly debate it, but i think the history of recent cease-fires suggest that what Palestinians would get would be more of the same (increased restriction of movement and disruption of daily life through wall construction, road block, raids and settlement.)

This is because I don’t think “peace” or ending rocket attacks is actually the primary aim Israeli government policy; i think control of land and water and expulsion of undesirable people is.

This is not to say that I find the rocket attacks or suicide bombing to be useful tactics or desirable ones; I just think that analytical focus on them is a red herring that misunderstands the power relationship at play in the conflict.

By: RonF

RonF — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 06:00:02 +0000

I dont think the Palestinians are in a position to “sell out.”

What do you think would happen if the Palestinians actually stopped all attacks from Palestinian territories (both rocket attacks and killers crossing their borders). What do you think they could get for that?

By: curiousgyrl

curiousgyrl — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:21:07 +0000

I dont think the Palestinians are in a position to “sell out.”

By: Aaron V.

Aaron V. — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:19:40 +0000

And I’m well aware of people on the left whose radar is totally screwed up when it comes to Israel and the Palestinians - that any overture at peace is considered a “sellout by the Palestinians”.

The best thing for the Palestinians is for them to stop being used as a political football by repressive Arab states like Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, and homophobic and sexist theocracies like Iran, and tell other countries “Fuck y’all - we’re going to make our own peace with Israel…stop telling us the Israelis are the devil while exploiting us!”

By: curiousgyrl

curiousgyrl — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:07:36 +0000

I believe both of the positions described are “right wing,” though distinct. If I was writing the headline it would read ” ‘Strong supporter of Israel’ and ‘Pro-Israel’ shouldn’t mean Neoconservative ” or “shouldn’t mean Likudnik.”

By: RonF

RonF — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:54:45 +0000

The mainstream media should find a more neutral term to use.

The mainstream media should find more neutral terms to use for a lot of things. But it’s not neutral, so it won’t.

By: SamChevre

SamChevre — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:41:43 +0000

This comment is not Israel-specific.

I do not see that “strong supporter of nation X” and “strong supporter of the current government of nation X” necessarily go together. I think it would be altogether possible and reasonable for a Frenchman to “love America” and be “pro-America” and think that the Bush administration was bad for America.