[Kevin Andrew Murphy]

Dan,

I call "Godwin's law" on your "nazi poet wine and cheese cross burnings" (though I'll admit I'm intrigued by how you burn a cross of wine and cheese--is it a sort of fondue?). And also "Ad hom" on "bigot" and "antisemite," though of course I realize these are free cards you usually get to throw down whenever someone disagrees with you. But we're supposed to be having a civilized debate, or at least that's the general idea.

I've made no secret of my assertion that I find the founding of Israel to have been a rather wacky idea. You think it's less wacky. Whatever, I think we can both agree that it's here now and as such has a right to exist, if simply based on the fact that people have been living there for multiple generations, have lives and property, etc.

Of course, the same should hold true for the people of southern Lebanon who are currently being bombed and told to flee and where have we heard that routine before? I think Israel has expansionist designs and while I'd be happy to be wrong about this, I don't think I am, given the situation and given the history.

[David Anthony]

I'd be interested to know how many participants in this thread have changed their minds as a result of the arguments advanced here.
(Dr Quincy, I urge you to leave your qualifications at the door when you enter here, in accordance with Erato's custom and practice.)
Best regards,
David

[Rose Kelleher]

David, I've found this thread thought-provoking, and a couple of the posts have in fact influenced my opinion somewhat. It's good to see these matters being discussed out in the open as opposed to each side muttering among themselves. I suppose you could see it as an unpleasant confrontation, but you could also see it as a coming-together of intelligent, fundamentally decent people who probably aren't going to butcher or even hate each other despite their differing views. Would that life were always like that.

[Janet Kenny]

Rose is right. I was appalled when the thread started but the discussion has been very considerate and muted.

My only contribution was to link an article by a journalist who is noted for his lack of bigotry.

We use the word "war" to cover unspeakable atrocities committed in the name of many things.

I would like the manufacturers of weapons to be placed in the front lines.

Janet

[Mark Granier]

I do, however, still assert Israel has the right to have taken the actions we're discussing, whether or not we believe ourselves to be superior tacticians to the Israeli mililtary and intelligence leadership.

That's something I've often wondered about Dan, and not just in relation to the Israeli military. One would think that any advanced military intelligence network is best-placed, with the resources (and intelligence), to figure the way out of any potential conflict. But if we apply this to (say) the Pentagon, should we just keep schtum, shut up and let the hawks get on with their hawkish doings? I think many not particularly intelligent people could SEE that Iraq was a disaster in the making, not least because the reasons put forward for the war were painfully obvious lies. No comfort that we've been proved correct; it didn't take a high IQ to see where it all was heading. And sorry, but the relentless bombing of Lebanon seems very much of the same mindset. I know, I am nattering about this from my privileged perch in Dublin, but from what I've seen and read it does seem to me that the Israeli government, with all its awesome resources in military intelligence, experience, etc. may well be disasterously WRONG in this instance. They can't be merely wrong of course. And so the exercise looks more likely to be politically cynical, perhaps even as cynical as the initial capture of those Israeli soldiers.

[Quincy Lehr]

David--

Consider the qualifications checked.

Kevin, Dan--

I'll wade into the discussion a bit, but only a bit. My own opinions fall much closer to Kevin's as a rule, but neither of you seems to be quite on the right track about what Israel is or is not.

Let's start with the idea of the "Jewish State." I the abstract, this can potentially mean several things:

1. A state that is specifically Jewish in religious outlook. (Though I think Kevin overstates the case with his talk of "theocracy," there is an element of truth to that, in that the official rhythms of Iraeli life are, to varying extents, tied to Jewish observances.)

2. A state that looks out for, in the first instance, its Jewish citizenry. (This strikes me as probably the closest to what Israel is. Unlike apartheid South Africa, where black people were always an integral part of the economy, the Zionist project foresaw--and created--a state in which not only the upper and administrative classes were Jewish, but the working class as well, mostly through the dispossession and forced removal of Palestinian Arabs.)

3. A state that represents all the Jewish people in the entire world. (This is, I think, the claim of Zionism, more or less conflated with #2, and falsely assumes a national identity for Jews, on which more anon.)

Now all of this is somewhat fictive. States represent the interests of the dominant class in the first place, ultimately protecting those interests by violence or the possibility of violence. But you catch my drift.

On to my main point, though, which concerns nations--not the same thing as nation-states. The Jews of the world were not, by most definitions, a nation in the early 1900s. Regardless of the continued sacral importance of Hebrew, they lived in widely scattered parts of the world, spoke different languages, had differing customs, differing types of interaction with society at large, etc. An Ashkenazic Jew in Vilna lived a very different life than a Sephardic Jew in Thessaloniki or an Ethiopian Jew or a Yemani Jew.

But since 1949, with successive generations growing up in Israel, speaking Hebrew as their native tongue, etc., I think we can speak of a Hebrew-speaking Israeli nation with a valid claim to the land on which they live--a claim that wasn't valid in the same way for their immigrant ancestors. The Israeli grandson of a Polish immigrant has no particular ties to Poland, any more than I do to Germany--or that immigrant Polish couple did to Palestine.* You push that Israeli out of Israel, and he or she has been dispossessed. Again, this goes for those from Israel, not for Jewish Brooklynites.

BUT... the Palestinians who were pushed off of the land or forced into enclaves have their own, valid, conflicting claim to the same land--and they are the ones whose very presence in their own country is under threat.

(And no, the Arab regimes in the area didn't give a shit about Palestinian self-determination in 1949, either.)

And that's what makes it so damn hard. I suspect that the situation will only improve when things shift for the better in the region as a whole--which won't come from mullahs or kleptocratic U.S. puppets or the remnants of Pan-Arab nationalism. But in the short term, it's a fairly hopeless situation.

Quincy


*Titus's sacking of Jerusalem aside, it seems, from what I've read, that most of ancient Palestine's Jewish population probably stayed put, converted to Christianity and then Islam, and gradually became Palestinians.

[This message has been edited by Quincy Lehr (edited July 29, 2006).]

[Robert J. Clawson]

Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:

"You and RJ have a good time together at the next wine-and-cheese-cross-burning, or whatever it is you do at the local poet nazi gathering."

The ad hom stuff makes your argument less eloquent.

"By the way, Ali G's Jewish, so be careful about bringing him along."

Can a Jew not negotiate?

"It's not lost on me that the U.S. seems quite pleased to let Israel ping away at Iran's local henchmen."

"Ping?" The U.S. likes the big ones. Loves strategic bombing. Referring to WWII, this from the New York Post:

"Didn't the willingness of their leaders to inflict mass casualties on civilians indicate a cold-eyed singleness of purpose that helped break the will and the back of their enemies?"

Awk!

"It's also not lost on me that Sharon lays {sic} dying,"

Just helping. Each of us needs an editor.

"Yes, the current situation is more nuanced that what I've been drawn into with the local bigots on this board."

Repeat, ad hom doesn't help your argument. Into what has this anti-Semite drawn you? Is the bombing of civilians on either side nuanced? I find it barbaric. Yes, just as barbaric as suicide bombers, the lopping of heads, and torturing prisoners of war.

"And I am unfortunately less able than RJ to say "dumb semites" and wave it all off,"

Wave it off? What can I do but gape in horror?

"...especially having witnessed the behavior of the "dumb Japhethite" coalition in Iraq for the last four years.""

Oh, relax, Dan. We're just witnessing the birthpangs of The New Middle East. (Note to self: clarify position on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

"- Israel purposefully attempts to contact at-risk civilian populations advising them of imminent attacks. Israel does this at the sacrifice of the element of surprise, therefore putting her own forces at a disadvantage, specifically to minimize collateral damage."

Question: are 800,000 displaced people not "collateral damage"? If that phrase actually means "killed" or "wounded" by bombs, it would be good to shift back to the older meaning and to save "collateral damage" for those who have become filthy, starving, depressed refugees.

"- Israel has made it clear that the beginning of negotiations is the return of the two kidnapped soldiers. It is within Hezbollah's power at any point in this drama to begin negotiations with Israel, by returning the Israeli nationals."

This is true. It would be even better if Israel agreed to exchange prisoners.

"Hezbollah, Hamas, and their allies ruthlessly attack civilian venues one day, and the next day the Lebanese government complains about civilian casualties, when the Israelis finally counterattack."

Strike "finally."

"What is Israel's wisest move in my opinion? Pick the first Hamas or Hezbollah leader to come forward and say "Israel has every right to exist within Israel's territory. Terrorism is not a valid tactic. Here are the names and locations of every terrorist in my organization," and consider that individual a negotiating partner immediately."

Why just the first to come forward? In a dream like this, you should envision a swarm of these pigeons.

"Until that time, these two organizations -- as well as Islamic Jihad and he rest who spout and act upon the Death-to-Israel party line -- have thereby invited Israeli action against them."

True, just as in the past. That's why I "wave it off" as dumb. Neither side sports a good track record.

"AE, I think the crux of your question is this: Does Israel risk more by ignoring/encouraging terrorist actions, or in responding to them?"

Wait a minute, is it "nuanced" or not?

"Through the 1990s, I thought the greater peril was in responding to these provocations. Having witnessed what happens to "negotiating partners," from the point of view of an Israeli/Palestinian peace activist, I've come to the opposite conclusion in recent years, to wit, the actions of terrorists must have consequences for the terrorists, and the consequences must be unacceptable to the terrorists."

Dan, do you think there's been a change in the terrorists' attitudes since the end of the 1990's? What could have happened since 2000 to have so emboldened them? It seems that the entire region is boiling with hatred. Unlike we dilletantes, you've bothered to study the history of the conflict. Am I failiing to identify an ingredient that may have greatly intensified this conflict?

"In this particular case, however, my opinion is that it is not wiser to "sit back and take it"."

Has anyone advised Israel to do so?

"But for negotiations to go anywhere, the terrorists will have to, in effect, stop being terrorists."

Yes, I think this is so. Yet I must question whence cometh terror? Is it an Arab specialty? Was, say, "Shock and Awe," designed to terrorize, to break the will of the Iraqi army and populace? And has it worked, or does it just take more time?

Respectfully,

Bob



[This message has been edited by Robert J. Clawson (edited July 30, 2006).]

[Dan Halberstein]

I'll take the oft-given advice to relax on the subject; fortunately, we're a bunch of poets with political opinions, rather than people in positions to affect outcomes.

I'll try to do this next bit without stomping anybody's buzz. First, in response to the oft-recycled number of "800,000 forcibly displaced" Arab Palestinians:

To put it simply: There were barely 800,000 Arabs to expel from Israel in 1948, and 160,000 remained as Arab citizens of Israel. Beyond that, the vast majority did not leave at gunpoint or anything like it. The Lydda and Ramleh expulsions actually have that name, because they were the exception. There were no "Jerusalem expulsions," "Haifa Expulsions," or "Jaffa Expulsions," for example. In the vast majority of cases, Palestinian Arabs (as they later decided to call themselves,) left at the urging of invading Arab armies, or of their own volition, when the fighting had started. It's estimated that over 2/3 of them never laid eyes on a Jewish soldier; hardly a "forcible" expulsion.

The following web-page is certainly open to debate, and is from a Jewish source. However, I think it may provide food for thought to those who lament the plight of the Palestinian people, and continually do so with no sense of proportion or context.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/.../refugees.html

Back and forth, back and forth. I know. It never ends. But it's worth noting that the Arab nations of Southwest Asia and North Africa encouraged and in some cases sponsored pogroms of their own Jewish populations, until more Jews left their homes in those nations, than Arabs left Israel during the War of Independence.

These were communities who had centuries-long roots in these states. Do we hear demands that Iraq, Syria, Tunisia, Algeria, et al. pay them reparations, or repatriate them in Jewish statelets within Arab countries? No. Because Israel absorbed these refugees. Arab states -- many of them oil-rich -- never took any such stand on behalf of Arab refugees from the 1948 war. Does this not enter into the mind of the pro-Palestinian "analyst," when he considers the ongoing crisis that has been the middle east?

I do aim to educate those who seem happiest when being glib about others' lives and ethnic and national identities, although it's a losing battle. It is all quite funny to many here, which is telling commentary. Blithe disregard for real human suffering speaks for itself. To take such voices seriously is folly, since they do not take the conflict itself seriously.

And those who embrace Anti-Semitism as part of a fashionable political agenda -- and then cry "Ad Hom!" when they are described as what they are -- can be refuted and lectured, but never really swayed in the least. In such cases, the Anti-Semitism is clothed as Anti-Zionism, until the real colors begin to show (as we've lately seen.) This isn't some sort of "card" I am playing, it is the obvious implication of inconsistent yardsticks used to measure Jews and parallel groups, whether ethnic or religious. It is quite simple: when you measure Jews by more stringent standards, when you demand Jews do more to reap lesser rewards, when you deny the rights of Jews where you would gladly grant those rights to non-Jews, you are an Anti-Semite.

Apropos, to discuss whether there needs to be an Israel, is dependent on the behavior of the 299/300ths of the world that is not Jewish. Thus far, that behavior has suggested that the 1/300th of the world which is Jewish has a right, a responsibility, and an obligation to make certain that, if only on one very small patch of land, the Jewish people will be protected from those who desire their destruction.

Neither the terrorists who currently oppose Israel (and slaughter Israelis) in the Middle East, nor the peoples of Europe who unwittingly contributed so much to Israel's fighting resolve, have shown themselves responsible "protectors" of the Jewish people. Over the millennia, one thing is clear -- the only responsible stewards for the world's Jewish population are Jews themselves. This goes hand in hand with Wilsonian self-determination.

So, as noted, arguments against a Jewish state, democratic though it may be, secular though it may be, will not wash. This is a matter of guaranteeing survival. Our erstwhile fellow semites have chosen the wrong people to threaten with extermination.

Quincy, I'll address this last bit to you. You take issue with Jewish nationhood (but evidently not with Palestinian national identity -- although there has never been a Palestinian state, unless you count Jordan, and Palestinians began identifying with a "nation" of Palestine in the 1960s...) I respectfully differ; I do believe there to be a Jewish people, which rises to the status of a "nation" as distinct from a nation-state, as that term is commonly used. In some examples below, I'll cite nations which also enjoy statehood, which should keep things simple.

First, on the "Nationhood" of Jews, in this sense of the word: A Sephardic Jew in Sao Paulo could discuss the most important things in his world, in a common language, with an Ashkenaz in Minsk; then the two could have a lively debate about it with Chinese, Indian, or African Jews -- and this has been the case for thousands of years. They have and have always had a common culture, an ethnic kinship bond, a common language, and a common religion. One of these features is considered enough for any other people to be a nation (as distinct from a nation-state.) For example, although Serbocroatian is one language, the Catholic Croats and the Orthodox Serbs are considered ethnically separate. Even more tellingly, Montenegrans, who do not differ ethnically from Serbs at all, are considered a separate people. I would like to say I am surprised that these conditions are less than sufficient in the Jewish case -- but at this point, it is not surprising, which is much worse. But no matter. If a Jew considered himself a Frenchman (like Dreyfus,) a German, a Russian, a Ukrainian, a Pole, an Arab, an Iraqi, Jordanian, or a Syrian, the "real" peoples of those nations always set him straight on the subject in short order. This is not something a few words of civilized debate will erase.

Regarding expansionism: Israel routinely attempts to withdraw from territories won in war. What other nation do you know of that does this? There's a phrase in the Israeli vocabulary, "The Lebanon Mud." I doubt very seriously that Israel aims to mire itself therein beyond a limited several-week-long engagement. You may be right, but I think you're seeing parallels to Iraq, where there aren't any.

Finally, I hope for those patient, civil, and well-spoken souls watching the back-and-forth and chiming in, that I am not too terribly vitriolic in my point of view -- the last thing I would want to do is put off those people in the "middle," among whom I usually count myself regarding this issue. Despite needing "and editor" [sic] from time to time, and despite my distaste for the fraternity house style of Israel-bashing, I really do see other sides to the present crisis than the Zionist basics you're seeing me discuss here.

Oh, and if anybody surprised I'm happy to say I'm a Zionist... it's not a dirty word.

Dan

[Quincy Lehr]

Dan--

Look, I'm not going to deny that there is something distinctive in the Jewish tradition, although I was under the impression that Sephardic Jews generally spoke Ladino rather than Yiddish--neither of which is nearly as widespread as heretofore for reasons of both genocide and assimilation.

As far as a nation goes, I'd define it as needing the following:

1. A common territory
2. A common culture
3. A common social structure (even if overlaid by a conqueror's)
4. A common language

This last is the optional one. Most Irish people spoke English as their primary language by 1916, a hell of a lot of Ukrainians speak Russian, etc. but it doesn't hurt. Moreover, though Serbian and Croatian are pretty durn similar as languages and though there is a fair degree of interpenetration, Serbs do tend to live in Serbia and Croats in Croatia.

The Jews (versus the Israelis) meet (to a degree) number two. As for number four, being able to mutter your way through a bar mitzvah does not equal a common language. (How many American Jews are actually fluent in Hebrew?)

You'll notice that I don't include previously having had a nation-state as part of the definition of a nation--which should make Czech, Slovenian, and Kurdish readers happy, I suppose.

The Palestinian national identity was, of course, forged in the face of being driven out of their own country (by and large).* But see the point above--there really hadn't been a Czech nation in the Middle Ages, but did that make Czech aspirations for national self-determination in lands they'd occupied for centuries illegitimate? Of course not!

One does wonder what the Near East would look like if the French and the British hadn't decided to carve up the eastern Mediterranean--probably would have saved us a shitload of trouble--much as it would if the U.S. fucked off for a change. (I'm not holding my breath for the latter one.) But the question is academic. Maybe, without Israel, there would be an Arab state including Israel Palestine, much of Jordan, and at least part of Lebanon. But the act of dispossession forged the Palestinians--who hadn't really picked any particular fights until the Zionists started driving them off their own land--into a nation.

Likewise, the creation of Israel forged a fairly disparate group of immigrants into a nation.

Both of these groups have a legitimate claim to the territory by living on it and having done so for some time, to the point where they share a common language (Hebrew or Arabic), culture (Israeli or Palestinian), and so on.

Where we'll probably continue to disagree is on the matter of whether one, by being Jewish (as opposed to Israeli) has a particular right to the rather small area in question. My answer would be a definite no.

No, the situation isn't much like Iraq, in which there is a foreign occupier. Neither side in this one is "foreign." But, though I disagree with some of the formulations Kevin uses, I do think he has a point about a "Jewish state"--a point, by the way, that comes up quite frequently in the Israeli press. Defining the state as Jewish--even if the definition is loose and there aren't formal discriminatory clauses in place, it does rather cut against egalitarian notions. Why should a quarter-Jewish resident of Minsk be able to immigrate to Haifa, say, with little difficulty, yet the grandchild of a Palestinian family driven out of Haifa less than a century ago be unable to do so?

Quincy

*Yes, I know that there's an Israeli Arab minority, but you can't deny that a lot of people were dispossessed. Yes, I know that it's party line to say that it wasn't a forcible dispossession, but hey, the Cherokees signed a treaty to give up their lands in the Southeast and move to Oklahoma. Yes, it was "peaceful" but it was still coerced.

[This message has been edited by Quincy Lehr (edited July 30, 2006).]

[Dan Halberstein]

As far as a nation goes, I'd define it as needing the following:

1. A common territory
2. A common culture
3. A common social structure (even if overlaid by a conqueror's)
4. A common language

As I understand it, not enough Jews speak enough Hebrew for the Jewish people to be a "nation," but Israelis are a nation, and therefore Israel is a nation, by this definition. You've decided to talk about Yiddish and Ladino, although all the populations I mentioned had the common language of Hebrew.

It's a fine definition, by the way, except that it is only a smidgen away from the definition of nation-state. In fact, you've pretty much finished the job and wiped out all Native American nations living outside of the reservations, or speaking languages other than their ancestral tongue. Well done. You've also presented the Palestinians with a chicken-and-egg problem of their own, which I suppose is only fair. Palestinians living abroad, after all, are not part of a Palestinian "nation." As you've noted, Ukrainians speaking Russian as a first language are out, provided there are also Ukrainians speaking Ukrainian (after all, they need a common language.) Etc., etc., etc.

I think we're down to nit-picking, at this point. As you say, you see Israel as a nation. You see Palestine as a nation, but not as a nation-state. I think you're right, and I think Palestine should attend to the matter of becoming such a state, rather than the matter of attempting to erase or delegitimize the state next door. And the first order of business, again, is to have a single central authority. No terror bombing brigades, no militias, etc. But that's for Palestine to work out, nu?

As for Israel, her responsibility is to her citizens. Those who know the history of the last century, understand the events that led to Israel's current status. Her existence is not on the bargaining table; therefore, if Palestinian Arabs, dispossessed by the invasions of other Arab nations, insist on the death of Israel as a condition for the birth of Palestine, their national aspirations are destined to be frustrated. The PLO came to understand this in the 1980s and 1990s. Hamas has not.

The Palestinian people do need a state. Israel does need to live in peace within her borders. I agree, you agree, and I daresay the Kadima leadership in Israel agrees; their whole electoral platform was on unilateral disengagement from occupied territory.

Who does that leave?

Dan