Arbor Update

Answer-

Since “disruptiveness” is the burning question posed:

The vigils, and vigilers, are silent when they vigil. When they attend meetings, they wait their turn to be called on.

Questions-

1. How “disruptive” is it for millions of Palestinians to be facing a U.S. blockade, and malnutrition, right now, because you don’t like the way they voted?

2. How “disruptive” is it, that the feelings of a strangled and occupied nation are of no consequence to you?

3. Do the lives and deaths of Palestinians matter, at long last?

This is why divestment, from Israel, has been demanded for so long.

Not being disruptive; just hoping for answers.

How stupid is it to attempt to answer a question with three questions that are totally unrelated? I would venture to suggest that the three questions poised by Blain as a response to how disruptive are the vigilers is actually a defense. It is saying, no matter how disruptive they are, they are justified.

Wow.

You just will not, cannot, call for any action against Israel, like divestment——no matter how many thousands of innocent Palestinians that Israel murders in cold blood.

Instead you sniff for any sign that some peaceful human rights advocates may have been “disruptive”.

Again, here is your answer:

The Round Table meeting was cancelled before anyone could even speak.

Happy?

I’ve seen the JWP disruption at the Round Table play out in 2 ways:

1: Direct disruption: JWP has directly disrupted the Round Table. This was most evident at last months discussion on violence in the U.S. Four presenters gave their remarks, then the audience was invited to ask questions for the presenters on the topic.

Rather than ask a question, a JWP member went into a long rant about what the Israeli Defence Forces are doing in the West Bank. Not a question, not on topic, definitely disruptive. (There have been other examples, but this was a very clear one).

2. Indirect disruption: Since JWP started attending (infiltrating?) the Round Table, other members have stopped coming. Just as some members of Beth Israel Congregation avoid going to services because they don’t want to deal with Henry and his gang, some members of the Round Table have stopped coming to the Round Table.

(I’ve considered not going myself, I don’t go to the Round Table to watch Jewish Witnesses for Peace open up another front in their campaign).

By driving members away, JWP prevents the Round Table from fulfilling its mission. It’s not quite as blunt as taking over the Q&A section, but it is disruptive.

Oh, yes, and then there were the shouts on Tuesday as the meeting disbanded, “don’t think you’re not racist, you are.” I doubt Dale Carnegie would recommend shouting and name calling as a tactic to influence people.

Finally, a note on numbers. I didn’t count everyone at the last Round Table meeting, but there were almost as many vigilers as Round Table members, and definitely more than the six JWP folks cited in the Ann Arbor News article.

Chuck:

You head up a human rights group which is, unbelievably, proposing to:

* dismantle its own Middle East Task Force e-mail group, and

* dismantle the Middle East Task Force itself!

You are (correct me if I’m wrong) considering the re-creation of that body by a new, invitation-only group which would be acceptable to Zionists.

I assume you would do the inviting, and that divestment advocates would be barred from membership.

That would guarantee that no proposal to divest from Israel could ever be so much as considered.

You’ve launched this purge attempt (again, correct me if I’m wrong) only since your Middle East Task Force showed signs of becoming active for divestment from Israel.
—————————————-

Why not just let your Middle East Task Force go on pushing for divestment from Israel?

Why not?

You know very well what atrocities Israel is committing against Palestine, and the billions the U.S. contributes to those atrocities.

Chuck,

thank you for the information. I would recomend not responding to Blain, it will certainly get you know where, but you’r probably already aware of that. Again thanks for the input on the actual subject of this post, JWP disruption at the meeting.

Dear Chuck and Just-a-Voice,

Reporter Cathy O’Donnell has attended many Interfaith Round Table meetings, including those where I also attended. Her phone number is 994-6831. Why don’t you call her and ask how disruptive my behavior has been during one and a half years of attending these meetings?

Henry Herskovitz

Flagelate yourself, JAV. Now we’ve got the whole freak show over here.

And Hank, thanks for the olive oil tips. I’m going to picket Zingerman’s until those Jew bastards start stocking the Palestinian lesbian oil.

http://queerolives.tripod.com/

My bad.

What kind of name is “Israelita Goldstein”? Can we can the anti-Semitism or unnecessary derision of Jews? Thank you.

Um…

Just stop me if this is “disruptive”, but what about the Palestinians?

Can I hear a quick word about how you want to deal with them?

Or is the status quo (Palestine collapsing under mass malnutrition, death, occupation) OK with you?

Do you see how Gaza now resembles the Warsaw Ghetto of 1939?

I see Henry Herskovitz on Google, Blaine Coleman too, no Israelita Goldstein.

“Do you see how Gaza now resembles the Warsaw Ghetto of 1939?”

I’ll bite. The broken record commentary is easy to ignore. Ignorance isn’t.

The west bank bears no resemblance to the Warsaw Ghetto. None. I’ll spare you the history lesson and leave it at that.

Blaine: People don’t ignore you because they find the palestinian issue inconvenient. People ignore you because you’re disrespectful. In the same breath as you extoll the human plight of the Palestinians, you ignore the humanity right in front of your face – the people who you offend and disrespect with your antics. Somehow I suspect that you view this human tragedy – the casual and unapologetic manner in which you insult the intelligence and compassion of your fellow man – as an acceptable cost to bear if it means the end of occupation.

Let me ask you then: How’s that strategy working for you? Have the means been justified for you?

“The west bank bears no resemblance to the Warsaw Ghetto. None. I’ll spare you the history lesson and leave it at that.”

not saying you are right or wrong, but, i have to ask you one thing: have you been to either???

just checking,
ari p.

I’ve been to the Warsaw Ghetto or what’s left of it. I’ve been on the Israeli side of the wall and have talked to enough people who live on the other side to feel confident the latter is nothing like the former.

The Leonore Marwil Jewish Film Festival later this month is having a film called “West Bank Story”. (Thank you Leonard Bernstein)

Lenore, not Leonore, sorry.

Well, now I’m sucked in to one of these again…

“You all will do anything to avoid talking about Israel and its atrocities. This is about Israel and its atrocities not about my name.”

Fine. I’ll talk. Israel’s done some bad stuff. Lots of bad stuff. I’m fine with hearing about more, but I know about enough to grant you the argument. What would you like me to do?

1) Continue to be a concerned citzen.
2) Support divestment from Israel.
3) Picket outside of someone’s place of worship.

Option two sucks. I support divestment from tobacco. I would have supported divestment from SA. I not support divestment from companies that make bulldozers/tanks/planes for Israel. First, Israel needs all of those things. It is largely due to US made arms that Israel has survived as a state. Second, the tanks and planes aren’t the problem. Bad policies are the problem. Accordingly, if I felt that divestment would put pressure on Israel to alter the policies, I’d be apt to support divestment. But I don’t. I think its a silly platform – a lazy boilerplate solution to a very complicated problem. And I think anyone who claims to support a free Palestine is selling the Palestinians short by supporting it.

Option three is disrespectful. Anyone participating in it should be ashamed.

I’m going to stick to option one. I’m a concerned citizen. I do not support occupation. I support withdrawal. I support the UN, the ICC and the ICJ. That’s good enough for me.

Israelita:

I’m not going to make fun of your name as someone else did. That’s not cool. However, if that isn’t your real name I have to tell you: just adding -ita to the end of Israel doesn’t make the name sound Jewish. But, I don’t know you so I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Henry:

I’m not quite sure, but I believe that the article stated that JWP was disruptive and asked not to show up to Interfaith Round Table, not you individually. Now, I’ve never been to the Interfaith Round Table. But, I have been to one event where JWP members were present. Two years ago, an Israeli refuser came to Hillel to speak. You were there, along with a group of people who proceeded to heckle the guy who spoke after the refuser (his name was Stav I think). Disruptive? You bet. Even though I wasn’t at the events in questions, if this were a court of law and I were the judge, I’d have to say the credibility lies with the Interfaith Round Table, given a past history of JWP members disrupting an event.

The problem with JWP, other than their somewhat racist tendency to hold vigils outside a place of worship because members of that particular congregation may hold beliefs antithetical to JWP, is their self-righteousness.

What would a JWP say to someone, oh let’s just say, like me, who says, “I support ending the occupation, I don’t support checkpoints, targetted assassinations, or any other oppressive measure adopted by Israel in the West Bank. However, I DO NOT support divestment.” I’d be called a racist. No explanation. No reason. Just called a racist simply because I disagreed with them. Don’t believe me? Search up Blaine’s “responses” to me and see what he has written.

I’ve stated my opinion on the conflict. It’s not all that dissimilar from peace organizations such as Americans for Peace now and even sometimes Gush Shalom. I’m not stating it again. What JWP needs to realize is that it’s THEM that bothers the rest of Ann Arbor, not their stance on the Israel/Palestinian conflict.

I didn’t make fun of anyone’s name, it just seemed odd. E.g., let’s say an anti-Nazi activist named Germania Goebbels, saying all the time over and over again, “Germany committed genocide against the Jews”, etc., and then keeping her name. I would find that a little odd.

And… there we have it.

Though I’d love to hear Israelita tell me where she’d like to live that wasn’t built on dead bodies. I hear Antarctica is warming up nicely.

Though, perhaps Israelita is just Blaine in disguise. There’s a familiar lunacy in her posts…

A rational hypothesis Dan.

Blaine:

I have commented on this before – on this blog, on other blogs, and in the Michigan Daily.

It only hurts when a discussion on the issue turns into a shitstorm of anger, accusation and overstatement – the status quo for you and a number of other individuals who have turned this fight into a reason to treat other people like shit.

That said, I’m glad your glad. Now back to studying.

Dear Jared

JWPF would respond to you in this way: If you are against the occupation, checkpoints, demolition of houses, illegal assassinations, etc ONLY TO PRESERVE Israel as an apartheid state, then we have basic differences, and not as you implied a difference only in tactics.

I could turn the question backwards: How can one favor an ethno-religious, expansionist settler state and NOT support occupation, checkpoints, etc? That’s how Zionism works: define the necessary Lebensraum and proceed – using all the above methods and much more – to get it.

You are not a racist because you disagree with JWPF. People who believe in Jewish supremacy over a defensless people in their own land using whatever means necessary to achieve it are racists.

You choose.

Best,
Henry

What if I just don’t believe in people blowing up other people, especially innocent civilians whose only crime is to be the wrong race, ethnicity, religion, etc. than their murderers, no matter how righteous the murderers think their cause is? What does that make me?

So, somehow, when topics relating to UM come up on Arbor Update, the usual chorus of A2 townies chimes in with “This is Arbor Update, not UM update” or some equally ludicrous comment.

But, clearly, Israel and Palestine have something to do with Ann Arbor?

How many people here have experience or actual knowledge to match their passions?

It’s really funny, but on campus, the American Movement for Israel is actually far more reactionary than the Israeli Students Organization. AMI members on campus, in letters to the Daily and what not, routinely take positions that even Ariel Sharon ended up rejecting.

I’d be really surprised if actual Palestinians – people who don’t live in cushy, insulated Ann Arbor – were as anti-Israel as some of the people who comment on this blog.

I’m not sure about this, but I’m guessing that actual Israelis and Palestinians (those who live with the violence on a day-to-day basis) are just ready for some solution that ends the violence.

Divestment is not such a solution. The end of Israel is not such a solution.

Suhael,

Your characterization of AMI and the Israeli Students Organization is misinformed. ISO’s role is different from AMI, and in fact many ISO members do work in conjunction with AMI, they just happen to be less politically-minded. But to imply that Israelis on this campus and AMI members (on average) have vastly different opinions on the situation in Israel is somewhat misleading, and wrong.

Further, to suggest that AMI members take positions that are more radical than Ariel Sharon’s is just not true (again, on average). While AMI can’t control what all its members say in the Daily (and trust me its members have vastly ranging opinions), and yes I’d agree a few of them are extreme, the very few letters I’d imagine you are referring to are by no means a representative sample.

Finally, what does it mean that they take positions Ariel Sharon ended up rejecting? Is it possible then that those writers might now also reject those positions?

I think you are doing a disservice through your generalization.

Yeah, in retrospect, the generalization about a student group wasn’t fair. I apologize.

But, I do think that the Israel-Palestine issue is extremely polarized on campus, to the point where little productive (screaming matches in the Daily do not count as “productive”) gets done.

I’m biased, I suppose, by all the ridiculous letters the Daily couldn’t print but I could read – those are what I’m referring to when I mention the radical comments.

I suppose those aren’t a representative sample either; the people worked up enough to write a LTE aren’t middle-of-the-road average students.

But, I wasn’t suggesting “vastly different” opinions, just that living in the United States (A2, at that) gives you a different perspective on the issue than if you came from the Middle East.

Lacking that perspective (as, for the most part, Americans) does, I think, give you a different opinion – one that, as even national polls bear out, is often less pragmatic.

That was filled with a inordinate number of typos.

“People who believe in Jewish supremacy over a defensless people in their own land using whatever means necessary to achieve it are racists.”

Who exactly are these people, Henry? I’ve never met an Jew, Israeli or American, that believes that the Palestinians (or Arabs in general) are a lesser people.

Clearly, that would make one a racist. But supporting the methodology of occupation can be due to a number of of different things. Fear. Ignorance. A more hawkish mentality.

“How can one favor an ethno-religious, expansionist settler state and NOT support occupation, checkpoints, etc?”

By supporting the state and not its policies.

Ahh Blaine.

I didn’t say being concerned is the solution. I said I choose concern as my course of action in this. I also didn’t say that there isn’t such a thing as a racist Israeli. My point was that I don’t believe that racism is the force that drives occupation.

Then again, you didn’t answer my question from before: How is what you do (repeating the same shit over and over, disrupting meetings, pushing this divestment issue that is, even if pushed to fruition, largely symbolic) even remotely related to “saving” Palestine?

Blaine-

And not a single Palestinian is racist, or anti-Semitic?

Right.

Come on, Blaine.

Your tactics are so transparent. But what bothers me is that you steal every conversation, actively ruining any discussion that’s not set in your terms.

Is Blaine a member of JWP, if so then he is proving the title of this article, at least in these comments. And what the JWP are blind to is how their tactics alienate them rather then advance their cause. Even if he isn’t the other JWP supporters here fill in fine. They are so blind to how their tactics work against their cause.

Blaine, when you write stuff like;

“controlling zillions of Israeli troops”

you make your self look really stupid.

To answer the last three of you,

I have never seen anyone who proposed divestment given a serious hearing and debate on this Web site,

I have never seen the malnutrition, blockade, and slaughter of Occupied Palestine treated as worthy of any sort of action or relief, on this site.

So now I will test your theory.

Your theory that Blaine, and Blaine only, is the reason that no action can be taken to stop what Israel is doing to the crucified innocents of Palestine.

OK, I’m waiting for you to have that great debate over what to do about the suffering in Palestine.

Without me.

I will refrain from polluting your discourse about what is happening to Palestine.

Go for it.

What do I think needs to be done about the suffering in Palestine? Well, first, I think Palestine needs more parking.

(sorry, had to be said…)

I think TPM just proved IG’s point about the mentality/lack of compassion of many Americans. This topic always makes me sad because I feel powerless to improve the situation. Comments like TPM’s make me sad because they’re evidence that I’m sandwiched between ignorance and immaturity—is there any reason for me to have hope?

John Q., until you take action on your beliefs (and the crimes you describe), it makes you complicit in the crimes, per the Nuremberg Principles. Welcome to the shameful, painful club. Does that make you a racist? Does it really matter? It’s not about you (or me), in the sense that you pose the question. And yet, it is about us when we get around to looking at taking action.

Daniel, racism is largely based in fear. Trying to avoid facing racism by speaking in terms of fear is a convenient form of avoidance. Make the explicit connection between the two, own both in yourself to the extent that they exist, and sympathetically ask others to do likewise rather than give them an out.

In spite of my own good intentions and those of my parents, I’m a racist. I was raised in a racist society and to pretend that I’m not would be a lie. That statement will no doubt be held against me at some point, but reality and what I wish are two different things. My hope and my work is toward a day when I can honestly say that I’m not racist, and also that my children are not. I’m happy to report that I’m making progress.

Best wishes to the rest of you.

Suhael-

I used to agree with you that there was not much productive discussion on the debate.

But, if I can make a shameless plug, I helped found The Michigan Israel Observer (www.michiganisraelobserver.com) to try to solve that. You might know about it because the Daily covered it.

Our second issue will hit campus this week. Have a read (heck, write something for the next issue), and be reassured that there are students talking productively about these issues.

Steve:

Thanks for the therapy. I feel better already.

I’m willing to admit my own racism. Here, however, I’m comfortable asserting that I have no racial hangups. But I wasn’t talking about me in my post. I was referring to the social/cultural forces among Israeli and American jews that drive occupation. By and large, I do not feel that racism is a predominant factor. Even if we assume that it is (as you seem to be apt to do) lying under the surfact, it is buried among so many layers of history and fear that I’m uncomfortable presuming its relevance to the status quo.

Believe it or not, conflict can occasionally be explained outside of racial theory.

Steve: I apologize – I meant that to be a tweak at the site readership (including myself), not at the topic.

I disagree with a lot of Israel’s policies, and hope for complete withdrawal from the occupied territories and for the Palestinians to be given full rights as human beings, but can’t support the extreme of asking for Israel to be driven into the sea, and excusing any and all actions taken against Israel until that time. (I’ve seen the position on local e-mail lists that the very existence of Israel is racist/zionist/imperialist, and that peace cannot exist until the invaders “go back to Europe.”)

Between the points of not supporting either pole, though, I can’t say I have a solution. I’d describe myself as “powerless”, as you describe yourself, and, having nothing constructive to say, figured I’d live up to expectations.

Daniel, I don’t disagree. (Since I was responding to several posters’ comments, I may have conflated some of them. Sorry. And sorry for framing it as a lecture.)

I see racism being a more predominant factor for Americans in general, relative to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, than for American Jews or Israelis.

Still, if being called a racist makes someone feel uncomfortable, I would suspect that it’s a factor, predominant or not. (And so I wouldn’t offer them an out. Nor would I chastise them.)

Apology accepted, TPM. (By me, anyway. But then I haven’t lost loved ones over there, either.)

”(I’ve seen the position on local e-mail lists that the very existence of Israel is racist/zionist/imperialist, and that peace cannot exist until the invaders ‘go back to Europe.’)”

The premise may be true, but I don’t believe the conclusion to be. (BTW, the very existence of the USA may be racist/imperialist. Proclaiming it to be so is one approach to attempting to change that. Recognizing it, or at least being suspicious about it, and acting less directly is another.)

One thing we do have power over is who we interact with and how. This blog is part of our collective relationship—our community. We have a choice whether to communicate derisively with others here or to listen and learn a different perspective.

More “therapy” for everyone. :-)

Here’s a question I’ve been pondering: does JWP object to a Jewish state, a Jewish homeland, or both?

I’ll admit the first one is problematic (since not everyone has a state), while the second one doesn’t necessarily mandate a state. I’m curious, because JWP members always carry around those Zionism = racism cards, but many strands of early Zionism advocated a Jewish homeland, not a state (Ahad Ha’am and the Socialist Zionists).

Would Zionism be legitimate to JWP if it meant just a homeland? Just wanted to know . . .

Jared,

The Jewish Virtual Library defines Zionism as ”...Jews of all persuasions. left and right, reglious and secular, joined to form the Zionism movement and worked together to achieve these goals [homeland and state]. Disagreements lead to rifts, but ultimately the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained” (my emphasis).

This quote is found on page 30 of Michael Neumann’s “The Case Against Israel”, and is followed by his words: “For everyone who mattered, the homeland was always to be a state.”

Jared, please show up next Saturday and stand vigil with us. We will share with you many more quotes from Zionists past and present that substantiate the above

Best wishes,
Henry

You didn’t answer my question. The reason why the Jewish Virtual Library shows that is because nowadways the Zionist movement tends to believe that a homeland is not possible without a state.

Whether or not you agree with that, that’s irrelevant; that’s how it looks to them.

But regardless, my question still stands for JWP: is JWP against a Jewish state, a Jewish homeland, or both?

Parenthetically, one good reason for a Jewish homeland (and/or state) is the anti-Semitism still rife at some of the highest levels of world society, see, e.g., today’s News of the World photos of and article about a man in a white hood with swastika—but not just any man: rather, a member of Prince Harry’s regiment (Blues and Royals) of the Household Cavalry, one of the two senior regiments in the entire British Army, as I recall.

Clearly there are reasons necessitating Israel’s existence. Even if you disagree, didn’t that ship sail some 60 years ago? Presently, the Jewish people have a homeland and a state, and advocating against the legal/ethical underpinnings of that state seems to me tantamount to advocating in favor of its destruction. Either that, or its intended as an indictment of Israel’s Jewish character.

I kept reading this thread in the name of Steve’s “We have a choice whether to communicate derisively with others here or to listen and learn a different perspective.”

Then I hit Israelita’s “blood sucking mass murderers”, and wondered what different perspective I could expect to learn here. Maybe I could learn to hate myself, as Israelita apparently hates me without knowing me? Or maybe I could suggest that Israelita find a way of getting the idea across in a civil manner that doesn’t cause people to want to stop listening.

Israelita:

Are you sure you’re not Blaine? Seriously? Because the two people that seem to have the biggest problem with this discussion also happen to be the two people trying their hardest to sabotage it: You and Blaine.

“They” hate me for pretty much the same reason that you seem to hate me: Ignorance. And assuming you pay taxes, you’ve done just as much killing and raping as I have today.

A side question: As an underworked, overfed white man paying his way through grad school, I’ve got plenty of money to pay for internet access and plenty of time to “pontificate.” In between resisting the IDF in the west bank and curbing your greenhouse gas emissions down to zero, how do you find the time and the money to surf Arbor Update?

I’m not too worried about global warming. My land rover has wonderful air conditioning.

How much blood would a woodchuck suck if a woodchuck could suck blood?? ?

By way: you know that “bloodsucker” is a classic, classic anti-Semitic term, maybe dating back to the hideous “blood libel” slander against Jews? And if you are really “Israelita Goldstein”, how would you not know about all that, with your purported ethnic background???

Daniel,

Based on “Israelita”’s choice of words, my best guess is that he/she is a fellow grad student. I’ve heard these kinds of tirades before and it usually comes from a trust-fund activist spending a decade in grad school lecturing the rest of us on why we are worthy of their contempt.

Come on fellas,

Isrealita is Blaine. Same syntax, same bs.

For the good of Arbor Update, don’t respond. This isn’t a discussion. Discussions require parties who respect and listen to each other.

This is a waste of time and bandwidth, and it pushes the new comments field into oblivion.

Let it go.

Some classic Israeli rock and roll at http://www.thegenders.com/photos.shtml ...

Wow. Blaine really works for the Israeli government. There is no other way to explain him.

TPM, you don’t have to like, agree with, or be otherwise unaffected by another perspective to learn from it, you just have to be willing to look past those aspects of it and take yourself out of it enough to be objective (even when it’s directed at you.) Then, after you’ve generalized it enough to see it more clearly, you can reinsert yourself and consider what it means for/to you.

That’s essentially how I’ve come to arrive at the thoughts I directed to John Q. in #45. Likewise my comments about racism there.

The perspective in question isn’t yours or IG’s, it’s ‘theirs’. The question posed was, “why do they hate us?” Someone hates us and someone else may be dying as a result.

It all still makes me sad, to the point that I don’t care what Blaine and IG say or do, or how—as if they were responsible for doing it ‘correctly’ on my behalf in the first place.

Jared, I think you posed a valid question, and I agree that Henry didn’t answer it. I don’t know if I could either, however. How would you describe/define “homeland”?

“Presently, the Jewish people have a homeland and a state, and advocating against the legal/ethical underpinnings of that state seems to me tantamount to advocating in favor of its destruction. Either that, or its intended as an indictment of Israel’s Jewish character.”

Daniel, could it rather be intended as an indictment of Israel’s (generically) religious character?

“Isrealita is Blaine. Same syntax, same bs.”

“This isn’t a discussion. Discussions require parties who respect and listen to each other.”

Todd, discussions also have a topic. Blaine seems to think the topic is Israel and Palestine (more or less.) You seem to think the topic is Blaine (frequently.) I’ll leave it at that.

Blaine, I won’t vigil with JWPF, not because I find it offensive, but because I don’t see it as being effective. Do you have other concrete suggestions on what I (or others) could do, preferably with some reasoning as to how you see them potentially being effective? TIA.

Steve:

I know, I know, it’s hard to define a homeland. A common thing I’ve noticed with Zionist ideology is the stress on providing a homeland, a firm place for the protection of people, is desired, but also mixed in with the desire to have a state, which is something different. A state has apparatus, ie government, police, military, educational systems, hospitals, etc. (I’m being general and broad here for a reason) whereas a homeland doesn’t.

Palestine is an example of a homeland without many state functions (military etc.). Palestine isn’t a state yet, but it most certainly is a homeland for the Palestinian people.

The reason why I asked is because debating about any Israeli policy might be futile if JWP is against the concept of even a Jewish homeland, let alone a Jewish state and its policies. That’s why I asked. I just wanted to know exactly what their feelings were on the subject.

Hey Steve, if you think you can actually get a discussion going with Blaine, knock yourself out. I’ve already tried, on several occasions. Feel free to look it up in the archives. I already told him that I support military divestment from Israel, but he still hasn’t moved on to discuss other aspects of Palestine and Israelthis complex subject. I’ve also tried to tell him that if he thinks that that will magically solve the problems over there, that he’s a fool.

Actually, I’d suggest you take this conversation over to Sol’s site. It looks to me like there are people there on both sides of the fence, and it looks like they can actually have a civil discussion about this…

And Steve, since you brought it up, your comment in post #45:

“John Q., until you take action on your beliefs (and the crimes you describe), it makes you complicit in the crimes, per the Nuremberg Principles.”

This is a patently absurd world view. That’s like saying that Mother Teresa is in bed with Dupont and Dow Chemical because all she did was work on helping the poor, and all the while she forgot about global warming.

Nuremburg principles? So I guess you consider yourself to be a post war German officer when it comes to environment since you aren’t spending 80 hours a week like I am, working on making my factory completely pollution free?? You must not sleep very well.

Using this worldview, Steve, I should hold you, and everyone on Arbor Update, personally responsible for all factory pollution just because you aren’t working on the problem like I am. Not only that, I should point that out each and everytime anyone posts on ArborUpdate. This is a complete reduction to absurdity.

You can’t be all things to all people or problems. Life doesn’t work like that.

Todd, Mother Teresa didn’t pay taxes to a government that supplied another government with weapons that were clearly used to kill innocent people (let alone what our government does directly.)

As for me (and others), I’m (we’re) responsible for the factory pollution of the products that I (we) buy. Saying that I (we) should be responsible for all factory pollution would be reduction to the absurd.

I don’t buy your (or any) beer anymore, but I appreciate your pollution reduction efforts very much. I bought one of your t-shirts several years back as a way to support your sustainability efforts and I still wear it regularly. (Any chance that your interior will become second-hand-smoke-pollution free?)

“You can’t be all things to all people or problems. Life doesn’t work like that.”

If one doesn’t take personal responsibility seriously, it doesn’t. Life works the way we choose to make it work. In every aspect, it requires practice and choices. One alternative (not recommended) is to choose denial (as IG has pointed out.) I don’t expect perfection from anyone, and I respect those who are honest about their struggles. We’re human and have failings, after all. Again, welcome to the shameful, painful club.

TPM got something out of #50. Try giving that one the attention you gave #45. Or you can try to tell me that I’m a fool. Your choice.

(Where’s Sol’s site?)

Blaine, isn’t SOA still operating, though under a different name?

Regardless, do you have reasoning or evidence to support a particular approach that has been successful—in any way—locally?

Your suggestions make sense, yet “sense” doesn’t necessitate success. I’ve been successful, both personally and in the community, by devoting a given amount of time to an effort over time. I don’t see it in your or JWPF’s efforts (though they’ve both been persistent efforts.) A different subject: are you open to rethinking them?

Quoth Blaine:
“Unlike you, I will talk about 9 million Palestinians, and what they are going through.”

Sure you will… But only as your alter ego, Israelita Doubtfire—err, Goldstein.

I’m all for a little bit of Yin and a little bit of Yang. But frankly, a little bit of divestment and a little bit of {spanish word for “Israeli,” which is about as common of a name as Rumpelstilskin} gives me the heebie-jeebies.

Nevertheless: if it means half as many posts from Blaine and an unconditional surrender of his illegitimate occupation of the female gender, and an end to his butchering of innocent Jewish aliases, he may have finally found a way to convince me to join the front lines to divest from “israelita.” Otherwise, no dice.

What about Palestine?

Steve:

I’m with Todd on this: The duty to act on one’s principles is certainly not a legal one per the Nuremberg Principles. Try as I may, I cannot find the principle that you referred to. Nuremberg punishes complicity, which as I understand it requires an overt act.

You are correct in one respect: This is a matter of personal responsibility. But again, I’m with Todd in that I’m reluctant to assign myself undue amounts of blame for every sin against the peoples (and animals, and fetuses, and all sorts of ill-affected matter) of the world. I don’t think its absurd to carry out your argument to its end, it which we’re all responsible where one can show even an attenuated connection with a crime. I don’t know what you call that, but its certainly not personal responsibility.

While taking on undue blame may have the positive side effect of compelling action, I hardly think that’s a healthy way to view world affairs. (See: Your pain/shame club) Moreover, it shifts blame away from those most deserving onto those with only an attenuated connection to the cause of the problem. Am I (or you) as responsible for the occupation of the west bank as, say, an Israeli voter? Clearly not.

Are we blameless? No? But I want to be sure that we don’t get over zealous when it comes to dishing out responsibility for a war that is distinctly foreign. Israel has used U.S. made weapons to kill innocent people. As it happens, its used these same weapons on at least two occasions to prevent its neighbors from wiping it off the map. So I’m hesitant to feel guilty for supporting a party that has, in turn, supported selling them arms. Do I feel bad that we haven’t been more forceful in requiring Israel to use these weapons more responsibly? Sure. But I feel that I’ve made that view clear both publically and at the voting booth. In a democracy, that means I’ve done my duty. My conscience is relatively clear.

“I will refrain from polluting your discourse about what is happening to Palestine.”

Blaine:

Stop teasing me. A promise is a promise.

“Daniel, could it rather be intended as an indictment of Israel’s (generically) religious character?”

Sure. But international law sets the floor for state conduct. Israel violates this regularly re: the palestinians, but that’s not a function of Israel’s religious character as much as it is a function of the military, political and geographic forces in the region. Religion does tie into that, but the connection is too attenuated for me to make an issue of it.

In sum, Israel’s character as a religious state doesn’t offend me.

Daniel, I meant (generally) “religious” as opposed to (specifically) “Jewish”. But I’m probably not clear enough on distinctions between religion and culture, and mainly, race as it applies here. My point about your comment in #55 was that indictments against Israel might be against its (mono)religious character, or its (mono)cultural character, or its (mono)racial character. For example, my understanding is that non-Jews don’t get full citizenship rights. Whether one considers that racist or not, indicting it in a so-called democracy seems valid.

Your comment seemed to insinuate that objecting to Israel’s “Jewish character” is itself a racist position. I’m wondering if that’s a red herring and if you would agree that objecting to Israel’s practices can reasonably be seen as not necessarily anti-”Jewish character” (in other words, anti-Semitic), but rather as anti-racism, anti-fake democracy, or some other applicable characterization. Or am I just misunderstanding your comment?

On the other subject, good point about undue blame. I gladly revoke “shameful” from the club name. Still “painful”, as in sad. My intention isn’t to lay guilt/blame on anyone, just to not dismiss the truth on account of any sort of denial or rationalization. I try to speak in terms of personal responsibility because it helps me focus on my own role instead of “shifting blame” amongst others (whom I have no control over anyway.) I can only hope that you, John, Todd, and others will (continue to) look at yourselves like I’m trying to look at my own responsibility (and sadness) in and about all of this.

Steve:

I think we agree on this: In the alternative, I’m fine with debating the philosophical underpinnings of a Jewish (or generically relgious state) in the context of racism, occupation, democracy, etc. I do guard against (particularly with Blaine floating around) such discussions crossing over into other areas, such as Israel’s right to exist in its entirety. Those sort of discussions may not be racist or anti-Semitic, but I do feel that they’re improper.

So far as I understand it, non-Jews are afforded all the rights of citizenship save two: There is no mandatory service in the IDF and there is no right of return. The former seems to have a sound rational basis and the latter is an immigration policy – not a denial of rights for those already within the social contract. As I mentioned, there is the Palestinian issue: A displaced population that Israel refuses to incorporate into its own population or grant statehood to. This is a democratic problem, though not one connected to religion.

Steve— Since I’m too poor to pay federal taxes, that makes me sinless.

Here’s a hint for all of you— Morality is a sticky, shifting, polytincorial thing. Trying to reduce it to simple metrics and sloganeering leads to becoming an ideologue and a bore, the two things one should shy away from being in public.

“Polytincorial” does not show up on Google.

tincorial should.

You mean “tinctorial” with a t added to “tincorial”, as in color tint??

Palestine shows up on google. What about palestine?

Ha ha

Congrats, js. I never doubted it in your case.

Thanks for another thoughtful reply, Daniel. I’m still learning details. Any thoughts on the suggestions made by Blaine? I’m not here for entertainment—I’m looking for a way to make a constructive contribution locally.

Blaine is pretty indicative of the local debate on this issue: extreme and hung up on divestment. Most favoring divestment can draw comparisons between the West Bank and South Africa, occupation and apartheid. But no one has ever made a strong case to me why divestment is a constructive response to occupation. Personally I think he’s shouting at the wind, which may be a comforting exercise for him, but I don’t see it having much effect beyond pissing a lot of people off – on both sides of the debate.

That aside, given that I’ve been out of town for the last 8 months, I don’t have a good suggestion for you on where to start locally. Ari Paul or Sol Adelsky might be the people to ask.

I’m looking for a “how”, not a “where”.

The case for divestment may be more based on its success elsewhere than its applicability in this case (though I haven’t heard an argument why it doesn’t apply.) Otherwise, what is a “constructive response to occupation”?

So I seem to be left with Blaine’s suggestion to act like a human rights activist. From what I’ve read, prayer and meditation may have a better success rate. Seriously.

I think you’re right re: the success rate, though I readily admit that for as much as I rag on divestment, I really don’t have a great alternative for those who feel as though voting and participating in their own country is enough. I happen to feel that it is and don’t know what to suggest to those that don’t.

Here’s an argument why it doesn’t apply: I sense is that divestment doesn’t work here because there are more powerful forces at work than just pure economics. While I haven’t seen polling data, its safe to say that most Israelis regard the West Bank as tied to their personal safety – either in its retention and occupation or by means of a careful withdrawal. I don’t believe that Caterpillar’s (or General Dynamics’) stock dropping a fraction of a point would sway the company not to sell to Israel, and in the remote chance that it did, I doubt the loss of a supplier of bulldozers would prevent the Israeli’s from finding other means of procuring bulldozers, and even if it did, I doubt the loss of an effective means of bulldozing would prompt Israel’s ultimate withdrawal from the West Bank a day earlier than it was ready to do so. That plays out similarly with respect to just about any U.S. product exported to Israel that I can think of – even weapons. This is very different from other places where divestment has been implemented with some success.

Moreover, there is a strong case that Israel needs tanks and guns for more reasons than just occupation – say, staving off another 1967 or 1973. The argument here should be: Can we attach tougher restrictions on arms sales? Another argument: Since U.S. made arms are generally abused by all who use them, why isn’t the argument “divest from all weapons manufacturers?” Somehow that seems a lot more compelling than “Divest from just those manufacturers who sell to Israel” given that there is little that distinguishes Israel from other users of U.S. made arms.

I know that Blaine wants to chalk up the indifference among Americans to the Palestinian plight to some inherent racism we have against the Palestinians. But I’ve been thinking about a very similar situation that elicted the same response from Americans – fanaticism on the fringes but indifference among most. The analogous situation? The Troubles in Northern Ireland. Many of the same factors were at play – religious differences, claims and counter-claims of homeland, terrorist factions, terrorists acts both inside and outside Northern Ireland, indiscriminate killing of civilians, torture and other extra-legal activities by government forces. Yet despite the news attention provided and the historical ties of Americans of both Irish and English descent to this conflict, how many Americans gave a second thought to the Troubles, much less the different factions, even within the affected communities? Sure, there were the Blaine’s in the Irish-American community that supported Sinn Fein or defended the IRA or their counterparts on the Unionist side. But by and large, most Americans couldn’t tell you the first thing about the Troubles, much less who was affected by that period of terrorism and unrest. Should we chalk up that indifference to racist tendancies among Americans towards their Irish brethren?

Steve Bean:

You wrote in #79,

“My point about your comment in #55 was that indictments against Israel might be against its (mono)religious character, or its (mono)cultural character, or its (mono)racial character.”

Mono-religious? Mono-cultural? Mono-racial? Hah! Are you kidding? Not only is this so far from the truth, it’s a laughable assertion. When was the last time you set foot in Israel? I was there last month. There’s an old saying: “Two Jews: three opinions!” And it gets truer all the time. Most Israelis are secular and, as among the very religious, incredibly varied in their beliefs and practices—as if that should matter; how come no one is troubled by the “mono-religious” nature of the many Islamic and Arab states and other such homogeneous nations the world over, but the second Israel enters the picture, it’s “Oh what a monolithic, racist place!”

When I say that the diversity in Israel grows by leaps and bounds, I mean the character and nature of the country is intensely rich in its diversity in every way imaginable: variety of religious and cultural practices brought from virtually every corner of the globe as in the US, Canada, and many other “salad bowl” countries; there are all varieties of languages, music, costume, observances, etc.

And far from being mono-racial, every color of skin from Eastern Europeans to East Indians from Bombay or Cochin to Russians from the Steppes to African-Americans from Chicago to Georgians from the Caucasus to Yemenites to Sephardim from Spain or Turkey or Morocco to Ethiopians to Peruvians (yes, there are Incan Jews living in Israel, too) to Himalayans to you name it!

“For example, my understanding is that non-Jews don’t get full citizenship rights. Whether one considers that racist or not, indicting it in a so-called democracy seems valid.”

Daniel answered this one pretty well, although he missed some other points like non-Jews may indeed serve voluntarily in the IDF and Bedouins, the Druze, and Christians, among others, do indeed serve in that capacity. If non-Jews don’t have full rights, who is it that elects Arabs to the Knesset? That is not to say there is no discrimination; such discrimination exists everywhere unfortunately and certainly in Israel and even against Jews by other Jews. And what is this “so-called democracy” business? Can Jews vote in Iran? Can they run for and sit in its parliament? In what Arab country are there any Jews sitting in the legislative bodies? In what Arab country is there a “so-called” or any “democracy?”

And, are the Palestinian Arabs less mono-religious (yes, there are Christians as well as Muslims), mono-cultural, and mono-racial than the Israelis? I’m sorry, but your reduction of Israel to a mono-culture/religion/race is, whether you realize this consciously or not, at least just the slightest bit racist.

Mike, I’ve never been to Israel and am obviously ignorant.

“So-called democracy” followed the (apparently false) premise that “non-Jews don’t get full citizenship rights.”

I wasn’t trying to “reduce” Israel to anything, just understand Daniel’s comments about it and about others who seem to me to see it differently.

Well, folks, I’ve learned a little and still don’t understand much, but that’s enough for me for this time around.

Mike:

I think Steve’s point stands within the context of this discussion. Israel is a Jewish state. I think it fair to characterize it as relatively homogenous for the purpose of discussing the philosophical underpinnings of a state carved out for those of a single religion.

As an aside, its been my experience that supporters of Israel love to, in the context of discussing Israeli policy, compare Israel to its Arab neighbors – as if it had any bearing on occupation, discrimination and other ills within the state of Israel. The strongest case for Israel is Israel, not Iran, Jordan, Syria or the like.

(The best thing that Palestineans can do is not support a seperate state and wait. The best thing Americans can do is buy from Palestinean business.)

“The best thing that Palestineans can do is not support a seperate state and wait.”

Why is that? How is that done?

Dan –

I think your last point is indicative of why some people believe anti-Zionism often shadows anti-Semitism.

When “comparing” (for lack of a better word) Israel to other Arab regimes in the Middle-East, they aren’t trying to get you to look away at whatever is deemed unjustified or unequal in Israel. Rather, they are making what I believe to be a fair assertion that the Jewish state should not be held to a higher standard than any other state.

If in Israel, a country barely 58 years old, has the same problems, or same number of problems (or significantly less) than countries in the Middle-East that have been around for centuries – how can one possibly expect more out if it?

My point is that no one is causing an uproar over honor killings and beheadings in some random Middle East country, but when Arabs in Israel don’t get the Knesset representation people feel is necessary (in a democratic forum) then people shout racism and apartheid. It makes no sense, and some claim in this instance that the line between being anti-Zionist (which is certainly anyone’s right) and anti-Semitic are slowly blurred.

Holding Israel to a different standard than everyone else is simply unfair.

Brad:

Imagine if I defended America like many Israelis defend Israel. “Social security might be bad, but hey – at least its better here than in Mexico! They don’t even have social security” Or “Yeah, racial minorities tend to be the poorest, least educated portions of society, but hey – it can’t be as bad as it is in Guatemala.” Aside from the obvious point that what’s going on Guatemala has nothing to do with what’s going on in America, I don’t think it says anything about America to compare it to a developing country. Similarly, I don’t think it says anything about Israel that it has elevated itself above its neighbors. Yeah – I expect more out of an industrialized postmodern nation than I do out of countries that the western world colonized and carved up for decades. And if you think that’s unfair to Israel, I’d ask you what Israel has done to deserve being compared to Syria.

Dan –

A simple preface to this discussion is, to which country SHOULD Israel be compared? The obvious answer, to me, is none (for the reasons you have stated, and also simply because no country has achieved what Israel has achieved in less than 60 years).

Having said that, I think you’re missing the point – they are not, by any means, DEFENDING any of Israel’s actions by referring to other countries. In that scenario, your analogy would be correct.

Where your analogy falls short in another sense is that America, and the other countries you’ve mentioned, are not characterized by official religion.

So you have all the other Middle-East countries, (predominantly religiously Muslim but not all so), which completely deny rights to Jews and other religious groups on one hand, and you have Israel – bending over backward to accommodate all religions on the other, yet it’s the “Jewish” state. In that sense, yes what happens in Saudi Arabia has much to do with what happens in Israel.

Israel is a unique modern model of trying to mesh politics with religion and democracy, and all I’m saying is that people unfairly beat up on the country because it doesn’t fit within a traditional Western democractic model of how things should work.

Thanks, js.

1.The argument that “non-Jews don’t get full citizenship rights.” comes from immigration policy. If you are a citizen of Israel, weather its European Jew, Arab Jew, other Jew, Arab Muslim, Arab Christian, other Christian sect, Druze, Bahia or any other group, you get full citizenship rights. The truth is that Arabs with Israeli citizenship have more right then almost any other Arab living in the Arab world.
The difference is immigration. All Jews in the world are entitled to go to Israel and claim citizenship. I do not think that non-Jews can immigrate to Israel at all. That is the basis for the ‘racist state’ argument, from what I understand.
As to those who were talking about a homeland vs. state; what is the difference??? Is a homeland some kind of stateless land? That would be ‘the occupied territories’/Palestine, a homeland without statehood. But then again, Palestinians see Israel (the territory it occupies) as their homeland, and will continue to do so even if they are given a state.

“As to those who were talking about a homeland vs. state; what is the difference??? Is a homeland some kind of stateless land? ”

Not necessarily stateless but more of an amorphous concept versus defined borders. What’s the homeland for Kurds in Iraq and Turkey? The semi-autonomous Kurdistan in Iraq? I would bet most Kurds consider their “homeland” to include parts of Turkey and Syria, not just the area of Iraq that they govern.

Brad:

If such comparisions aren’t offered up for the purpose of defending Israel, what else could be their purpose? Education? Come on.

That Israel is a Jewish state and a democracy hardly undermines my analogy. Israel’s jewish character may make it unique, but that doesn’t mean that we should hold it to a unique ethical/legal standard. I don’t think subjectifying international standards is sound practice.

Unfair? Tell me what’s fair about granting Israel any sort of leeway because its a “unique model.” Why should Israel’s jewish character make it an exception to a uniform standard of conduct?

“So you have all the other Middle-East countries, (predominantly religiously Muslim but not all so), which completely deny rights to Jews and other religious groups on one hand, and you have Israel – bending over backward to accommodate all religions on the other, yet it’s the “Jewish” state. In that sense, yes what happens in Saudi Arabia has much to do with what happens in Israel.”

Why? Why does what happens in Saudi Arabia have anything to do with a discussion about Israeli policy?

Dan –

You’re defining “defend” differently. I meant it as absolve – as in, using other countries as examples does not absolve Israel of wrongdoing. Pointing out other examples of what is done elsewhere is a reference, not an excuse.

Again, you talk about subjecting international standards and international law. A common argument made by those who are against Israel is “why should it matter what happens in Syria, we’re talking about Israel.” Well, what matters is that Israel is not alone in some of their violations of international law by any means. And by all means, pressure should be put on Israel to maintain a good record on human rights – but not above any other nation. That is to say, one has no basis for calling Israel apartheid because it built a separation barrier when nearly 6 other countries have done the same thing, for nearly the exact same reasons, and oddly no one seems to notice.

And what exactly is this “uniform standard of conduct” that you talk about? If you ask every country to be perfect, you have very high expectations. Every country on this earth is currently in violation of at least a dozen tenets of international law. If Israel’s violating only 6, I’d consider it a good day.

If you do not see the obvious distinction I am trying to make between a “religious” country (Israel) that offers rights for all, and a “religious” (Saudi Arabia) country that offers rights for few, I cannot help you.

One more thing – I’m sorry if it irks you that in order to prove a point, people give other countries as a reference point. That’s just the way things work. If you want to measure GDP, you have to use other countries as a reference point. If you want to know about education standards, you use other countries as a reference point.

Similarly, if you’re talking about rights in the Middle-East, you have to use the Middle-East as a reference point. It’s just that simple.

“If you do not see the obvious distinction I am trying to make between a “religious” country (Israel) that offers rights for all, and a “religious” (Saudi Arabia) country that offers rights for few, I cannot help you.”

I can, but I’m not asking you to make the distinction. I’m asking you to show me the connection. I don’t see one.

Alluding to the practices of other countries as a reference? To what end? 9/10 its a weak effort at justification.

“That is to say, one has no basis for calling Israel apartheid because it built a separation barrier when nearly 6 other countries have done the same thing, for nearly the exact same reasons, and oddly no one seems to notice.”

This is exactly what I’m talking about. If building a barrier like the one Israel has erected qualifies you as an apartheid state, then yes – it is perfectly correct to label Israel as such without reference to how other states behave. All of them are guilty, and you might make something of the fact that Israel is mentioned and not the other six, but that doesn’t get Israel off the hook.

Holding a modernized nation to a higher standard is the norm. Israel is not unique in this regard, though many of its supporters are correct in noting that Israel catches an undue amount of shit on college campuses.

Here’s another example: Israel has a national election in which several key parties commit election fraud and assume office. There are two ways to approach this:

1) Highlight the fraud and demand reform OR
2) Highlight the fact that Israel is the only country in the area that even has elections in the first place.

I’m saying that the latter approach seems tragically misguided.

Personally, the “uniform standard of conduct” is how I feel a responsible, moral nation should act. Broadly, the uniform standard I’m referring to is the body of principles known as international law.

Interestin’ notes:

1. Lebanon has some democratic tendencies too…hey, from what Bush says, Iraq is democratic too now! (heh)

2. As for representation in Mideast, there is a Jewish member of Iranian parliament, Maurice Motamed : in fact, Jews have had a reserved seat there since 1906!!!

Salaam/shalom everybody. Even Ari. (hehh)

Dan –

Ah, but you see, you’re neglecting the third approach, which is the most important here:

3) a)Recognize that every country in the world has some type of election fraud

Activists, in particular campus activists, would forget “a” and “c” and leave it at that.

Israel is not asking to be held to any different standard. They are asking to be held up to the same standard as everyone else. When other countries are conveniently being held below that standard, it is frustrating.

The connection, in reference to my last post, is that if you’re going to have a discussion about, let’s say, religious freedom in the ME – you cannot simply isolate Saudia Arabia from that discussion and say “Well, that’s just how they do things there.” It’s connected. If you hold Israel to a certain standard, you must also hold Saudi Arabia to that standard.

In reference to the barrier discussion – nevermind the fact that even talking about the word “apartheid” in referemce to Israel is ludicrous – it’s discrimination plain and simple to just sit back and say, well, it doesn’t matter if the other people doing the exact same thing are labeled as such. There is a justified voice in America that says minorities are opressed because of their treatment in this country has been less than stellar. And I agree with that statement, and similarly so in Israel. But does that qualify the USA as apartheid? Of course not – but the same circumstances in the USA, when placed in Israel, make it “apartheid,” because it’s a buzz word that scares people off. To apply a term to one country and not the next is discrimination.

David –

I’m not really sure what to say, other than I think it’s very clear how Iran feels about Jews at this point.

Iran, except for Iranian Maurice Motamed…

....as long as, at least according to Wikipedia, members of the Iranian government insist that they be present at his speaking functions and interviews….

Ah I see.

See, that’s what I’m talkin’ about. Calling every country on their dirty laundry, not just one. =)

“The connection, in reference to my last post, is that if you’re going to have a discussion about, let’s say, religious freedom in the ME.”

Precisely. This is entirely about how you define the parameters of the discussion. I have no problem with discussing other countries in the ME alongside Israel IF the topic happened to be religious freedom in the Middle East. What I’m talking about is the tendency for supporters of Israel to widen a discussion about ISRAEL (not the ME as a whole) to include the surrounding states. I don’t think that’s appropriate. I think Israel can stand alone without the need for comparison.

This sentence – “Understand that because Israel has election fraud, it does not make it any better or worse than any other country.” – is instructive. Why is this important? I’ve never been involved in a discussion about the West Bank in which nations have been ranked, from best to worst, in terms of human rights record. If I were in such a discussion, I could see a need to recognize that Israel isn’t even near the bottom.

All but maybe Blaine would agree. But why let Blaine dictate the terms of the debate in the first place? Why not have a conversation about Israel that doesn’t include how other Middle Eastern countries happen to do business?

“Israel is not asking to be held to any different standard. They are asking to be held up to the same standard as everyone else. When other countries are conveniently being held below that standard, it is frustrating.”

First, I do believe that many Israelis expect it to be held to a different standard – that its location, age, ethnic makeup etc entitle it to some deference in the way of world opinion. Your comments re: Israel’s age and “unique model” have certainly implied as much.

Second, I disagree with your characterization of the international system. No one is getting a free pass. Criticizing Israel isn’t holding it to a higher standard any more than its holding other countries below that standard.

Last, I think you’re getting hung up on my use of the word apartheid. No – I don’t think the ATB has created an apartheid state. Yes – it is discrimination to single out a single nation for abuse. But I’m not singling out Israel by saying that the occupation of the west bank violates international law. It does.

Another example: In the context of discussing a crime and a criminal, is it important that I mention other crimes and other criminals, lest I be accused of unfairly singling out one person for abuse?

Sol:

“On this blog, for example, I don’t ever remember there being a discussion of reform across the Middle East. As a result, legitimate criticism is undermined because it appears that it is disproportionately targeting one country.”

Legitimate criticism only undermined in the eyes of those who suspect other motivations. (Read: anti-semitism or other biases) While some of the scorn that gets heaped on Israel might very well be so motivated, I believe much of it is legitimate. Disproportionate criticism doesn’t lose its impact simply because its disproportionate. Defend Israel on the merits.

“Certainly, I expect more out of Israel than other Middle East countries, but I think Israel does in fact meet those expectations in most cases.”

I agree. And I do expect the same from other Arab countries.

Dan –

It is not a “tactic” of mine to shift discourse from Israel to other Arab countries, and I certainly agree with you that Israel certainly merits a standalone conversation. I am simply pointing out that those that do so have a point, and a point that I believe to be substantial.

Re: the point about being held to a different standard – my mention of Israel’s “freshman” status as a country was not intended to lower expectations for it – on the contrary – it has accomplished so much, and become modernized in such a short period of time, that people tend to forget how long it has taken America to iron out differences…some of which are still debated to this day…So I’m not asking for leeway, just understanding that they’ve already accomplished a lot, yet still have some way to go.

People that are supportive of Palestinians will make the argument that Israel should indeed be held to a higher standard because of the amount of international aid the US gives – is that fair? I don’t think so. Arab countries are drunk on oil and their monetary situation is, by most accounts, quite comfortable – should we hold them to a higher standard because of that?

Regarding your thoughts on the international system vis a vis criticism of Israel, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I am dumbfounded as to how one can justify putting blinders on and enforcing a rule or principle in one country and not in another, when it equally applies to both.

Re: the West Bank – aside from a potential diatribe on internaional law – what flaw will be dissected next when Israel voluntarily leaves the West bank within the next 3 years? How much sacrifice does one country have to make in order to stop being considered a pariah?

And lastly, yes – in terms of punishing that criminal, you absolutely must reference other crimes and criminals to see exactly how heinous the crime was. If everyone is doing it and no one is getting punished, why pick the lone Jewish state as the only one? That’s all I’m saying, bringing this back to the origins of this conversation: anti-Semitism vs. anti-Zionism.

“I am dumbfounded as to how one can justify putting blinders on and enforcing a rule or principle in one country and not in another, when it equally applies to both.”

I’m not putting blinders on and I’m certainly not talking about selective enforcement. I’ve been willing to admit that arab regimes are not above reproach. Far from it. I’m also eager to see a day when international laws are routinely and evenly applied.

I’m just saying compartmentalize this a bit. One can criticize Israel without criticizing the rest of the ME in the same breath. Whether a policy is wrong, whether a policy is a crime are two questions that do not require a comparative analysis – pulling in other nations into the fold.

When will the new issue of Michigan Israel Observer go online, Sol? (If you are “the” Sol)

a post of mine got lost to the either. Basic info;

Daniel, post 94-

you write “I think it fair to characterize it as relatively homogenous for the purpose of discussing the philosophical underpinnings of a state carved out for those of a single religion.”

But how on earth can you say ‘relatively homogenous’ about a state that is only 80% jewish, and many of those secular jews, so we are not talking about a state for members of the jewish religion, but members of the jewish culture. There is about 20% arab muslim and a bunch of christians and some others around too. There is a difference between the fact that Israel is a super majority jewish and being able to say that its ‘relatively homogenous’.

Now, I’m guessing that you haven’t actually studied up on the history of the ‘conflict’ there, since you would probably know that basic fact (excuse me if I’m being condescending, I don’t mean to be). Here is the crux of how most Israelis feel, at least my understanding of it;

This history is very incomplete, but is simply the important facts behind what I think most Israelis believe;

1- There was a very small population in what is now Israel/Palestine before 1900, but with British investment into the area, along with Jewish interest due to zionism many jobs were created, many ‘peasant arab muslims’ moved there for the jobs

2- In 48 the jewish state was formed. It was attacked by all arab neighbors whose intention was to destroy the jews (literally)

3- between 48 and 70 600,000 Arab muslims left what was the youthful state of israel. another 500,000 arabs jews moved from surrounding arab states to the new state of Israel. In general both groups left what they had behind. The Jewish refugees where accepted and integrated with society. And yes, the Arab jews look very arab. Now, the group that left Palestine, they were forced to stay in refugee camps. They were generally told by the arab nations that the jews would be pushed into the sea and then they would get what was the british mandate of palestine. But while that is what they were told, anytime an arab nation ended up with land after a war, that land become theirs. So, one questions that no one is willing to research and look into, is of the now 6 million who call them selves palestinians, how many had family there before 1900?? What is a palestinian (how far back did thier family have to live there). How come the Palestinain refugees are the only ones that the UN changed its definition of refugee for so that the status of refugee passes on to the children, creating a displaced people. Oh, if you want to go crazy, research the differences of the refugees in Israeli camps and and arab camps, the pro Palestinians hate to revisit that.

4- ok, so here is how an israeli views the wars. They got attacked, and again, and gain, then they saw an attack coming and did a preemptive strike, and got attacked again after that. They basically won every war they were in, took lots of land and traded it for peace. Most arab nations didn’t recognize Israel, so it defended itself. Well at a certain point the Arab world realized that they weren’t going to win a war, but they didn’t want to give up the whole fight. That’s when you see the rise of terrorism in the 70’s. After that was dying out, the first and second intifada started. They are just reacting to what they see as a constant and continuous threat to their very existence, and rightly so. If you don’t like the heavy handed tactics they use, read the whole history of the conflict and how they reacted at each step. It certainly doesn’t justify everything they’ve done, but it will make you understand why the simple truth is that;
While Israel deserves some blame for the condition of the Palestinian people, it is actually the Palestinians themselves and others who deserve a much greater share of the blame.

Finally, for anyone that actually makes it this far, someone also wrote that Israel stopped the Palestinians from having a state, well thats BS. The PA charter had a date of Sept 2000 (if memory serves correct), that if there wasn’t already a state by then, that they would declare a state, and Arafat didn’t. I though they should have right then. That goes to the Israeli belief that the Palestinians won’t sign a peace deal because they don’t want peace. They could have declared a state, but didn’t, and the logic follows they could have made peace by now but didn’t.

JAV:

I have studied the confict and am somewhat familiar with Israel’s rough demographics.

“While Israel deserves some blame for the condition of the Palestinian people, it is actually the Palestinians themselves and others who deserve a much greater share of the blame.”

I don’t agree with this. A few years ago, I spoke with a reporter working in Jerusalem who I think got closer to the truth. He said, “Israel deserves the blame for the first intifada; Palestinians for the second.” Though I hesitate to put it so simply, I think that’s about right.

“Why is that? How is that done?”

Here’s why the Palestineans should agitate for the disputed territories to stay Israel (and in fact, for Israel to expand geographically)— The Jewish population within Israel is declining fairly rapidly with respect to the Arab population. This is one of the big reasons that Sharon came around to the two-state solution, and endeavored to define the borders unilaterally; if the current demographic trends hold, the Arabs will take over Israel democratically. As they get closer to that brink, either Israel can work on reforming their society to guarantee full equal rights (in practice as well as in law) for the Palestineans, or the charge that they are an apartheid state will have more credibility (one of the problems with Blaine and his ilk is his inability to understand that there are different terms for oppressing a minority and oppressing a majority). Further, the support of Palestinean businesses can have much more short-term impact than the efforts to divest simply because a) most of Palestine’s current problems are more economic than they are ideological (people with good jobs rarely blow themselves up), and b) because divestment will always be much much more contentious.
The how is relatively easy if you go to many of the Halal markets around town. You can also, if you have business purchasing ability, look to Palestine as a source of both labor and manufacturing. Even buying olive oil from Palestine is helpful. Much of the aggression against Israel is also predicated on internal politics and the incredible corruption that exists there. Fatwa kept a militant foreign policy in order to distract from the massive amount of graft and skimming that was happening. Hamas isn’t much different. But working to provide them with legitimate economic opportunities that aren’t mediated by their failed state aparatus gives real Palestineans a chance to have something to live for as well as an ability to get themselves out of their current abysmal situation. It’s worth noting that this approach is favored by some Israelis, but very few Arabs outside of Palestine, mostly because places like Saudi Arabia have a vested interest in opposing peace in Israel/Palestine.

So, by your logic, Israel should expand to the Euphrates, as per God’s gift to Abraham or something, so that it will have a vastly-Arab-majority population. There’s a new twist. ...

“So, by your logic, Israel should expand to the Euphrates, as per God’s gift to Abraham or something, so that it will have a vastly-Arab-majority population. There’s a new twist. ...”

Wrong. Try not to be willfully stupid, David.

” You also express a desire (?) for the Arabs to “take over Israel”, which may not resonate well with everyone; including Arabs who are not interested in taking over Israel. ”

Wrong. I’m saying that if the current population trends continue (like I said about 50 goddamn times in the post), Arabs will become the majority. Which means in a democracy that they’re likely to affect some significant policy changes.

I was clarifying my comment that the best thing for the Palestineans is to oppose a seperate state and wait, and for people to buy Palestinean goods.
The best thing for Palestineans is to be equal citizens in a state that encompasses both Israel and Palestine. The best way to accomplish that is to stay put and continue to work for rights peacefully. If current demographic trends continue, they will become the majority in Israel, at which point there will either be parity or obvious internal strife that will require outside intervention.

Your hostile language is unnecessary, and my logic makes sense; at least it is the same as your logic, re the “”“good”“” of Israeli expansion. (And there are those few Israelis who would in fact like to expand to the Euphrates, I have read.)

“Your hostile language is unnecessary, and my logic makes sense; at least it is the same as your logic, re the “”“good”“” of Israeli expansion. (And there are those few Israelis who would in fact like to expand to the Euphrates, I have read.)”

My hostile language is unnecessary only in that now I understand your idiocy to be unintentional.

That many people would disagree with this is not a mark against it. Many people would agree that the solution to the problem is to drive the Jews into the sea or to exterminate the Palestineans. Your “logic” regarding the scope of Israeli expansion ignores the very real fact that Israel has already assumed de facto military control over the occupied territories (unless you’ve forgotten who occupies them). Expanding Israel proper to include those areas makes sense. Expanding it to include Iran does not. Only a moron would hold otherwise (don’t take that as hostility, take that as another statement of fact).
The argument that because my solution would either entail strife (or not, depending on how the problem was handled) and death it is not to be implimented is stupid, as the seperate state solution obviously entails both strife and death. My “angry” language comes from having to swat away the gnats of your objections, which have fallacy and words in almost equal proportion.

So now I am a gnatty stupid idiot moron. I never knew. At least you think it’s not intentional, so perhaps you want me to thank you for that.

“When both Olmert and Abbas tell you in a conference phone call that they have converted to your point of view and that Israel should not contract but EXPAND to include an Arab majority, let me know, I’ll be happy to check and confirm that the call took place: and you can then get your Nobel Peace Prize for creating Mideast peace when no one else has been able to do so.”

What a fine metric you have for success! While my solution is unpopular, it is far better for both sides in terms of peace and human rights. The two state solution will not end the violence, and the current homeostasis will tend toward the outcome that I’ve predicted whether people want it or not.

Well, “good luck”; I see you do not argue that the Palestinian Authority should expand to assimilate Israel, just the other way around. That alone should set off some alarm bells. Again, I do not see any television images of crowds of Palestinians in the streets yelling, “Please Israel, expand and assimilate us!” In fact, I doubt I ever shall.

I said I’d post something from the new Michigan Israel Observer issue, so, have a look at The Israeli Bob Marley by Dara Yaskil—MUSIC REVIEW: Idan Raichel’s sophomore CD, Out of the Depths .

Blaine:

“I will refrain from polluting your discourse about what is happening to Palestine.”

“I’m ready to stay silent if you are still in the middle of that discussion.”

I don’t believe that your promise to not pollute the discourse was contingent on who was participating in it.

I was reading JS and David’s back and forth until I ran across your mindless bullshit… again.

Stop.

Blaine-

No. No one cares at all about Palestinian society, at least not as long as you continue to represent their cause. Can you go away now? Won’t that make you feel better knowing people will actually say and discuss the word “Palestine” when you leave and stop polluting the Ann Arbor campus with your vitriol?

Blaine,

1- you are dumb, stupid, an asshole and generally an idiot. That is why people react to you the way they do. You say things like;

a – “controlling zillions of Israeli troops”

b – topic of the original post was about JWP being disruptive, yet you had to make it into another Palestine/Israel debate. That wasn’t on the agenda, but the first post was you attempting to change the topic into what you wanted to talk about, yet when people change the topic on you all we hear is bloody murder.

c – You talk in dogma and are not willing to engage in debate. You repeat yourself, often and ad nausea.

d – You confuse things with the language you use, like calling land that is clearly in the state of Israel and calling it Palestine (making debate near impossible)

e – Oh, and you are a coward for not simply saying that you would like to see the destruction of the state of Israel

Now, the reason I’m justified in telling you about your stupidity, idiotic, etc is because you constantly ruin things for everyone else. You turn more people away from the ideas that you promote rather then towards them. You ruin the opportunity for debate for others so you can feel better about yourself.

If you want to challenge me on anything I’ve said now or in the past, I will promise a serious response, but only if you answer this question;

Who gets the title Palestinian? Then we can start a debate

Despite JAV’s begging me to participate, I won’t.

Again, please feel free to discuss what is happening to Palestine, and what you want to do about it.

I am still refraining from comment.

I would love to help the people in Palestine. But there’s this idiot named Blaine fogging my vision from reality. Can you please make him go away?

What could be more ironic then a comment saying “I am still refaining from comment”??

Ok, people insert jokes here;

Big Palestine vigil is set for this Sunday, outside the JCC’s “Celebrate Israel” event, and…

...It looks like the local “Celebrate Israel” honchos are trying to build a 114-foot wall, against this Sunday’s anticipated vigil.

According to the May 4th “ANN ARBOR NEWS”:

* “Local celebration set for Israel holiday”

“Local Jews will celebrate Israel Independence Day on Sunday with a new mural at the Jewish Community Center, 2935 Birch Hollow Drive, Ann Arbor.

“Painted in 19 6-foot sections by members of 18 Jewish organizations in the area, the two-sided mural celebrates peace and Israel through the decades.

“The paintings have been under way the last two months, and the panels are to be hung Thursday on a 114-foot fence outside the JCC. After the Sunday festival, the mural and individual sections will be available for other events.

“The festival is 1-4:30 p.m., rain or shine…”

The full article is in today’s (May 4) “Ann Arbor News”, on the Web at:

http://www.mlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-17/1146753859107280.xml?aanews?NEA&coll=2&thispage=2

Don’t kid yourself, you idiot. No one alters their plans for anything you, or any of your mindless cretin friends do.

I take it that you are ready to discuss what is happening to Palestine now.

Or would you rather just call Palestine human rights advocates unpleasant names?

Thought experiment: Blaine, let’s say that tomorrow the UN appoints you Grand Plenipotentiary for Israel and Palestine, with full power to dispose of things how you want there. And with full Israeli and Palestinian support for the UN move, too, so that you are “legit”.