Not to beat a dead horse, but…
In light of the recent discussion/handwringing regarding apartheid and Israel/Palestine, it was interesting to see this reaction (Feb 7, 2005 issue of The New Yorker) from one settler:
Unlike some of the settlers, [head of the Binyamin regional council Pinchas] Wallerstein said that he did not favor the old absolutist solution to the Palestinian problem – forced transfer of the Arab population to Jordan. But, for him, a two-state solution, whether along the 1967 borders or in the vastly more limited, interim sense propounded by Sharon’s allies, was still unthinkable.
I asked him how long he thought the Palestinians would tolerate living in islets of territory surrounded by troops, checkpoints, and Jewish settlements, and whether he imagined a Bantustan arrangement, like in South Africa under apartheid. Wallerstein was not offended by the analogy. “Bantustans? Maybe. If you want to be honest, the problem is not just the Arabs in Judea and Samaria. It’s the Arabs throughout the country. The part that is hardest to swallow about the withdrawl from Gaza is that it is not being done for peace. The potential to attack Israel will now increase.”
Is Wallerstein’s comment typical of Yesha Council leadership? Perhaps the taint of apartheid isn’t so strong on the far right…
Either way, Jewschool can reject the “A” word, but when you see it in the New Yorker twice in nine months, it’s already in the mainsteam…
neither Wallerstein nor the New Yorker are mainstream, at least for those of us who do not live in Judea, Samaria or Manhattan. Your mileage may vary.
Sausage – but a significant portion of the world’s Jews do live in New York and for us the New Yorker is mainstream
True, the New Yorker is not mainstream. And no, in NY, while it’s considered popular, it’s also not considered mainstream. It’s considered a very high quality, upper class, intellectial mag with a strong left bias, meaning that today to NY Jews that very well means unfair to Israel.
Further, the NY’r part you posted didn’t demonstrate that it’s mainstream. The word was used in a sentence ASKING what he preffered to a 2 state, so if anything, that part might have ENDORSED mobius’ position, not detracted from it..
Huh? Apartheid is massively in the mainstream. I wasn’t aware there was a debate about that.
The debate was about whether it was inane.
John, I highly doubt that those who would consider themselves in the “us” category with you are a significant portion. Not trying to bash you, I just think you represent a noisy but small minority of Jews in NY or anywhere for that matter.
“I just think you represent a noisy but small minority of Jews in NY or anywhere for that matter.”
Couldn’t have said that better myself. Y’know, I can walk down the street naked tomorrow, probably get on the news and in my local paper. This does not mean that Vancouverites are nudists.
We have a small, albeit vocal minority, of “John Brown” type Jews in Vancouver. How small? At every anti-terror rally, you have appx 1200 pro-Israel folks on one side of the street, and 30 “John Brown” types on the other side. They like to think many Jews think like them, but the truth is, most of their supporters are from the far Right/Left in the non-Jewish community.
A couple of years ago in Seattle, the Left were shocked to find out that “No War for Israel” – an organization that showed up to all of their peace rallies, anti-Israel protests, etc – is a White Supremacist organization.
“At every anti-terror rally, you have appx 1200 pro-Israel folks on one side of the street, and 30 ‘John Brown’ types on the other side.”
read your tanakh. the jewish masses never listen to the prophets.
as per the “a” word: that’s kinda the funyn thing. i haven’t met anyone in israel who rejects use of the term apartheid to describe this situation on the right or left (except for a few american olim). generally, the lefties say “this is apartheid!” and the righties say (as evidenced in some of the comments on my posts) “so what? do you want a jewish state or not?”
generally, the lefties say “this is apartheid!” and the righties say (as evidenced in some of the comments on my posts) “so what? do you want a jewish state or not?”
Hmmm. So “apartheid” is a Hebrew word?
That said:
1) Mobius’s comment is kind of the ultimate proof of how colossally moronic propaganda and namecalling like “apartheid” are. Unless someone wants to convince that the left and the right in Israel are happy, on good speaking terms, and having healthy debate resulting in positive political change.
Ahem.
2) On a different level, hateful invective in Israel concerning Israel is obviously pretty different than hateful invective in, oh, say, Montreal concerning Israel. See, in Israel, the Israelis are a majority — and understand Israeli reality.
In Montreal, they’re not. Different situation. Most minority communities understand this dynamic. Jews are no exception.
Incidentally, though, as long as you’re looking to energetically flail against the dead, dead horse:
the term apartheid to describe this situation which situation — in Israel, or in the occupied Palestinian territories? You are aware they’re different places, right?
I am getting tried of these nudnikim going on about “either democracy or Jewish State.” F— that, I want both and I’ll have my cake and eat it too. As fashionable as it may seem to some of you today, Jewish does not equal fascist. Look, in orthodox Judaism alone we have a billion different options..why democracy shouldn’t be one of them is beyond me. Damn it, Judaism, great phenomenon, got a lot of things right (more than most, I would say)..democracy too, definitely one of the best ideas in the history of the world. Just because you want to keep living in Gaza I have to accept that these are somehow irreconcilable? No thanks.
If you haven’t met any Israelis who object to the applicability of “apartheid”, all I can conclude is that you’ve been hanging out almost exclusively with the extremes of both ends.
A few comments from someone trained in PR techniques:
1) We have nothing to go on but the reporter in gauging whether Wallerstein was “offended” or not. We have no idea from a printed article whether the Bantustans reference was made explicitly or in passing as part of a larger argument.
2) Wallerstein’s reply, taken in entirety, is a typical example of saying what you want to say, instead of answering the question. This is used a lot by right-wingers in Israel, because the leftie media only asks them leading questions – and sometimes the questions contain mini-polemics. So the practiced public speaker will say, “that’s not the real issue here” or “that’s just part of a larger problem” – and then launch into their spiel.
This is a standard technique, everyone uses it. You can easily observe it if you watch news shows with live interviews.
So Wallerstein basically shrugs off the apartheid angle because he is pulling away towards the (totally unrelated) point that HE wants to make. No doubt this is second nature to him after all his appearances on Israel TV.
Remember: both the journalist and Wallerstein are turning in media performances, this is not a philosophical discourse.
Many Israelis – including many settlers – object to the apartheid equation, because (a) it unfairly demonizes Israel (b) it reinforces the notion – false to most Jews – that Israel is a colonial presence in a foreign area, and (c) it deligitimizes Israel’s right to annex/settle in the West Bank as it sees fit to protect itself – which settlers obviously object to.
whatcanitellya.blogspot.com
With regard to where the New Yorker sits on the left-right continuum: just last week they published an article about how the mainstream media came under attack by conservatives during the last American election.
The article glossed over the obvious attempts by big media to directly influence the election – sometimes with false information. It totally ignored memogate, for instance. It was overwhelmingly sympathetic to the left wingers in major newsrooms, and the writer obviously shared the rest of his colleagues’ blind spots about their own groupthink.
So it’s pretty clear the New Yorker is coming from a blue-state, coastal-intellectual position. The word “apartheid” is as easy on these folks’ lips as the word “Haliburton”… and makes about as much sense…
Mob,
who is ‘incite’? You once had a short bio on each jewschool member, but recently new ones appear, with childish nicknames with no background whatsoever. On this point, I honest admit respect for John Brown (assuming that’s his name), and have since lost repsect of Asaf after he chose that oofnik handle.
FWIW,
the yesha council is a wierd organization. I don’t know if fellow settlers will admit that this council represents them. Perhaps they try to represent the settlement ‘industry’, but I doubt you’ll find a settler who supports them, so saying ‘yesha council = settlers’ is quite misleading, unfair, and slightly ignorant. Some would say that they were puppets. Some even claim that Wallerstein’s call for world and Israeli Jewry to sign a ‘refusal’ petition a few weeks ago was just a smokescreen to A) record potentially problematic Israelis, and B) to make sure that any caring Jews coming to resist/human shield the expulsion and destruction of Gush Katif not be allowed into the country.
according to this web page, the circulation of the New Yorker is about 1 million.
and according to the same website, American Hunter has a circulation of about 100,000 more than the New Yorker. Hmmm, which one is more mainstream? 😉
Sausage – yeah I’m sure a lot of American Hunter readers are Jewish! haha
think about it this way.. Jews are supposed to be 2% of America. and America is around 300 million. So that means 6 million Jews. Then in the magazine industry, there is this factoring in of the number of people who look at each issue. Becuase often an issue goes to a household with several people in it or to, say, a doctor’s office or something. So I think the New Yorker can hardly be said to be a fringe publication.
All I know is I get it, my mom gets it, my grandma gets it, my aunts get it, it’s on the table at my dentist’s office, it’s on the table at my doctor’s office. .shit’s everywhere
Brown, American Hunter is an NRA publication (subscribers are members). While I am a member of the NRA, I agree that it is probably uncommon among Jews, but mainstream throughout America. By the way, I doubt any NRA publication would criticise Israel, given that possessing guns is common there.
I’m sure this whole New-Yorker-is-mainstream thing is relevant in some weird way. Inquiring minds, though: how?
Here’s something more relevant. Since we are talking about international comparisons, take a look at this photo: http://tinylink.com/?rpkEFOiN2U
Tell me that it doesn’t make for an interesting comparison. Wow!
By the way, the photo is from Reuters, not a typically pro-Israel source.
Hat Tip: Honest Reporting and its blog BackSpin
Oy vey again!
Look carefully at Wallerstein’s position:
“he did not favor the old absolutist solution to the Palestinian problem – forced transfer of the Arab population to Jordan.”
But then:
“If you want to be honest, the problem is not just the Arabs in Judea and Samaria. It’s the Arabs throughout the country. The part that is hardest to swallow about the withdrawl from Gaza is that it is not being done for peace. The potential to attack Israel will now increase.”
Nu Wallerstein so what are you saying?! What ARE you suggesting?!
A little off the “A” word topic, but this was a great quote further on in the article.—–
“We drove on to Beit El, and then northeast. Ofra came into view. It was more orderly than other outposts: neat rows of red-roofed chalets strung along a ridge. “It’s odd,†Etkes said. “A group of Jews volunteering to live inside an electrified fence in houses built in a Teutonic style.”
WOW
Hadag – that is indeed incredible.
I’ve often thought that people choosing to take their kids from the relative safety of Brooklyn to settlements with fences and guard towers is a form of child abuse.. I wonder what the rate of post-traumatic and other stress disorders is
When Jeffrey Goldberg wrote his article in The New Yorker last May, I remember viewing it as a turning point in the American Jewish perspective on Israel. If a writer like Goldberg, who had always been considered pretty hawkish and had written articles sympathetic to the Israeli right, was comfortable using the word apartheid when writing about Israel, and if The New Yorker was comfortable publishing it (as far as I can tell, they never had before), then comparing the situation in the territories to apartheid had crossed a kind of invisible line of acceptable dialogue.
Conservatives are often quick to label anything to the right of center as “left wing” or “far left.” The New Yorker is neither, which is why the references to apartheid are significant. I’d say The New Yorker is usually liberal, sometimes liberal/moderate. It is comfortable with the basic philosophy of the Democratic party. The writer of the excerpted article, David Remnick, is also the editor and I believe is considered to be somewhat of a moderate; for example, he supported the Iraq war.
Since the creation of the State of Israel, the American Jewish community has struggled to label what is and what is not acceptable speech regarding Israel. The New Yorker references tells Jewish liberals (who are a plurality of American Jews and many of whom read the New Yorker), that its OK to talk about apartheid and Israel in the same sentence.
Point being, if American Jewish liberals think Israel is engaging in apartheid-like behavior, either they will become even more disconnected from Israel or they will mobilize in opposition (perhaps as Zionists, perhaps not) to the offensive policies.
thats why american jewish conservative (moderate and not) like myself…will have to bare the dead weight of the liberal left and politically save israel. thank you. goodnight.
Hopefully all of you that care about our people and Israel will learn from current events that
When we try to play both sides of the contradiction ie We want to remain Jewish but still want to sound democratic and pluralistic and equal, We only bring upon ourselves scorn. Outsiders and even Jews say (RIGHTFULLY)you “claim” to have equality but look at your “apartheid-like” policies! You are a bunch of fakers!
This is the error of the “right-wing” Jews, they are no different than the “left-wing.”
BUT When you answer with pride that being Jewish is what is important. That any proud nation defends themselves and so will we then you will get respect – not scorn.
Point being, if American Jewish liberals think Israel is engaging in apartheid-like behavior, either they will become even more disconnected from Israel or they will mobilize in opposition (perhaps as Zionists, perhaps not) to the offensive policies
Your mistake is in framing that as an either-or; in fact they’re two possibilities among a great many. A third is that American Jewish liberals take umbrage at…
– double standards,
– extremist language, and
– the intentional blurring of policies inside the militarily occupied Palestinian territories with policies inside Israeli territory — you seem to be engaged in this
… and perceive this, rightly I think, as a discussion for or against Israel’s existence, rather than a discussion about particular Israeli policies.
Hence rallying American liberal Jews fed up with this brand of propaganda away from criticising Israeli policies, and towards defending Israel’s existence.
That’s certainly the case for me. You actually want to use incorrect and extremist language to provoke thought? A suggestion: try honesty. If you’re talking about how Israel has administered its military occupation in Palestine, specify that. If you mean to refer to how Israel has administered its domestic territory, specify that.
It’s really not that hard. Isn’t that the sort of thing they taught you in law school?
This video is the reason why WE should be a little bit more careful when we compare Israel to South Africa or call Israel a racist or undemocratic state.
http://standwithus.com/UCI_incitement2005.asp
8opus,
Clearly incite (which is probably another name for a different frequent visitor) feels he is one and is feeling a disconnect with israel due to its undemocratic “apartheid-like” policies.
Where do you fall are you an American Jewish liberal? Do you feel this disconnect?
Where do you fall are you an American Jewish liberal? I am not American. I’ve never been clear on what means “liberal”. Sorry.
disconnect with israel due to its undemocratic “apartheid-like” policies. … Do you feel this disconnect? I think the military occupation of Palestinian lands is wrong. It is not morally right, and it is not an effective defence policy anyway. So I advocate for it to end.
That said, I don’t agree with you that Israel has “apartheid-like” policies, because…
… as it relates to how Israel administers its domestic territory, the idea is ludicrous.
… as it relates how to Israel administers its military occupation of Palestine — this is what those who talk in these terms seem to really mean, but seem loathe to so, because they like the general vilification effect that it distributes to Israel proper — I think it’s ignorant, missing the point, and wilfully misleading.
Haven’t we been through all this? Over and over again?
“…those who talk in these terms…like the general vilification effect that it distributes to Israel proper…”
Count me out of that crowd, please. But as for the rest of it I’m not sure.
“Haven’t we been through all this? Over and over again?”
You may have convinced yourself. I still don’t get it.
You may have convinced yourself. I still don’t get it. Well, I did kinda hint at what I meant. Um, what don’t you get?
Hadag Nachash quoted more of the article:
—–
“We drove on to Beit El, and then northeast. Ofra came into view. It was more orderly than other outposts: neat rows of red-roofed chalets strung along a ridge. It’s odd, Etkes said. A group of Jews volunteering to live inside an electrified fence in houses built in a Teutonic style.”
——————————————————-
…I live in a “red-roofed” house in the West Bank. None of the houses of this type could be objectively described as “chalets” – simply because the architectural style is so different. There are no wooden buildings in this region at all. These homes are covered in the same sandstone that gives the older quarters of Jerusalem and Jaffa their character. The homes of the West Bank are indistinguishable from modern housing built in other areas of the mediterrenean: stone walls, red-tile roofs.
The use of terms like “Teutonic” betrays the bias and preconception that bedevils this whole piece. It is amazing to me that people here are going on about how publication of stories like this in The New Yorker somehow puts a seal of approval on these rather biased opinions.
This turns things upside-down, and indicates just how much assimilated American Jews are taking their cues on Israel from other value systems (left/liberal affiliations and media outlets) rather than first identifying with the Jewish people (and the facts!) and then taking a critical look at the media outlets and their political fellow-travelers.
Many assimilated American Jews have already crossed over and become “other”: they have long been comfortable judging Judaism by external moral codes – is Judaism feminist/socialist/democratic enough? – and have nose-jobbed Judaism to fit a larger, more authoritative cultural/value system.
Now the same perspective is dissolving any remaining connection to the larger Jewish people, and to Israel. Instead of learning the facts and then looking critically at their fellow-travelers, they judge Israel based on moral pronouncements and value norms of their adopted ideological and cultural homes.
In other words – they have assimilated and now look upon Israel and the Jewish people from an outsider’s perspective.
This has nothing to do with criticising Israel – it has to do with how you define “normal” or “moral” (and “us”and “them”, too) – all of which influences what you see when you look at the Israeli situation, and colors even the most “sincere” and “loving” criticism.
Sorry, 8opus.
The same body, the same organ, the same institutions, the same representation of electorate, the same government, the same state that works so hard to accomodate so many disparate peoples inside Israel also practices its policies in the occupied territories. It treats these territories as a conquored land, a possession of its own. Whatever bogus piece of bull shit Europe, in its colonial ambition, worked into the Geneva Conventions regarding establishment of settlements in occupied territories was either b.s. colonial motive or in recognition of how far from home an “occupation” might occur. I think for practical purposes any and all Israeli military could commute daily if need be…I’m rambling.
I don’t live to “vilify” Israel. I don’t want to vilify Israel. But what, if not Israel, occupies these territories? What, if not Israel, pursues these policies that appear vaguely comperable to apartheid?
Should I say the military? Should I say the state? Should I say the government? Who the fuck is accountable for (not the situation itself, but) how it’s being delt with?
Maybe you’re not comfortable with it but get used to it: whether democratically elected or not, governments are accountable for their actions regardless of whether these actions are pusured inside or outside the state itself. There is no void.
What phrase or expression other than the State of Israel refers to the body or organ accountable in this situation (meaning the practices of this occupation)?
8opus,
First of all you misunderstand me. I was just refering to incite who feels a disconnect due to his belief that there are “apartheid-like” policies- I certainly don’t feel that way.
Second a lot of things about your position are confusing to me.
First “I think the military occupation of Palestinian lands is wrong.”
So if its wrong what do you suggest they do? What in your opinion is the alternative?
Are you not aware that terrorists continuously come from the arab towns and kill Jews and that if a Jew accidentaly makes a wrong turn into their “territory” … Are you not aware?
The same body, the same organ, the same institutions, the same representation of electorate, the same government, the same state that works so hard to accomodate so many disparate peoples inside Israel also practices its policies in the occupied territories.
Yep. Not the same policies, though. Remind me again. Were you about abolishing certain Israeli policies, or about abolishing certain Israeli countries?
I don’t live to “vilify” Israel. I don’t want to vilify Israel. Then be a little more honest. But what, if not Israel, occupies these territories? Then criticise Israel’s occupation of these territories. What, if not Israel, pursues these policies that appear vaguely comperable to apartheid? Then criticise these policies.
Should I say the military? Should I say the state? Should I say the government? Absolutely. Last time I looked, that’s who we were talking about here. Rocket science this is not, my friend T. (Hey, is that T as in “T-dot”. Are you a lurking Torontonian? Or is that my fertile … aw, never mind.)
Who the fuck is accountable for (not the situation itself, but) how it’s being delt with? Um, you just listed a bunch of locations. It’s a good start. I think you’re getting confused on the what-they’re-responsible-for bit. I mean, yeah, if I think that certain British policies are racist and violate umpteen international norms, I could go around preaching about the “UKKK” — but that’d be dumb, and get old after a while. ‘Cause, well, that’s not really about its policies. It’s about it. My good friend Johnny the Babylonian is always linking to definitions of “ad hominem”. Countries aren’t homs, I guess, but the fallacy still applies.
Maybe you’re not comfortable with it but get used to it. Well, whether or not I’m confortable with it is totally irrelevant. On the other hand, whether it’s stupid, incorrect, and propagandistic — little light, much heat, obscures, doesn’t enlighten: that’s a bad thing, friend T. — is fully relevant. That’s why we’re talking about the latter, not the former. You get that, right?
Whether democratically elected or not, governments are accountable for their actions regardless of whether these actions are pusured inside or outside the state itself. Well, duh.
Don’t get me wrong. I love dumbfoundingly obvious platitudes as much as the next guy. But, you see, you’re not talking about holding Israel accountable.
I’ve been repeatedly urging folks to use language that is specific and actually goes to accounting for what, you know, Israel is doing. In the militarily occupied territories. Which I think is wrong. See post above. Double-duh.
Meanwhile, you’re trying to make a case that, no, what we should really be doing is calling the Israeli government names, trying to blur its policies together, avoid specifics, and generally try and move from a trenchant critique of what Israel actually does to vague language whose main effect is to communicate the idea that great evil lurks in our midst.
Which is sort of what Orwell was on about it. You’ve heard of him? British writer. Dead.
Schmo: First “I think the military occupation of Palestinian lands is wrong.” So if its wrong what do you suggest they do? What in your opinion is the alternative? Leave. Complicated. Hard. Big steps needed. Much planning.
Are you not aware that terrorists continuously come from the arab towns and kill Jews and that if a Jew accidentaly makes a wrong turn into their “territory” … Are you not aware? The settlements aren’t a defence policy. As to Jews making a wrong turn into Palestinian territory — to be frank, maybe the borders need to be delineated a little bit more clearly, and more Israeli citizens deterred from making “wrong turns”. It’d be great if peaceable relations existed between the two countries, but first we’ve got to have two countries.
8opus
read a little more closely. i didn’t say that these were the two possible responses for American Jewish liberals to seeing the New Yorker articles. i said “ if American Jewish liberals think Israel is engaging in apartheid-like behavior, meaning if they buy the comparison, then they will chose between rejection and more critical embrace. how many American Jewish liberal do buy the comparison is an open question. but i think a good deal more will be open to it than were previously.
you also seems very worked up over my failure to specify whether I’m talking about Israel or the territories. i’m not sure what it was in my post that confused you – the reference to apartheid for this discussion was clearly about the territories, when Remnick asks whether Palestinians would tolerate living in islets of territory surrounded by troops, checkpoints, and Jewish settlements.
also, where are you getting this? :You actually want to use incorrect and extremist language to provoke thought? did i say that somewhere? the point of the post was to note that the inclusion of apartheid in the New Yorker is a turning point that i think will have ramifications.
ben-david: clearly not a fan of the non-traditional observant jew. this line is particularly amusing:
Instead of learning the facts and then looking critically at their fellow-travelers, they judge Israel based on moral pronouncements and value norms of their adopted ideological and cultural homes.
there are plenty of jews who judge Israel as flawed based on Jewish “value norms.” and to the extent that Jews have learned some their moral values from their adopted homes, why does that make those values bad? jews have nothing to learn about values from others?
joe schmo – am i a Jewish liberal? probably to the left of liberal, but basically, yes. and i’ve noticed the effect The New Yorker articles have had re the apartheid taboo. folks who wouldn’t talk about it a year ago will talk about it now.
8opus: to say
“Leave. Complicated. Hard. Big steps needed. Much planning.”
– is no answer.
You have no right to critisize anything without an alternative.
If you do critisize when you yourself would do the same thing-since you admit to having no alternative- that is the exact definition of hypocrisy.
So honesty, as you so correctly demanded from people above, dictates that you have a choice
a. Accept that the current policy is correct or
b. Offer an alternate policy that YOU WOULD implement if you were in charge and then claim that the current policy is wrong since they should implement your policy.
i didn’t say that these were the two possible responses for American Jewish liberals to seeing the New Yorker articles. You said: either they will become even more disconnected from Israel or they will mobilize… that’s either-or, and that’s two and only two. I pointed up a third — the backs-against-the-will, stop-calling-me-names reaction. Fun, huh?
you also seems very worked up over my failure to specify whether I’m talking about Israel or the territories. Oh, I’m not worried — though I’m flattered that you think this is about my emotions and inner feelings, and gratified by your close attention to both.
No, I just think you’re wrong. Language which links “apartheid” and “Israel” is by its nature designed to associate the two.
did i say that somewhere? Um, see enthusiastic embrace of extremist and propagandistic language. Wait, I got one: “apartheid”.
the point of the post was to note that the inclusion of apartheid in the New Yorker is a turning point that i think will have ramifications.
Yeah, but the post was wrong: “apartheid” has been linked to “Israel” publicly, aggressively, and constantly for a number of years now. The New Yorker — yes, I know, everyone pays close attention to that magazine, its ripple efects are mighty mighty things, and there’s no elitism here — has nothing to do with it. It’s late to the party.
All that, assuming you’re right that a couple of articles in a couple of years constitutes some kind of groundbreaking breakthough. I suspect that if I were to read through the New Yorker every week there’s a lot more I could find in there. In other words, you may have convinced yourself, but you’ve failed to convince anyone else.
But, well, why bother? The point is that it really doesn’t matter.
Offer an alternate policy that YOU WOULD implement if you were in charge and then claim that the current policy is wrong since they should implement your policy.
Pull out of the territories. Give the settlers a deadline. Implement secure borders. Work on better relations. No, this will not be a lengthy thousands-pages dissertation on exactly how to accomplish these things. What, you want to go through hundreds of screenfuls of implementation details?
Be realistic. It can be done. The point is wanting it to happen.
Incite:
OK I understand that you are a liberal. You are correct that the term apartheid is mainstream. In fact it is correct to say that Europe, in general, and now even more and more in the US there is a strong leaning against Israel.
The question for me and I believe for you should be:
What is correct – not whether it is mainstream.
All these people who defend their position by saying “its not mainstream and don’t use that terminology…” are on the wrong track even for what they want to accomplish which is defending Israel.
They are doomed to failure in their defense.
I’m not going to follow their route.
I’d like to understand your position. I’ll start by asking what you would do if you were in charge in Israel?
Joe Schmo –
What would I do if I were in charge of Israel? If you’re talking about my approach to final status negotiations, I think the Geneva Accord provides a good guide. I think almost everyone knows where we should/will end up: two states, territorial swap in Israel for settlement in WB, some version of a shared Jerusalem, etc… I’d take some concrete steps to make the lives of the average Palestinian less miserable: I’d stop building/expanding settlements. I’d stop the demolitions of homes & farms. Ease travel restrictions & road blocks. etc… I’d hold Abbas accountable for attacks without handing terrorists a veto over the process. Nothing that a million people haven’t suggested before. Nothing exciting or radical.
Re apartheid. I don’t think it adequately describes Israeli gvt policy in the territories. I also don’t think that Jewish anti-intermarriage law and anti-misceganation law are the same. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t interesting and important similarities, and these similarities have a powerful impact on how Jewish liberals view both the occupation and the Jewish prohibition on intermarriage.
So your solution is two-states. An arab one and a Jewish one?
OK lets work with that possibility.
The arabs explicitely state that they want half of Jerusalem including the wall (which is pre 67). They also want to allow a few million other arabs in. There are also israeli arabs within Israel not in settlements who right now have about 10 knesset members who all publicly defend the terrorists who kill Jews.
Within your solution how would you, if in power, deal with these three items:
a. Giving half of Jerusalem including the wall to them
b. allowing them to bring in millions of more arabs.
c. the large arab voting population within Israel who unabashedly support Israels dismantlement through their knesset members even now.
So how do these elements fit in to your scheme?
Incite, I thought Goldberg’s article a while back was off the mark in many respects and painted a very skewed picture of the settlers. I say this as somebody who basically supports the Clinton/Taba outline and who believes some settlers are loonies. The Palestinians have always used hot-button language to make their case. That the New Yorker is now using similar language is unfortunate but is more a response to the last 4 years than anything else.
John Brown, you are right that it is a very influential magazine and probably has a proportionally very high Jewish readership. Along with The Atlantic, it is without a doubt one of the best magazines in the U.S. and while left-leaning, tends to be thorough in its reporting and fact-checking. I would also say that it’s not that far left-leaning but is probably closer to the Center.
8opus,
“Pull out of the territories. Give the settlers a deadline. Implement secure borders. Work on better relations.”
OK I don’t need any thousand page dissertation – just something sensible.
Now I pose to you the same question I posed above to Incite. Look two messages above (where I accidentaly left my name out).
How would you deal with those issues?
Schmo, I want to respond to your charge to Incite and 8opus. While I understand your concern, I don’t think those three scenarios are exactly what is at stake.
1) Its pretty clear that no matter who “owns” the land Muslims will need to be given the right to pray at the Dome of the Rock, and Jews will need to be given the right to pray at the wall. I’m not really worried about that. Until Moshiach comes, I can’t worry about who “owns” the land, as long as I can pray there.
2) There has been much talk of the right of return and what it will do to Israel. I would suggest reparations for those who cannot return, and a limited number who are allowed to return (principally those who have family inside Israel). That said, if we are not willing to value the ‘right of return’ then we must overturn the ‘law of return’. Either we believe that national identity entitles one to citizenship in a given territory, or we don’t. If we do think so, then we must allow all Palestinians and Jews the right to return. If we don’t then we must have an equal immigration system for everyone.
3) Why shouldn’t they support that? In a democracy you get to vote for what you believe in. Why would Arabs support a state where they are legally disadvantaged? Would you support those who want to make America a Christian state? If we are committed to democracy, there is little we can do about that. If we are not committed to democracy, then we have lost all possible moral claims and have becomes the monsters our detractors have made us out to be.
So, yes, dealing justly with Palestinians puts zionism into question (as it also puts Palestinian nationalism into question). Does that mean we ignore justice in the name of zionism, I think not!
Yusul,
“I would suggest reparations for those who cannot return, and a limited number who are allowed to return (principally those who have family inside Israel). ”
then
“then we must allow all Palestinians and Jews the right to return.”
Now as you know, Jews have a right to become citizens even without family in Israel.
Please clarify your position because those two quotes seem to contradict.
I hope to continue discussing this tommorro night.
a. Giving half of Jerusalem including the wall to them I have no idea. I suspect that that can really be addressed only in the context of other matters — it’s not a stand-alone.
b. allowing them to bring in millions of more arabs. “Them”? Depends on who. The Palestinian government should set whatever immigration it likes within its territory. Israel should do likewise.
If areas end up under joint jurisdiction — this would be very unusual, but I assume it’s what you’re getting at with regard to Jerusalem — then I suppose that it would be best to draw up joint jurisdiction agreements in a way that barred intentional moves towards massive demographic shifts using immigration policy.
c. the large arab voting population within Israel who unabashedly support Israels dismantlement through their knesset members even now I think you’re wrong as to the popularity of this dismantlement. I don’t think it’s particularly overwhelming even with the various Arab communities.
But if there were a lot of people looking for “dismantling”, I guess that at the legal level that’s what constitutions — and Basic Laws — are for and, more importantly, at the political level that’s an important challenge for the Israeli government with regard to social cohesion. Lord knows social cohesion is a big challenge in all jurisdictions; “Incite” will attest to this. Israel is no different.
I would suggest reparations for those who cannot return, and a limited number who are allowed to return (principally those who have family inside Israel).
I think that this is correct, by the way. I also think it’s consistent with how similar situations have been treated elsewhere. I further think it needs to be tied with support for a genuine Palestinian state which is in a position to accept Palestinian “refugees”.
(I put “refugee” in quotes only because the definition of a refugee in the Palestinian case is, in law, so substantially different than how all other refugees are defined — part of the special regime carved out in international law for Palestinians — that it sort of stretches the definition of the word.)
8opus wrote: “I have no idea. I suspect that that can really be addressed only in the context of other matters …The Palestinian government should set whatever immigration it likes within its territory. Israel should do likewise…dismantlement. I don’t think it’s particularly overwhelming even with the various Arab communities.”
8opus Im going to summarize what you are saying tell me me if I didn’t get it right.
You are saying that
1. As far as giving the arabs their demand of half of Jerusalem I (8opus) don’t know how to address that we have to address it later when the time is ripe whenever that is.
2. As far as their immigration demands you say let them bring whomever and however many they want into their territory.
3. As far as the large arab voting population within Israel you say that A. think that the you don’t think that the popularity of dismantlement of the Jewish state particularly overwhelming with the various Arab communities; and B. even if it was well Israel just has to deal with it.”
I will respond to these items because your what you wrote goes to the very core of Israel’s problems.
You cannot push off an answer and say that we will deal with their demand for Jerusalem and the wall later because I claim that even after any deal with them they will still want it. They say so explicitely. You just listen to them when they pull out of any deal offered. Maybe you wern’t listening to what they said when they backed out of what Barak offered them. It was these very issues that I brought up ie Jerusalem, the right of their refugees and other things.
Further you have not seen anything agreed to by them more than a temporary truce. There are always “future” issues to be dealt with later. There is a reason for that 8opus. It is because they don’t want Israel period.
They say it they don’t hide it. Therefore they will take the handout ONLY IF they can still demand things later.
Therefore it is wrong for you to demand that Israel do anything without addressing every last drop.
Let them bring in however many they want?! How close to within 5 miles of Jerusalem?
Tell me 8opus what if they, being an independant country, would like to invite syrian troops to help them secure their borders? What would you do?
you don’t think that the poularity of dismantlement amongst arabs is a high?
Hmm how much exposure do you have to the Middle East? Have you ever even spoken to anyone there about these topics? Have you even read the PLO’s charter?!
For you reference here is a website with the PLO CHARTER:
http://www.mideastweb.org/plocha.htm
In particular read Articles 12, 13 and 27 (and others),
where they explicitely state that they are really working to be one with all the other arab countries and that they will use the term palestinian TEMPORARILY! I quote
PLO Charter: “The Palestinian people believe in Arab unity. In order to contribute their share toward the attainment of that objective, however, they must, at the PRESENT STAGE (my caps) of their struggle, safeguard their Palestinian identity and develop their consciousness of that identity”
Do you think that they wont allow any arab army in to wipe us out??!! They say it!!
Also note Article 19- even the 1947 miniscule Israeli borders are not good for them!!
8opus, Incite, Yusul PLEASE help me understand where my mistake is!
You cannot push off an answer and say that we will deal with their demand for Jerusalem and the wall later because I claim that even after any deal with them they will still want it.
Every credible approach to Jerusalem has involved it in a series of trade-offs. That’s what I’m talking about.
As far as their immigration demands you say let them bring whomever and however many they want into their territory. Yep. You seem to think that that creates a license to amass a standing army on Israel’s border; you’re wrong, though. Let them bring in however many they want?! How close to within 5 miles of Jerusalem? Tell me 8opus what if they, being an independant country, would like to invite syrian troops to help them secure their borders? What would you do? I don’t really follow you. Special rules don’t apply. Sovereign countries can set immigration policy. Sovereign countries cannot make militarily hostile moves. The two are not the same thing. If Canada puts a standing army on the U.S. border, for instance, that would be worrisome. On the other hand, the U.S. is not in a position to determine Canadian immigration policy. Can you see how these things differ?
A. think that the you don’t think that the popularity of dismantlement of the Jewish state particularly overwhelming with the various Arab communities; and B. even if it was well Israel just has to deal with it.” Yes. Israel certainly has to deal with it. I pointed to legal means (this is what constitutions and basic laws are supposed to do) and social and political programmes (this is what ministries are supposed to do). If there are options other than “dealing with it”, it would be interesting to learn more about what they are, of course.
you don’t think that the poularity of dismantlement amongst arabs is a high? Hmm how much exposure do you have to the Middle East? Have you ever even spoken to anyone there about these topics? Have you even read the PLO’s charter? I don’t understand. Now you are talking about the PLO’s charter. You are talking about Arab Israelis, or Arab Palestinians?
In any case, it seems to me that, yes, there are polls supporting what I am suggesting. I’d Google for them but, well, who has the energy? Feel free.
(signed…)
definitely not beating a dead horse here…
8opus,
You just ignored the PLO charter and say that they are not the palistinians.
Last I heard it is the PLO they are talking to. Isn’t Abbas the head of the PLO now?
Another non-alternative-tell me who should Israel deal with? Without an alternative don’t demand they should give anything.
You just say that when they threaten with an army we have to deal with it then??!!
But 8opus I KNOW they will have an army at that point and I say deal with it now when we are strong not after they have millions of more people and we are weaker!
You ignore what they really want to do even after I bring down solid proof and after what we hear from them in public and private.
Have you ever seen their map WITHOUT Israel on it?
Polls supporting what you say?!
Find JUST ONE POLL that says that the arabs are OK with Jerusalem being in our hands JUST ONE POLL to say that Israel is legitimate!
How can you ignore facts- its pretty hard when both in public and private they say their intentions.
8opus please back yourself up- talking is not enough!
Here 8opus, you wanted a poll? Here’s a poll:
http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000099.html
And here is a little information about their Israel free maps:
http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000152.html
Yusul, nu, whats up with your response? I thought you were going to help out Incite and 8opus.
Joe, it’s hard to follow you because you keep changing the topic and ignoring the bits you don’t like. Are you interested in Arab citizens of Israel, or of the future Palestine?
In response to the all-caps — hey, I can’t ignore the shouting — I googled for your polls. What the hell, right?
1. Most Israeli Arabs support ’67 borders.
2. 77% of Israeli Arabs support Jewish state
What this has to do with the PLO I have no idea.
Where was the topic changed? The topic is simple:
The arabs don’t want a Jewish state -that was and is the topic.
Unfortunately your first link contradicts itself. This is a direct quote:
“… also revealed that a large minority of Arabs (37.7%) accept the Zionist principle of Israel’s right to preserve a Jewish majority.”
If 37% accept the idea of a Jewish Majority that means 62.3% don’t accept Israel’s right to preserve a Jewish majority.
Now how can 67% support 67′ borders while 62.3% don’t support Israel’s right to retain a Jewish majority?
I’ll explain it: Israel can retain the 67′ borders as long as the arabs can have their right of return and turn the majority to an arab majority.
Your second poll has the same fault.
Here is a direct quote:
“77 percent of those questioned said they would “support” or “definitely support” the establishment of a constitution that defines Israel as a Jewish and democratic state that ensures full equality to Arabs.”
i.e. they support the idea of Israel changing Israel’s law which gives full right of return to Jews to include full political equality for all arabs to also “return” to Israel and vote and finally become a majority.
If you would read these carefully you will notice that they all pose their questions very carefully, always throwing in the caveat of right of return and equal voting rights which will ensure Israel’s ceasing to exist as a Jewish country.
If you read the wording and the gist carefully you can easily see how a regular person would not notice those twists that change the whole meaning of the question. The ones that imply that the arabs can just invite their cousins in to vote Israel out of existence.
These polls are then used with headlines that only quote half the question asked.
I would also like you and other readers to note the difference in who took the polls. In your polls it was Jewish organizations. The first one was conducted by the University of Haifa’s Department of Sociology and Anthropology. The second one by the Israel Democracy Institute.
The polls I quoted were given by Palestinian Jerusalem Media and Communication Center (JMCC)- an arab group.
I guess that to arabs they give more honest answers than to Jews.
…and even the Jews have to word their questions properly in order to get the desired response (as explained above).
The arabs don’t want a Jewish state -that was and is the topic.
Oh. What would happen if some Arabs dared to have different opinions than others, though?
Say, what do the Druze say about all this?
Then those should be welcome.
The only point I’m making is that we can’t allow them equal voting rights if Israel is to remain Jewish. There are over 250 million arabs and a handful of Jews. In a short time we would be voted into oblivion.
And their intention is to do just that if they could.
By the way, this has nothing to do with Arabs per se.
This would apply to any Non-Jew. How could any other group have equal voting rights when they wouldn’t want Israel to remain Jewish.
The only way is if that group remains a small minority because then their vote is meaningless and can be ignored anyway. As soon as the vote means something i.e. they become more populous, the issue arises again.
In this case the issue happens to be with the Arabs.
I will admit that this issue can be an uncomfortable one because it does pit equal voting right, the stalwart of democracy, against the idea of israel remaining a Jewish state. I can sympathize with that feeling.
You should just realize that the only reason this is not currently an issue in America is because there is no current large minority with enough voting power to threaten america. When communism was on the rise and America felt their identity threatened we all know the draconian measures used to stop people from simply expressing themselves (the Mccarthy era).
I’m pointing this out so you don’t think that America is able to remain a democracy and allow equal voting simply because they are so righteous. Believe me, if they felt the pressure they would be quick to deny rights to those they felt threatened by.
hey Sam, I answered you in the other apartheid post.
hey T_M, I answered you back last night, but as of this morning the post is bumped into the archive. i guess you can email me if you wanna talk about this further?
The only point I’m making is that we can’t allow them equal voting rights if Israel is to remain Jewish.
You’re wrong, though. I reiterate my point above re: that’s what Constitutions, Basic Laws, etc. are for.
There are over 250 million arabs and a handful of Jews.
Um, the entire population is Israel is like 7 million.