Tim Stanley has excellent comments to make on the ire that Israel generates and asks why this small country, bordered by far larger ones, attracts such ire. He is writing about a conference at a UK university that seems to raise the question as to whether Israel should exist at all:
It is true that Israel was a state created where no such state had existed before. But so was Iraq, Syria, Uganda and Togo. They were all products of decolonisation, all lines drawn on a map by a bureaucrat with a pencil and ruler. Why, pray, does no one debate the legal foundations of the existence of Nigeria? It is controversial enough. It comprises various tribes and religions with terrible unease, so much so that a near genocidal war was conducted to subjugate its southeastern portion. Yet no one questions its legality.
Why, looking beyond this conference, is Israel the one country in the world whose critics so often conflate its government and its people – even seeking to punish the former by boycotting the latter? It is perfectly possible to dislike Benjamin Netanyahu and criticise the Israeli state’s actions in Gaza without assuming that Netanyahu speaks for all Israelis or that all Israelis approve of what happened in Gaza (indeed, it looks like he’s about to lose an election). No one would suggest that David Cameron’s austerity programme reflects the views of every Briton or that the British are constitutionally mean because the bedroom tax happened. And yet such obvious distinctions are often forgotten when talking about Israel. People chant that “Israel Must Be Stopped”, that “Israel Has Gone Too Far” and that “Israel is an Apartheid State” – as though its entire people had blood on their hands. When it comes to Israel, there is a unique enthusiasm to call into question its very right to exist. Strange, isn’t it?
And finally:
To challenge the right of Israel to exist is, therefore, morally obtuse. It is to forget the flames from which this Phoenix arose.
Damn right. By the way, one book that I regard as absolutely essential reading for anyone on this subject is The Case For Israel, by Alan Dershowitz. It is over a decade old, but still very good. Another is the Israel Test, by George Gilder.
Gilder’s book is particularly good for noting that Israel, and for that matter Jews more generally, are targeted as much for their virtues – productiveness, educational excellence and so on – by rivals in the Middle East, as for any alleged shortcomings in foreign policy. Recent history suggest that any land-for-peace deals have been met with just more violence from the anti-Israel side, and most citizens of that country have grown weary of it.
Like Gilder, I take the view that broadly pro-liberty (with caveats, obviously), pro-modernity countries that are wealthy and non-crap such as this country deserve the support of anyone who takes liberty seriously, notwithstanding any specific disagreements on its policies. I have long gone past the point where I think that critics of Israel are in the main motivated by good thoughts. While some of them might be, most appear to be fools at best, and anti-semites at worst.
The quote from Mr Stanley (or Dr Stanley – it is not made clear) is irritating.
It is basically “Prime Minister of Israel bad man, Jews did bad things in Gaza – but let the Jews live”.
This sort of “defence” of Israel is not worth having.
The Prime Minister of Israel can indeed be attacked over Gaza.
But certainly not in the way the British establishment think he can.
The Prime Minister of Israel can be attacked for leaving the Hamas regime in place – and allowing the international propaganda campaign to lead him into calling off military operations against a genocidal enemy (although he got the fig leaf of an end of missile attacks – till Hamas starts them up again).
I am not going to bother much examining the claims about the “austerity” policy in Britain.
A “mean” policy – that has left government spending in this country virtually unchanged (at close to all time record highs).
“But Paul you just do not understand – that is the way that friends write and speak in Britain”.
Yes I do understand – I was born here (almost 50 years ago) and have lived here all my life.
I just do not LIKE how establishment people speak and write.
It irritates me.
In fact it more than irritates me – it angers me.
There is always the smell of betrayal in this “on the one hand, but on the other hand….” ism.
Over Ulster, over the E.U., over everything.
And, yes, over Israel.
Five Pounds says that Tim Stanley supports the “peace process”.
A “peace process” that could only end in genocide – although the British establishment pretends otherwise.
Well now the grumpy old man thing is done….
J.P.s own comments are nearer the mark. Although it is not just that Israel is culturally different from its neighbours.
Islam goes through ups and downs. Periods of being awake and being asleep.
During its periods of sleep people get on with their lives.
But then every so often over the last 14 centuries Islam wakes up – it does not need to be “provoked” it just wakes up.
Both Sunni and Shia Islam can wake up – at any time.
And they have a look around – and see infidels.
And they, those who have woken up, remember that infidels have to be killed or enslaved. And get on with doing the killing and enslaving.
Then, after a period of time, Islam (both Sunni and Shia) goes to sleep again.
And Muslims go back to being good neighbours, and friends, and so on.
Till the next time – which can happen at any time.
It is just the way things are.
I think I have just hit on a way of summing up the British establishment.
It is as follows.
“Admit all the charges – but then throw yourself on the mercy of the court”.
On Ulster it is admit that a “United Ireland” is natural (there has never been any such independent state – ever) and admit that Catholics were horribly persecuted in the 1950s and so on (they were not actually) – but then beg for peace and a compromise.
On the E.U. it is admit that the United Kingdom can not be an independent country (why not? “shut up”) – but then seek reform of the E.U. (good look with that plan for certain defeat).
And with Israel it is again admit the charges (whatever they are) but then, again, throw yourself on the mercy of the court and beg for the right to exist.
It is just no good – especially with enemies who have no mercy at all.
By pure coincidence, this one state singled out amongst 250+ others just so happens to be the only Jewish state. Pure coincidence, I’m sure.
Paul seems to have had the same reaction that i had.
What Tim Stanley seems to say is: you can’t hold a whole country responsible for the behavior of a few sick, perverted individuals!!
Though this is a difficult issue, since he is factually correct when he says:
It is perfectly possible to dislike Benjamin Netanyahu and criticise the Israeli state’s actions in Gaza without assuming that Netanyahu speaks for all Israelis
More thoughts after i’ve had a good night’s sleep.
I think ordinary people are simply incapable of understanding the depth and terrible vehemence of Jew hatred in the minds and hearts of far too many in the mid-east and elsewhere.
We have civilized ourselves away from the demonization of the “other” that was the common rule for most of human history, and are shocked and uncomprehending when confronted by that kind of murderous hatred running loose in our world. Go back and read some of the commentary by those observing the lunacies in Rwanda, Bosnia, or Cambodia. The common thread is outrage mingled with a sort of bewildered disbelief that such behavior is actually possible.
As we enter a period in which it appears that nuclear weapons will be proliferating among states committed to the utter destruction of Israel, and ourselves, by the way, it would serve us well to come to grips with the sorts of lunatic hatreds that motivate some of the people in this world.
Babbling on about “religion of peace “and other such childish nonsense cannot and will not lead us to any rational and realistic understanding of the dangers we face.
Until we finally realize in our heart of hearts that the spirit of absolute, murderous hatred that built Auschwitz, and the skull mountain, and filled so many mass graves around the globe is living still in the minds and hearts of a great many people, we will be unprepared for the dangers that lurk in the outer darkness.
I believe “Land for Peace” is the way forward.
The more Arab-held land Israel captures, the better the chance of peace.
“Paul seems to have had the same reaction that i had.”
Me too. Tim Stanley piece is a lousy text.
Like most don’t understand that Israel is perceived as an icon of Western Civilization-Capitalism, “white man” culture, by the Neo-Marxists.
Israel exposes inequality of cultures, civilizations, and how Arab culture don’t care about people lives.
So it exposes the falacy of Leftist views. So it must be destroyed like all enemies icons.
For example we will never see a piece in Telegraph or any British newspaper about the lives saved by IronDome, Radar Warning , bunkers, first rate safety teams, medical developments regarding victims of terrorist attacks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Bandage
Is Israel wealthy?
It extorts money from American taxpayers to subsidize itself, and bombed a US ship, killing and injuring US troops, and completely got away with it. Strange, too, that it allies itself with the founders and sponsors of ISIS and Al Qaeda; Saudi Arabia, the two-faced financiers and enablers of terrorism across the world.
You have to be pretty stupid to ally yourself with the House of Saud. That applies to our spineless, corrupt leaders who spread their cheeks for the Sauds as well.
This is also a sign of the Marxisation of the Left. The traditional Left-Center Party : US Democrats, Euro Social Democrats, Socialists(in Latin countries) are being squeezed and/or taken over by the Marxist breed by Educational and Media Political complexes all in the hands of Neo-Marxists.
PSF in France, Pasok in Greece, PSOE in Spain, even PS in Portugal, SPD in Germany.
This is one more example:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/identity-crisis-grips-germany-s-spd-as-party-gives-up-on-2017-victory-1.2139350
I encountered this argument (that Israel is illegitimate because it was “invented”) from an anti-Semitic Swiss man I briefly worked with last year. It astonished me that, even knowing I was Canadian, and therefore from a country just as “invented” as Israel, it didn’t occur to him how ridiculous that argument would look to me. It’s a bit disturbing how easily reason dissolves in the face of prejudice.
“It extorts money from American taxpayers to subsidize itself”
American companies extort money from American taxpayers. Now list how much value is that compared to debt each country makes each year? but i suppose you don’t care about that isn’t it.
Sum is not your forte.
“and bombed a US ship, killing and injuring US troops, and completely got away with it. ”
Do i have to list the number of US ships “bombed” by US forces , USS Worden came to memory, or the number of allied ships “bombed” by US? the 1956 Suez Crisis, etc etc?
“Strange, too, that it allies itself with the founders and sponsors of ISIS and Al Qaeda; Saudi Arabia, the two-faced financiers and enablers of terrorism across the world.”
I think that is what US much more than Israel isn’t it?
And American government extorts money from American companies. So?
Although I do not accept the putative start to the chain of extortions. And far from all American businesses are extortionate, especially not of their customers. In fact, that particular claim is the standard anti-free-market one, just in a little different shade of yellow.
As for the rest, I agree with the general (though not unanimous) sentiment toward Mr. Stanley’s remarks. Um, I hear quite a few people on non-American Anglospheric boards saying the same thing, only referring to “the American people” or “Americans” vs. “the U.S. Government” &c.
But I love what Paul said. Right on, Paul, you are absolutely right!
And Very is right, too. An online pal of mine who is a knowledgeable amateur political and military historian, left a comment today on one of our boards to that very effect, pointing out another plausible agent to wreak nuclear destruction on, well, at least the U.S., should the Hasteners prove too slow getting on with it.
By the way, luckylucky, you are quite right, especially at 1.17 a.m. above. :>)
Switzerland is an extremely “invented” country, too, if you ask me, although it was mostly invented by its own people rather than outsiders. (Israel was invented by its own people though, too, although they mostly came from elsewhere). Take the end mountainous bits of Italy, Germany and France, add in a few other sundry small mountain peoples, and agree to live together in one country in peace and prosperity even if you don’t like one another much. It’s quite an inspiring example, particularly when you compare it with most other mountain regions populated by groups of people who don’t like one another much, but it’s a rather strange country compared to most others.
Or possibly all nation-states are strange and accidental.
Indeed, Michael. FWIW, Apple is an invented company – it wasn’t there before Jobs had the gall to create it out of nothing. Come to think of it, I’m an invented person – after all, I wasn’t always here since the beginning of time. How arrogant of me to occupy (haha) all this space at the clear expense of the rest of the world and without its prior approval.
Gee, Alisa, with a line like that I’m sure you could win in a walk election to the Presidency of PETA, Greenpeace, the WWF, and any organization that includes Peter Singer and good ol’ Doctor Zeke in its membership.
Wasn’t it G.B.S. who was going to have us each appear before some board or other and explain why we should be allowed to go on living instead of taking up valuable space that others could use to the greater benefit of Society? I say fine, and he can go first.
Well, I see I garbled that 2nd para somewhat. No doubt everybody sees what I was saying, though. :>)
Indeed, Julie 😀
Israel should also be admired for its highly enlightened demographic policy – encouraging ‘native’ births, discouraging immigration, making a strong case for nationalism on ethnic grounds etc. Hey, they even injected Ethiopian immigrants with Depo-Provera, out of deep concern for their ability to assimilate successfully into mainstream Israeli society.
The Israelis aka the Jews haven’t given into the ‘import more Chinese! import more Indians! import more of everybody!’ fetish that has overcome states with more open-border policies, hence they aren’t going to lose their state anytime soon. Can the same be said for the US and UK?
Wobbly, since Israel is a Jewish state and people aren’t forced to live there, your point is irrelevant. As a modern country I imagine the arrival of lots of hard working Asians wouldn’t cause it a problem.
I haven’t the faintest idea of what you meant about Ethiopians. Provide a credible source.
Dershowitz’s The Case for Israel was found wanting by Norman Finkelstein about 10 years ago. A bit shrill perhaps but cogent nevertheless. See Beyond Chutzpah (U of California P).
End all government aid now. No aid to El Salvador, no military aid to Israel (which is actually disguised arms sales – which Israel pays for) all of it.
Every cent of it!
Happy now Padone?
No I did not think you would be.
Still at least you are open in not being a friend.
I am older than sin and twice as ugly – so I prefer open enemies to false friends.
And, yes, Veryretired and the other commenters are correct.
As for Israel….
I have just watched the leader of the Israeli Labour Party.
Al Jazeera were basically in love with him.
In the way a cat falls in love with a mouse.
His desire for “peace” was so obvious he was basically crawling on his belly like a worm.
Sorry Alisa – but if the people of Israel fall for such a man, they are “asking for it”.
Wobbly, you’d do well sticking to subjects you have a clue about – I’m sure that well is bottomless.
A small nitpick, the argument that Israel was formed by European guilt about the holocaust ignores the important point that the necessity for such a state long preceded WW2 and was given legal sanction by the San Remo conference of 1920.
From the OP:
This is pretty much the philosophy of “Augustinian realism”
NB: i tend to disagree with David Goldman about many things, even in the linked article; and yet “Augustinian realism” is closest to my views on foreign policy than anything else that i am aware of.
(Also close to my views is Chinggis Khan’s realism.)
Snag @8:17pm: no, that is NOT a small nitpick: it is a major flaw in the narrative, not only Muslim but also Western. Especially Western!
There are other major flaws in Tim Stanley’s article:
He gratuitously assumes that Professor Oren Ben-Dor cannot be antisemitic, just because he is a Jew.
He claims that “Israel’s foundation involved the displacement of a settled people”, while this settled people actually displaced itself. (And incidentally, the Amerindians were not “displaced by European colonialists”: they mostly died of European diseases.)
In addition, i disagree that “Israel [is] the one country in the world whose critics so often conflate its government and its people”.
There is no higher praise for Dershowitz!
Links for JP regarding the Ethiopian issue.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100200874/how-true-is-it-that-israel-deceitfully-gave-ethiopian-jews-birth-control-injections/
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israel-admits-ethiopian-women-were-given-birth-control-shots.premium-1.496519
Also, they have highly restrictive immigration policies.
http://www.dw.de/refugees-in-israel-face-tough-immigration-policy/a-16673008
Even Jews who wish to immigrate there and become citizens may need to qualify with DNA tests in the future. Does this strike anybody as being startlingly reminiscent of a certain mustached fellow in Europe espousing racial purity? Nothing really wrong with that, personally, as long you don’t extend to going around invading people and killing them.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/russian-speakers-who-want-to-immigrate-could-need-dna-test/
All highly sensible for a nation state created along ethnic lines. It’s just interesting that Jews in Israel and Jews in the US espouse very different policies with regards to immigration. As for the UK, well, feel free to lose your country. I’d find it a tad regrettable that the distinctiveness of England, Britain, and the UK could be lost in the future, but hey, you make your own paths, eh? At least the UKIP offers some sanity and hope.
I also find it interesting that there’s a kneejerk(?) response to my comments, which were anything but critical towards Israel. Perhaps to Open Border ideologues, but I had expected more substantial retorts.
Given Israel’s vulnerable position geographically and historically, they have excellent reasons for being very careful with their demographics. They can’t afford to give out citizenships without making sure the newcomers are committed and integrated into Israeli society (assimilation), in stark contrast to the UK (remember the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal?), and certainly none of that amnesty travesty that is happening in the US.
Snorri, Amen to that! You speaketh but truth.
While i’m on a roll: i hope that at least a few people got the reference in my comment yesterday:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PYb_anBMus
Maybe i should have made it easier by avoiding the substitution:
fraternity –> country.
Wobbly, you really are a cunt.
Israel is obviously going to operate an immigration policy so that it has enough of a population to survive and thrive. Whether that means some genetics- based policy is a different matter.
Israel presumably wants to be a robust country, so there is no reason to suppose that it would bar people from different races so long as they respected that country’s values.
Wobbly hasn’t even read the articles he posted, as they clearly make a point quite opposite to his.
One reason the left would dislike Israel- the non-survival of the Kibbutzim. Here are these great social(ist) experiments to redeem mankind, and they disappear! Since Socialism is never at fault, it must be the practitioners, who have metamorphosed into Shylocks. (shame, shame,shame!!!)
As for the Middle-East, that has two religious reasons to oppose Israel’s existence. It is an article of faith that the realm of Islam can only expand- never contract. Presumably, when they’ve dealt with the Zionist menace, they’ll recolonise Spain, and head for Tours for a second round.
And the Koran never mentions the Jews getting Israel back, but what Christians call the Old Testament does, and Christians did predict the re-emergence of Israel. A win for Christianity is seen as a loss for Islam!
So I think peace will be temporary.
You asked for links, I provided them. And yes, genetic based policy is just one of the many policy options available, nothing wrong with that.
And I agree completely!
But why genetic based? Why not a meritocratic process? Or one based on wealth? Or Australia’s point system? Out of so many policy options, why choose what would be considered racist in any other country? I think only the Japanese are more restrictive.
My read of the situation is that one of the key values that Israeli society prizes is ethnic loyalty, which is why non-jewish immigrants, no matter how brilliant, are a non-starter. I doubt even the most liberal political parties in Israel would argue against an ethno-centric demographic policy, and even they recognise that a core tenet of their existence lies in it.
I just find it puzzling that this sort of restrictive genetic-ethnic policy is admirable in the case of Israel, but not for others. Why shouldn’t more countries emulate Israel in this aspect?
My own country, not being founded on ethno-centric grounds, doesn’t qualify. But what about the historical european nations? If, as the article stated, resistance by the good against the bad is necessary and just, why haven’t you done so in defence of your own nation, your own values?
As I’ve said earlier, it’s your country. Feel free to give it away. Oh wait, that’s not quite correct. Rather, I’ll wait to see you try to prevent others taking it away from you. How did you guys do for Rotherham? I’ll be delighted to be proven wrong, but Powell’s ‘rivers of blood’ seem more prescient than ever.
Wobbly, you really are beyond help. Israel was set up as a Jewish state and has a status as a place of refuge for Jews, so naturally it’s immigration policy follows that. A country such as the UK has taken immigrants from around the world; I’m not going to reprise all the arguments in defence of migration other than to repeat the simple point that much of the trouble is not migration per se so much as welfare and skewed incentives and an abject failure to require clear loyalty to the values of a host nation. Millions have assimilated into such countries successfully.
This seems a good place to ask Alisa, and Paul, and of course everyone else knowledgeable of Jewish cultural history, whether traditionally Judaism has had a socialistic tendency. (Some say Aye, some don’t deal with the question.)
Also, are the Israeli Jews mostly Eastern European or mostly Sephardic and Middle-Easterm in ancestry, and does the degree or style of such socialism as there is vary between the two branches?
As I was reading the last few comments above, it occurred to me to wonder about that, since as far as I can tell Socialism, Progressivism, and Marxism have ALWAYS been rather hotbeds of anti-Semitism and Judeophobia, so the present return to that state on the part of these nogoodniks would merely be the reversion to the norm.
I’d be grateful for enlightenment on these points. 🙂
And while we’re on the subject, whose idea was it to set Israel up as basically a socialist state in the first place, and why?
Whilst there was a doctrine of racial purity in the one-balled one’s world view, and one might note the concept of Volksdeutsche (the Germanic diaspora in Osten, there are important differences. The Nazis never required DNA tests, they would not have known what a DNA test was, as the role of DNA in inheritance was not demonstrated by science until the 1950s and modern DNA tests came out in the 1980s. Indeed, they would probably have rejected modern day molecular biology as being ‘ungerman‘ (i.e. unhelpful to their cause). Ludwig von Mises did say (I think in Omnipotent Government) that the one-balled one’s test for seeing who was a ‘German’ was to enunciate a ‘German’ political programme, and to define as ‘German’ those who adhered to it, before commenting ‘No further proof is needed of the insincerity of this whole doctrine‘.
What it sounds like to me is that the State of Israel is handing out freebies, trips to Israel and seeing who comes under the law of return, and is concerned that a number of applicants might not be Jewish (and therefore ineligible) including an illegitimate child registered some years after her birth, which strikes me as a reasonable ground for being concerned that someone might not be the child of those who they purport to be, hence the DNA test.
After all, if 5,000,000 Egyptians and 5,000,000 Syrians declare themselves ‘Jewish’ and demand the right to return, should Israel say ‘Come on over, we’ve been waiting for you. And do have the vote and some welfare‘, or ask ‘Are you really Jewish?‘?
Let’s blame Stalin. However, there appears to have been a deeply socialist culture in the European Jewish population, like the Bund.
“I have just watched the leader of the Israeli Labour Party.”
You have my sympathy and consolation for the suffering you have stoically undergone.
The “leader” of the Israeli labor party is a personality somewhat similar to John Kerry. (Or, maybe Ed Miliband…).
“And while we’re on the subject, whose idea was it to set Israel up as basically a socialist state in the first place, and why?”
Well, most of the early settlers in Palestine were communists (no watered down socialists), many having fled from Russia after trying to start the revolution there in 1905 (and failing).
Seems that life was harsh in Palestine at that time, and most capitalist oriented Jews preferred to emigrate to America.
Solzhenitsyn blamed the Jews for bringing communism to Russia (and even inventing it) (these being un-Russian, alien ideas), and starting also the revolution of 1917. He blamed the Jews for bringing a catastrophe on the Russian people. There is some half-truth in this, though this approach, in general, is collectivist and racist (anti-Semitic).
He claims that “Israel’s foundation involved the displacement of a settled people”
Well, the “creation” of an independent India and Pakistan, in 1948, (a few months after Israel) involved the forceful displacement of great numbers of “settled people”. (maybe 10 or 20 million, nobody knows for sure). It was done by the [moribund] British Empire. It was not a crime – it was the best that could be done under the given circumstances.
Besides, at least as many settled Jews, from Arab countries were also “displaced” – i.e. driven out, to Israel, by the religion of peace people, after the Jewish property was confiscated.
I’m afraid that the relocations during the partition of India were very probably a crime, at least in the ludicrously accelerated timescale insisted in by the reckless Mountbatten, who must take personal responsibility for vast numbers of preventable deaths.
Nonetheless, it can’t be emphasised often enough that Jews have lived in the land that’s now Israel for millennia.
“displacement of a settled people…”
At least half, and probably 2/3 of the Arabs living in Palestine in 1948 were “new” immigrants, having immigrated to Palestine during the 20th century (the same time the Jews came), attracted by the jobs offered by the Jewish enterprises and the British administration.
Yasser Arafat, for example, was born in Egypt.
“Besides, at least as many settled Jews, from Arab countries were also “displaced” – i.e. driven out, to Israel, by the religion of peace people, after the Jewish property was confiscated.”
Yes. My father’s family were of Jewish Moroccan (my grandmother, in addition to Arabic and Hebrew, spoke a version of Jewish Spanish) and Yemeni extraction, they lived in East Jerusalem for several generations before 1948 and had to flee. Roughly half of Israelis have some similar type of story. I was walking past Union Square in Manhattan one day when some Hipster lily white protestor practically assaulted me to try to convince me to join their demonstration because, I suppose, I look Arabic. When I pointed out that I was Jewish and found what he was doing was racist (they were calling for Jews to return to Europe), he flew into a rage and told me that all Israelis were colonialists from Europe, just like South Africa. When I told him that a large percentage of Israelis were refugees from Arab lands his response was they should go back to those countries. At which point I asked to which country in Europe he planned to return and that finally shut him up.
Does anyone here think Palestine was a particularly intelligent place to put a Jewish state, assuming one grants the need for or at least desirability of one? Does anyone actually think it would be a smart move for a European Jew to move there today as Netanyahu suggested?
Israel needs to forget about who is in the right and recognize that its long term existence depends on finding a stable peace, and in aid of that its supporters ought to stop the absurd conflation of Palestinian/Arab anger and resistance however brutal with western anti-semitism.
In other words, try to see things from the other side.
Israel had the bad fortune to be a colonial nation formed just as colonialism was going out of style, that combined with the fact that it holds itself out as a western democracy is why it is judged so harshly. No, it’s not as bad as dozens of other countries. So the fuck what? The American South in 1960 wasn’t as bad as dozens of other countries. They were found wanting by the standards they asked to be judged by.
The harsh judgment of Israel has nothing to do with anti-semitism and everything to do with what it claims to be.
There is really only one solution to this conflict and that is the South African solution. The solution of the American South. Integration and actual democracy. Anything less is not going to work. So the reasonable majority of Israelis and Palestinians have to make it happen. Or they’re fucked. Of course this is incompatible with being a ‘Jewish State’, it might be more compatible with being a safe place for Jews to live though.
Um, have you looked at the condition of South Africa lately? I admit I’ve never been there myself, but according to what I read there is rampant violence, not to mention theft and corruption. I believe the statistics are that even the post-Confederate Southern U.S., up until things settled down somewhat after the 1964 CRA, was far, far better for most people (regardless of racial ancestry) than S.A., in terms of murder and mayhem that actually existed.
Israel, as far as I can tell, is one of the most civilized countries on the planet.
Thanks for you kind advice, Andy.
I imagine this is based on completely ignoring what happens in the Palestinian Territories as they’re not technically part of Israel despite being completely under its power.
The point is, that there is now a chance, a good chance that white people will be able to continue to live in South Africa indefinitely and this has been accomplished while granting full political and civil equality to the non-white population. That is a success by any stretch, given how hard the doomsayers fought against it. Decades of injustice don’t have to end in an epic bloodletting.
“Palestinians have to make it happen.” – Thanks for the advice on behalf of the Palestinians too.
“it might be more compatible with being a safe place for Jews to live though.”…
Is any Arab country a safe place for ANYONE to live in? (Forget about the Jews).
Utopia does not exist.
Thanks for you kind advice, Andy.
I’ll choose to interpret that as genuine and say you’re welcome.
Is any Arab country a safe place for ANYONE to live in? (Forget about the Jews).
Utopia does not exist.
Safe relative to other options does exist, that ties into the suggestion about it being a smart idea to move there from europe.
And Hamas just want peaceful coexistence and totally do not wish to drive Israel’s Jewish population into the sea 😯 Article 7 of the Hamas Covenant, anyone?
Yeah because Europe had really worked out so well for them. I want some of what you are smoking, I really do.
And Hamas just want peaceful coexistence and totally do not wish to drive Israel’s Jewish population into the sea
I think they’d probably settle for peaceful coexistence. But it doesn’t really matter what Hamas wants, it matters what the majority of the Palestinian population want and I’m sure that even if they express a preference for sea driving they don’t attach all that much importance to it.
Yeah because Europe had really worked out so well for them.
Recently it has.
That is indeed your choice to make, unlike the decisions pertaining to lives of millions of people – both Israelis and Palestinians – your understanding of which seems to be quite limited.
That is indeed your choice to make, unlike the decisions pertaining to lives of millions of people – both Israelis and Palestinians – your understanding of which seems to be quite limited.
Well very few people do get to make those kinds of decisions, so I’m not too worried about that. I would concur with you that my understanding of the lives of Israelis and Palestinians is limited, for which I consider myself fortunate. I don’t think my assessment of the situation is especially hindered by that.
I am going to go with that Hamas actually says rather than what you think.
But Israel was not founded recently. It was you who raised the issue of the wisdom of founding Israel just after World War II in, well, historical Israel.
But Israel was not founded recently. It was you who raised the issue of the wisdom of founding Israel just after World War II in, well, historical Israel.
I questioned the wisdom of founding Israel in Israel yes.
I separately raised the issue of the wisdom of moving to Israel today from Europe in reference to Netanyahu’s comment advocating European Jews do so.
It was to the second point that I had intended to refer, I agree that wanting to leave Europe after WWII is perfectly understandable. My suggestion with the first point was not that Jews shouldn’t have left europe, but that Israel itself was a poor location for a Jewish State if one was felt to be necessary.
I am going to go with that Hamas actually says rather than what you think.
Well according to wikipedia what Hamas says is that their charter is no longer relevant but cannot be changed for internal reasons.
Now I will concede that is political weasel speak, on the other hand it is definitely not an unreserved endorsement.
You are denying the Jews of the 1940’s, living in the area now known as Israel (and Jordan, and the disputed territories) of their right to self-determination, in less than one-quarter of the territory that was Mandatary Palestine.
You are denying the Jews of the 1940’s, living in the area now known as Israel (and Jordan, and the disputed territories) of their right to self-determination, in less than one-quarter of the territory that was Mandatary Palestine.
Right to self determination meaning what exactly? If the current Pakistani population of Britain wanted to self determine their way into sovereignty over a quarter of the country would that be their right?
It means what it says. The entire region had been governed for centuries by an empire based in Turkey, which collapsed during the first world war. There were no nations, none at all. The British were given guardianship of the region by the victorious powers after WW1, up until such time as local populations could govern themselves. The Jews were one such local population.
You are perhaps suggesting that every other tribe or ethnicity in the region should have been the right to govern themselves, but not the Jews?
Oh yes I think you have a good point there, I am sure any reasonable Jew will agree that such a wishy washy commitment to killing all Jews everywhere is totally worth risking genocide for in pursuit of a nice integrated society.
“I think they’d [Hamas] probably settle for peaceful coexistence.”
They think differently, and say, and do differently…
“but that Israel itself was a poor location for a Jewish State”
I can think of better locations too…. and worse ones… but you live with what is, not what you wish or dream.
You are perhaps suggesting that every other tribe or ethnicity in the region should have been the right to govern themselves, but not the Jews?
No, I’m suggesting there should have been a nice integrated society with equal political participation for all persons regardless of ethnicity and nobody should have been displaced. Is that really so outlandish?
Oh yes I think you have a good point there, I am sure any reasonable Jew will agree that such a wishy washy commitment to killing all Jews everywhere is totally worth risking genocide for in pursuit of a nice integrated society.
My view is that not seeking a nice integrated society is the course that is actually risking genocide because on the present course this conflict is going on forever and Israel is not guaranteed to retain the upper hand. Where is the actual risk from integrating? Do you really think that most Palestinians if given the option of true equality in one state would be bent on genocide? Why didn’t it happen in South Africa?
They have done, they can see the other side’s view from the Golan Heights. They even had a safari over the other side of the Suez Canal, Big Game Hunting, with plenty of opportunity to see things from the other side’s view, and a lot of them see bulldozers, fires and graves for Jews if the other side prevails.
So they make sure that the other side risks annihilation if they try. Wouldn’t you?
Might be because these are two completely different places and the ANC are not followers of a state religion whose holy book is the literal word of god and which says killing white people is a moral virtue. That would be my guess.
Might be because these are two completely different places and the ANC are not followers of a state religion whose holy book is the literal word of god and which says killing white people is a moral virtue.
That would be the same holy book that people followed for the last 1300 years with a whole lot of Jews living among them surprisingly un-murdered?
With all due respect, I think it is.
Oh really? Firstly the periods of tolerance meant periods when jizya (protection money) was accepted. Secondly do you actually claim that over the last 1300 years anti-Jewish times in the Islamic world are strictly a modern phenomenon?
Oh really? Firstly the periods of tolerance meant periods when jizya (protection money) was accepted. Secondly do you actually claim that over the last 1300 years anti-Jewish times in the Islamic world are strictly a modern phenomenon?
No, I’m claiming they didn’t carry out a genocide and they were a lot better than Christian europe.
With all due respect, I think it is.
Not having explosives going off around me or being kicked out of my home means that I can’t figure out those are bad things?
Israel is a created state; but unlike other neo-states, was created against the will of the people who lived there at the time. It’s not where, but who that raises hackles.
One might say the same of Canada or the U.S., though by the time of their creation the “natives” had become a tiny minority.
I see the left-wing hatred for Israel as redirected white guilt for the wrongs of the colonial era. Pizarro and Cecil Rhodes and Colonel Chivington cannot be punished; no one is going to give Manhattan back to the Indians or Sydney to the Aborigines; but Israel is a substitute scapegoat.
And in fact, Israel is a “settler country”, in which the self-determination of the natives was taken from them. (The mainstream Zionists thought this could happen peacefully; Jabotinsky knew better.)
This was wrong, and the crimes of Nazi Germany didn’t change that. Palestinian Arabs didn’t build Auschwitz. A “Jewish homeland” carved out of Germany would have been just.
And while Zionists evade or deny it, hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs were forcibly expelled in 1948 (and hundreds of thousands more fled the war on their own).
However. The Arabs responded to Zionism with insensate violence, much of it directed at Mizrachi Jewish minorities of North Africa and the Middle East.
More Jews were displaced to Israel from Arab countries than Arabs were displaced in 1948. The majority of Israeli Jews are Mizrachim, and they aren’t going anywhere else. That’s a fact on the ground.
Rough justice would balance the the displacements, and cancel the Arab claim against Israel. But Arabs are only interested in their wrongs, and the muddleheaded Left is infatuated with “anti-colonialism”.
Thus the Left’s embrace of demented Islamofascists.
“Thus the Left’s embrace of demented Islamofascists.”
It’s more than that. The leftist ideology is a hate ideology – they can sympathize with the other hate ideology – Islam.
The Left hates the bourgeois, the capitalists, the bankers, the oligarchs, the tycoons, the religious (Christian) people, Wall Street, etc. etc. They love to hate.
Andy doesn’t respect Freedom. Freedom is the Right to say No.
Basically Andy argument is that Israel should marry the rapist because he might rape you if you do not.
“No, I’m claiming they didn’t carry out a genocide and they were a lot better than Christian europe.”
Muslims made several local genocides – either of Jews, Africans etc..
They were not better than Christian Europe – just go to the pogroms(to use an East European terminology) made by Muslims from time to time.
Rich Rostrom
“And in fact, Israel is a “settler country”, in which the self-determination of the natives was taken from them.” How disingenuous. There were Jews and there were Arabs. Those who took the Arab self determination were other Arabs: Egypt, Jordanian Kingdom which occupied their territory.
I don’t know (or frankly care) if someone like Andy’s opinion is driven by hate, but it certainly seems to be a version of “Two Minute Hate” with Israel playing the part of Emmanuel Goldstein. Similar historical circumstances exist for many countries around the world in which there have been population exchanges (let alone total displacements) but the left, and sadly a certain segment of libertarians, seem to exclusively reserve their ire for Israel. They get around this by saying “I’m not saying any of the other situations are just, I just choose to focus on Israel.” Well, if something is unjust in Israel, certainly it was unjust to Germans in Europe who in the aftermath of WWII were ethnically cleansed out of certain areas, or to both Muslims and Hindus on the wrong side of the line during the creation of India/Pakistan. Where are the boycotts or the calls to turn back the clock? Who is calling for India and Pakistan to be reconstituted as one territory and the MILLIONS of Hindus and Muslims to be resettled to the places where the parents, grandparent and great grandparents once lived. Who is calling for the resettlement of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Jews back to Baghdad who as recently as 100 years ago were a 1/4 of the population of that city.
Andy is either disingenuous or a fool who is so captured by his prejudices that we has blinders on to anything at all that would justify Israel’s continued existence. I would like to know, where does he want the Jewish population to go? Because if he truly believes that they were under the rule of their neighbors that they would not soon suffer the same fate as the Yazidis or Assyrian Christians in the territories under the control of ISIS then he is living in a fantasy world.
You guys sure think I have lot of opinions that I didn’t state, and assume I don’t have a lot of others. Funny how that happens.
It also happens when I discuss this with people who actually don’t think there was a justification for creating Israel. (Some of them Jewish, but I suppose they hate themselves)
Dramatic misrepresentation much?
India and Pakistan (and Germany!) are viable countries and neither has domination over the other, but, certainly I would support the right of both Muslims and Hindus to move back and forth as they please. And that of Germans to move to Poland. (which I would imagine they probably have?) The glaring problem with these analogies is that those population movements are not the cause of an ongoing disaster for the displaced population. And I know, I know, that’s the fault of the neighboring Arab states. Except at best that absolves Israel of 50% of the responsibility.
Josh is either disingenuous of a fool who is so captured by his prejudices that he has blinders on to anything at all that would be unjustifiable in the cause of maintaining the supremacy of Israel over the Palestinian people.
I don’t suppose you have an actual argument for why democracy would result in ISIS rather than modern South Africa?
How about voting for Hamas? Isn’t that a self-inflicted ongoing disaster?
Given that Israel is not South Africa, you need to explain why Israel, a place with very different cultural, political, geopolitical and military dynamics, could expect the same kind of outcome that occurred in South Africa. Indeed the two places could scarcely be more different!