Ronald Radosh, commenting on Justice Goldstone’s bizarre “just kidding” op-ed in yesterday’s Washington Post about the eponymous Goldstone report on Israel’s conduct in Operation Cast Lead (despite the dateline, it’s not, near as I can tell, an April Fool’s joke):
In a stunning and unexpected turn of events, Judge Richard Goldstone has essentially reversed himself on the findings of the Goldstone Report. He does, of course, qualify his remarks to make it appear that he has not reversed himself. What he does, in effect, is to say that if only Israel had cooperated with his investigation from the start, he would not have reached the incorrect conclusions of the now famous and highly influential report. Israel, of course, had quite good reasons to distrust Goldstone, as his report did major damage. But one would rather have Judge Goldstone now blame Israel for his original damaging conclusions than to have him blame Israel for intentionally being the major human rights violator in the Middle East.
Now, Goldstone asserts, “We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding commission.” Poppycock! ….
He now argues, perhaps out of guilt or perhaps he decided his critics were correct, that “the purpose of the Goldstone Report was never to prove a foregone conclusion against Israel,” and that the original mandate of the UN Human Rights Council “was skewed against Israel.”
No foregone conclusion? Of the three other panelists besides Goldstone, one had already accused Israel of war crimes before the investigation and (verdict first, trial later), and another is so wildly anti-Israel that he holds an acknowledged grudge against Israel for purportedly murdering Irish U.N. peacekeepers (an event that never happened), and who also disclaimed his willingness to give any credence to photographic evidence of Hamas crimes presented by Israel. Goldstone himself was serving at the time as a board member of Human Rights Watch, which has hardly shown itself to be a neutral observer of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And indeed, NGO Monitor has shown that big chunks of the Report’s accusations were lifted from unsubstantiated HRW material.
Goldstone apparently is starting to regret his role in the whole fiasco, and it’s certainly amusing to read various anti-Israel blogs that formerly lauded Goldstone as a hero for speaking truth to power now worrying about the “damage” he is doing to their cause. The key lines in his op-ed: while “the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional,” “civilians were not intentionally targeted [by Israel] as a matter of policy.”
But Goldstone agreed to lead a kangaroo court appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council, which includes such human rights stalwarts as China, Cuba, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Penance is always welcome, but Goldstone will go down in history as the head kangaroo.
UPDATE: David Schraub comments:
My line on Goldstone had always been that the problems in his report were structural, not the result of a malignant heart. It was Goldstone’s determination to play a straight hand in a marked deck that was his undoing. Judge Goldstone was trying his level best, but there was no way to have a full and fair investigation — no matter how diligent one is at crossing t’s and dotting i’s — when the propagating party is the UNHRC and the investigation occurs within a context (the international legal community) that is shot through with bias and prejudice. There seems to be some belated realization by Judge Goldstone that this is true, but I fear it is for naught. Like his original report, his mea culpa is too legalistic to have much of an impact — it is, shall we say, unlikely that the UN will accede to PM Netanyahu’s demand that the original report be retracted in the wake of Judge Goldstone’s recantation. We are, and always were, in the realm of politics, not law. Judge Goldstone tried as hard as he could to imagine that was not so, but there is no way to extract oneself in cases such as this. His colleagues in the system understood the game, and he got rolled.
I think, additionally, that Goldstone took Israel’s refusal to participate in this “game” as a personal affront, rather than causing him, as he should have, to question the whole enterprise.
bailey says:
Bernstein posting on Israel, standard VC jew haters about to crawl out of the sewer in 3 … 2 …. 1….
April 2, 2011, 4:15 pmLarryA says:
It’s never a good day when you realize you’ve laid a turd and put your name on it.
April 2, 2011, 5:24 pmCan't find a good name says:
Goldstone also expresses his disappointment that Hamas was unwilling to investigate war crimes committed by its own members.
Never mind that if Hamas had issued a report announcing that its members had committed war crimes against Israel, it probably would also have included a list of the awards, raises, and promotions it gave those individuals for those actions.
April 2, 2011, 5:33 pmRichard Riley says:
I read the entire Goldstone report. Taken as a whole, and from my pro-Israel perspective, I did not find it as relentlessly, onesidedly anti-Israel as many people claimed. Certainly it WAS anti-Israel: for example, at every point where the report acknowledges that Israeli decisions were made in the heat of battle and observers should be hesitant about second-guessing ground commanders, it nevertheless said the Israelis used disproportionate force. Inferences were consistently drawn against Israel on that point and that was definitely unfair.
On the other hand, I thought the original Goldstone report was forthright about Hamas’s war crimes in targetting its rockets into Israeli civilian areas. What Goldstone says in his WaPo op-ed on that score is not really different from the original report. But I personally appreciated Goldstone’s revision of the key anti-Israel conclusions in the original report, and I don’t think he deserves the sarcastic criticism that commentators whom I generally agree with (David B, Jeffrey Goldberg, Eli Lake etc.) are directing his way.
April 2, 2011, 5:46 pmOrder of the Coif says:
The UN seems to taint everyone who takes a buck from it. Other than its service as the giant employment machine for third sons of third-world aristocrats and university failures from second-world countries (UK, France, etc.) the UN is a total waste of dollars (they get most of their financing from the US taxpayer), time, and effort.
April 2, 2011, 6:20 pmAxel Edgren says:
“The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion.”
A lesson for Israel: If you don’t want to be accused of stealing melons, don’t bend down and tie your shoes in the melon patch. You might be innocent, but people can’t take chances.
Goldstone never did anything untoward.
The only problem is that this is only going to heighten the already intense self-righteousness and high-strung tone of the Israeli hard-liners and the lame Westerners who use said hard-liners as visceral proxies for their own blood-thirsty egos.
Not to mention that when the Israeli forces use excessive violence with a less than defensive agenda, critics will be compared to Goldstone as a lazy argument-closer, sort of like “Climategate”.
April 2, 2011, 6:43 pmAxel Edgren says:
“Other than its service as the giant employment machine for third sons of third-world aristocrats and university failures from second-world countries (UK, France, etc.)”
Ah, how I love casual armchair bigotry and mustache-twizzling generalizations. I can almost smell how generic you are right through the screen.
April 2, 2011, 6:46 pmSarcastrato says:
And don’t raise your hands in self-defense as you are taking a savage beating, lest you be accused of obstructing the fists of your assailant! Don’t take any chances: take it on the chin!
April 2, 2011, 7:13 pmElemenope says:
university failures from second-world countries (UK, France, etc.)
Second-world doesn’t mean what you think it means.
April 2, 2011, 7:16 pmc. schultz says:
While I don’t think the evidence points to Israel employing that damnably subjective and self-serving coined concept of “disproportionate force” against those who instigate offensive, non-uniformed and sneaky lethal attacks against its state and citizenry (iow wage war) while hiding behind a so-called civilian population, why the hell shouldn’t Israel use excessive force to protect itself? Its leadership would be remiss not to soundly defeat a virulently bigoted and self-declared, delusional warring enemy who is sacrificing its next generations and everybody’s future to violent pathologies.
April 2, 2011, 7:24 pmDB says:
I concur with Schultz. The proper model for Israel to follow in its wars with the Arabs, and, sadly to say, the proper model for the US to follow in Afghanistan, is that employed by General T. Sherman (March to the Sea) in the Civil War and General Curtis LeMay (Tokyo firestorm) in WWII.
April 2, 2011, 8:07 pmAxel Edgren says:
So if the Palestinians are all untermensch for not actively fighting the only suppliers of infrastructure and social cohesion in their nation, what should we call the Jewish settlers who happily move to areas they know are legally contested – thus actively participating in the Israeli right-wing push to make more contested territory Israeli territory via fait accompli?
The plan is simple, really: If there is contested territory that you think ought to belong to your team, just move some settlers there. If Hamas attacks, then you get to kill people on account of protecting those poor settlers (who are 100 % civilians and have nooooo idea that the territory they are moving to is not clear-cut Israeli territory) and if they don’t attack then presto – more land for you.
I don’t think every Israeli settler is a civilian – they are adults and they know exactly what kind of dynamic is going on. There is a spectrum ranging from soldier to civilian. The settlers moving into contested territory and then getting Qassam showers are getting far less sympathy from me than the people who got blown up at the bus stop.
I think far too many Israelis or Jews have become paranoid, which is understandable. Like a bullied kid lashing out and trusting no one. Can’t blame them for that. I can blame them for blurring the line between civilian and war participant – which is e-x-a-c-t-l-y what they are (knowingly) doing when they move people into contested territories, forcing the Palestinians to attack or accept one-sided territorial aggression. Low thing to do. Loooooooow.
April 2, 2011, 8:13 pmAxel Edgren says:
I think the Jews ought to consider the true nature of terrorism – and how it has already visibly damaged and reshaped the US beyond a possible reset, politically, culturally, mentally and economically.
It’s like two sides playing different card games – you can utterly dominate the opponent in Canasta but as long as he is playing a different game he won’t care.
Basically, the only way the Jews (we were being so ethno-centric all of a sudden, I wanted to join in) can truly win the sort of game you are talking about is if they stop being a nation worthy of caring about.
Remember what Nietzsche said: If you pride yourself on having scruples then you may no longer chide or resent the unscrupulous for deriving benefits from their lack of scruples. To be scrupulous is to abjure all benefits that come from being unscrupulous.
April 2, 2011, 8:24 pmrumpelstiltskin says:
Uncivil comment supportive of Bernstein to be moderated in… sometime between when hell freezes over and pigs fly.
April 2, 2011, 8:26 pmc. schultz says:
Axel: “blurring the line between civilian and war participant”
You mean like Pali bombers exploding pizza parlors, buses (NOT in contested territories) and every(non-uniformed)body in them?
To be Israeli is to be found guilty by your measure. I don’t agree with everything the Israeli governments do, or with every belief of its ultra-orthodox Jewry and apologetic leftist press, but, the Palis keep refusing settlements, choosing, instead, to enunciate the goal of Israel’s annihilation and then engage in atrocity and surprise attacks against Israeli citizens. Most sickening of all, the slaughter of Jews and their babies sleeping in the night by cold-blooded executioners is celebrated– openly– and Pali sympathists don’t even know enough to hang their heads in abject shame.
After all this time, bloodshed and expense, I say let the Israels keep most of their settled territory as restitution and bulwark against Arab-Pali-terrorist offensive predilection and Iranian sponsored capability.
April 2, 2011, 8:46 pmCareless says:
So… did the United States stop being a nation worth caring about in 1864 or 1944?
April 2, 2011, 8:46 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Will we know the Jew-haters by their support of Israeli’s right-wingers, whose policies and words seem likely to isolate Israel from its essential benefactors and direct it toward failure?
April 2, 2011, 9:02 pmollie says:
Kirkland, the only thing Israel can do to placate its critics is to be pushed into the Mediterranean with a plash and, its enemies, to be atomized with a bang.
Israel has to keep standing up for itself in the face of unconscionable prejudice, terror and bad faith “negotiations.”
April 2, 2011, 9:17 pmXavi says:
Axel: “The settlers moving into contested territory and then getting Qassam showers are getting far less sympathy from me”
Subject of post: Goldstone report on “Operation Cast Lead”
Operation Cast Lead: December 27, 2008
Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, including dismantling of all “settlements”: August 2005
April 2, 2011, 9:25 pmBob (from Ohio) says:
From the mea culpa;
“At minimum I hoped that in the face of a clear finding that its members were committing serious war crimes, Hamas would curtail its attacks. Sadly, that has not been the case. ”
No s**t Sherlock.
Every single Hamas act is a war crime. They hide in civilian areas for starters.
How can anyone be this stupid?
April 2, 2011, 9:47 pmIP98 says:
Are Jews across the ME only allowed to live in the strip of land inside the 1967 borders? Are there other parts of the world Jews are excluded from inhabiting? Are there parts of the world Muslims are not allowed to inhabit?
And Sderot is a favorite target of rockets from Gaza and it is not outside the 1967 border. If El Paso were to receive 1 rocket from Juarez I would hope the U.S. government would make Pershing look like a wuss in retaliating. Forget the idea of proportionate response. A disproportionate response would be the only chance we would have of ending the attacks. The bombings of Japan, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were disproportionate and had Truman not used the A-bombs he would have been impeached.
April 2, 2011, 9:48 pmMDJD from NY says:
Axel: The problem with your view is that Hamas is rocketing areas that are not in dispute (except by those who consider ALL Israelis settlers). They are rocketing communities and cities that are indisputably in Israel. Check your facts next time.
April 2, 2011, 10:28 pmByung Kyu Park says:
Total war?
That might have worked in a (more or less) symmetric warfare, where one could plausibly argue that if we don’t attack these civilian assets, they’ll give comfort and aid to the enemy, threatening the very existence of our nation (and the argument was definitely plausible in Civil War; not sure how big a threat Japanese empire ever was).
The burden of asymmetric warfare is that the stronger side is—and almost has to be—held by higher standards. There is more potential danger from loosening the values that hold our society together than there is from attack from our enemies that are aided by these standards.
April 2, 2011, 10:53 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Wait, Israel didn’t cooperate with the investigation form the start because they didn’t trust Goldstone on account of his report being flawed/damaging?
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict claims causality as a new victim.
[ Substantively, I agree with Goldstone's mostly-retraction. But holy crap how can you mistrust someone based on an event that hasn't yet happened? ]
The lesson: unlike in a court of law, in the court of public opinion, choosing not to cooperate will justify an adverse inference.
If they want to live elsewhere, they need permission from the sovereign State on whose territory they wish to settle just like everywhere else.
This whole government-by-consent thing is really hard to grok eh?
April 2, 2011, 10:57 pmIP98 says:
The question was should Jews only be allowed to live inside the 1967 borders, not if sovereign governments have the right to control their borders. Would you be upset if Mexico banished Jews or if Germany elected to deport all Jews? But if Syria or Jordan, where Jews have deeper roots than Mexico or Germany, does so it’s okay?
And it seems to me the sovereign government where the settlers have been killed is the state of Israel.
April 2, 2011, 11:25 pmamnis says:
“it’s certainly amusing to read various anti-Israel blogs that formerly lauded Goldstone as a hero for speaking truth to power now worrying about the “damage” he is doing to their cause.”
its also interesting how the pro israeli blogs who accused Goldstone of being a self serving bad guy who will say anything depending on the circumstances, are now trying to glorify him as the man who spoke the truth, finally.
April 2, 2011, 11:35 pmOrenWithAnE says:
How is this comparable to the power to let foreigners from abroad settle?
I would of course be upset, it would be a contravention of the right of the citizens of those nations to be deported without cause. Citizenship cannot be stripped, only relinquished.
Not until that government demonstrates that it has the consent of the governed. While Israel does control the West Bank, they are not the government of the West Bank nor do they have any desire to annex it in full (as doing so would mean demographic disaster).
April 2, 2011, 11:54 pmDG says:
{Will we know the Jew-haters by their support of Israeli’s right-wingers, whose policies and words seem likely to isolate Israel from its essential benefactors and direct it toward failure? }
No, we will know Jew-haters by their suggestions that Jews be ethnically cleansed out of Israel and forcibly resettled in other countries. Sounds like anyone you know, Arthur Kirkland?
April 2, 2011, 11:58 pmByung Kyu Park says:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Obama owe an apology to her?
April 3, 2011, 12:03 amricky says:
“If they want to live elsewhere, they need permission from the sovereign State on whose territory they wish to settle just like everywhere else.”
Whoa, does this go for Mexicans too?
April 3, 2011, 12:04 amByung Kyu Park says:
The way President Calderon’s speech was received in the Congress, one would think they do have permission already.
April 3, 2011, 12:09 amOrenWithAnE says:
Amazingly I am a liberal for enforcing immigration law. I would prefer as a matter of policy (and as part of a broader compromise, since neither party seems capable of delivering immigration reform solo) massive legal immigration in exchange for deportation of illegals currently here and stricter liability for businesses that knowingly or negligently hire ineligible workers.
What does this mean with respect to Israel? Not much.
April 3, 2011, 12:30 amDan Simon says:
So far, I haven’t seen anyone address what I consider the most interesting question raised by Goldstone’s recantation: Why? After all, he seems to have had a pretty good gig going until now, and hasn’t given any previous hint (as far as I know) of suffering even the tiniest pangs of conscience over his report. His new position is likely to make him a lot of new enemies, and unlikely to placate many ex-friends. So what motivated him, all of a sudden, to switch sides?
April 3, 2011, 12:59 amSarcastro says:
Yup! We gotta got Sherman and LeMay on ‘em! Napalm, landmines and snipers.
God, I love (writing about) it so!
April 3, 2011, 1:14 amDavid G Epstein says:
The celebration of this simulacrum of a recantation is premature. The relentless criminality of Zionism unfolds before the world daily, not least in the ongoing blockade of Gaza. The documentation of the policy of punishing civilians is extensive, and is supplemented by the public ravings of obscurantist state-supported rabbis who invoke their fabricated religion to justify ethnic exclusion and mass murder.
The criminality is, moreover, inherent in the absurd use by an irreligious movement of a religious rationale for over a century of progressive dispossession of those who were living on the land.
This issue would be merely academic, were it not for the cornucopia of arms, money and political cover exacted from the American government for the enterprise. Notwithstanding the absurdity of the Zionist premise, having won some wars and extracted Jews from Arab lands who are now unwelcome to return there, Israel may have a threadbare rationale for her continued existence. Why, pray tell, however, with American support?
April 3, 2011, 1:30 amleo marvin says:
I’ve never seen Arthur Kirkland suggest any Jews leave Israel other than voluntarily, pursuant to his imagined (and IMO absurd) plan of offering desert land in the American southwest to replace Israel. As ridiculous as I find his suggestion, associating him with Jew-hating and ethnic cleansing is wrong and obnoxious.
April 3, 2011, 2:00 amneurodoc says:
Are you alluding to that movie written and directed by Arthur, which plays over and over within his head, the one in which all Israelis are re-located to Western Texas?
April 3, 2011, 2:05 amByung Kyu Park says:
Um, while I can’t speak for DG, I thought he was referring to Helen Thomas who most recently said that Obama owes her an apology.
April 3, 2011, 2:06 amSChaser says:
Totally ignoring history (UN Mandate for Jewish Homeland, repeated Arab aggression against Israel while it remained in the 1967 borders). Then there’s that fact that there never was a land controlled by Palestinians, making them not a national group, but a self declared ethnic group, and a rather nasty one at that.
And one damned good rational for Israel’s continued existence is the now very common practice of Judenfrei among the democratic, peace loving Arab and Turkish inhabitants of the middle east. Since the Jews are being driven from Muslim lands (especially Arab and Persian), and are increasingly being persecuted in Europe, the idea of Jewish homeland starts to sound pretty darned sensible.
The Israelis won the post-1967 land fair and square in a *defensive* war, and there’s no moral reason for them not to keep it as a buffer against future aggressors, and as punitive damages against those who aggressed, and continue to aggress against Israel.
Finally, perhaps one should notice that Israel is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East and the only Middle Eastern country with any hint of concern about human rights.
Those who attack Israel these days almost always have a badly broken moral compass.
April 3, 2011, 2:13 amleo marvin says:
I’ll let DG speak for himself, but if he was referring to Helen Thomas, he sure did a good job of disguising it in an actual reference to Arthur Kirkland.
April 3, 2011, 2:22 amneurodoc says:
Leo, since you are clearly familiar with that movie which Arthur wrote and directed and which loops continuously in his own head, the one that imagines all Israelis “re-locating” (or is it being “re-located,” which some might see as “ethnic cleansing” akin to the “ethnic cleansing” of the Sephardim from the rest of what was the Ottoman Empire), can you help us critique it. What, for example, does the auteur imagine for those Israelis who might not be willing to accept the gracious offer of the US to move to its under-populated Southwest desert areas? Would they be allowed to remain behind, since of course this is to be a purely “voluntary” move, not something forced upon them?
I don’t know whether “associating him with Jew-hating and ethnic cleansing is wrong,” let alone “obnoxious,” but then I don’t know how you do either. Afterall, a commenter let go with an inexplicable riff out-of-nowhere about “corrupt rabbis” a while ago, and you were most reluctant to pronounce that “antisemitic,” which you only did after some pushing, and you flat out refused to judge the speaker “antisemitic” because you said you could not know what was in his heart. So, how can you be seen as a reliable judge of these things?
(BTW, that same person still has never told you what label you can use for those who engage in terrorism against innocents in the name of Islam without causing him personal offense. Interestingly enough, Ali Gomaa, the grand mufti of Egypt, in an ironically titled op-ed in today’s NYTimes, “In Egypt’s Democracy, Room for Islam,” made it clear that that “the conservative Salafi movements” were accepted members of the Islamic political world. So, it may be that “salafi” is off the table as a term that won’t offend Litigator London‘s sensibilities, and there is still no non-offense giving term.)
April 3, 2011, 2:28 amneurodoc says:
Are you being willfully obtuse? Or, do you really believe that Israel did not have ample reason not to trust in an investigation commissioned by the particular UN body behind it, with the mandate Goldstone was given, after others had declined the assignment, etc.?
You would be upset if Mexico or Germany did that (of course, Germany did something far more drastic within the living memory of some who survived), but you say nothing in protest of the “ethnic cleansing” of Jews from what was the Ottoman Empire beginning before the State of Israel came into being?! Some of those “ethnically cleansed” from other parts of the Ottoman Empire were the “foreigners” who moved to Palestine/Israel.
April 3, 2011, 2:42 amOrenWithAnE says:
That’s not what RR wrote, which I quote directly:
If Israel was justified in distrusting Goldstone, this cannot possibly be the reason.
I also said nothing about the ethnic cleansing of Jews in Russia or Poland, the eviction of the Jews from Spain in 1492, the Inquisition or any other atrocious historical act. From this you can obviously infer that I find nothing to criticize.
It’s not particularly relevant to the point that Israel has consistently refused (for good reason) to annex the West Bank and so cannot claim sovereignty over it.
April 3, 2011, 2:56 amAxel Edgren says:
I thought I was clear about which people I felt a particular level of sympathy for and why. I keep on forgetting that in this lame modern world you have to add pro forma truisms to your posts even when it isn’t necessary.
Talk is cheap – but Israeli forces have killed more Palestinians than the other way around no matter the measure.
My neck didn’t move an inch that day – why the hell should it? I really dislike this pretentious melodrama and candor of yours.
Yeah, that was pretty much the plan of the idiots who put settlers in that gray-area territory in the first place. They count on the predictability of you emotional types.
April 3, 2011, 3:49 amleo marvin says:
AK’s failure to anticipate and address this question was among the many reasons I found his suggestion silly.
I believe it’s wrong and obnoxious to associate someone with Jew-hating and ethnic cleansing unless there’s evidence they hate Jews and advocate ethnic cleansing. I see no such evidence in AK’s silly proposal to relocate Israel.
I said I found it offensive, and when you asked if I thought it was antisemitic, I said I did. If that’s your idea of requiring pushing, fine. As for my opinion that one doesn’t have to be a bigot to make a bigoted remark, and that one shouldn’t be labeled a bigot without evidence of one’s subjective opinions or feelings of bigotry, I stand by it. You’re entitled to disagree, but IMO that makes you the less reliable judge.
[EDIT: To avoid any possible confusion, as you know, Arthur Kirkland isn't the commenter you're referring to who made the comment I found antisemitic.]
April 3, 2011, 3:52 amByung Kyu Park says:
On the other hand, if Israel had some suspicion about Goldstone’s bias (which would be the reasons to distrust Goldstone), then those suspicions were confirmed by the damage done by Goldstone report.
I don’t think any causality is violated here. Both sets of cause and effect (e.g. Israeli suspicion of Goldstone causes lack of cooperation; damage done by Goldstone report causes justification of that initial suspicion) are perfectly in order.
One way out that makes Israelis bad guys, of course, is the route Goldstone took: the lack of cooperation from Israelis caused the damage by Goldstone report, not Goldstone’s bias or anything else.
April 3, 2011, 3:58 amKen Arromdee says:
That is absurd literalness, of the kind common on the Internet, and about as bad as saying “well, I admit that Israel had one reason, but you said ‘reasons’ in the plural so clearly you’re WRONG”.
The sentence does not literally mean that the report was the reason Israel should not have trusted him, it means that they already had good reason to distrust him but the report helps confirm it to any doubters.
April 3, 2011, 3:59 amRicardo says:
Agreed. Adding the non-Jewish population of the West Bank and Gaza to the state of Israel through annexation would, if the numbers I have are correct, bring Israel’s non-Jewish population to 47% and increasing due to birth rate differences.
Nobody wants that.
April 3, 2011, 4:42 amDavid G Epstein says:
You must mean either the League of Nations mandate for Palestine or the UN General Assembly vote on partition–there never was a “UN Mandate” to ignore.
Be that as it may, when the UN General Assembly votes to accept a Palestinian rump state in the West Bank and Gaza, what rationale will the hasbara factory churn out to reject the notion?
April 3, 2011, 9:17 amGiant Frog says:
My best friend is a Mexican Jew, so now I’m confused.
April 3, 2011, 9:19 amneurodoc says:
Right, the “corrupt rabbis” business was from Litgator London, not Arthur Kirkland of the let’s “transfer” all the Israelis to West Texas, since the Palistinians and Arabs are implacable and will never accept a Jewish state next door. He has put forth that idea on a number of occasions, so we may conclude that he really believes it doable, though we may think his plan for the Jews, which harks back to other what-to-do-with-the-Jews, improbable and unworkable, but he doesn’t. Whether his crazy plan contemplates all carrot and no stick (entirely voluntary) or contemplates some combination thereof (not entirely voluntary, which is to say it would be coercive or involuntary), that question is effectively muted by its improbability and unworkability.
Now, re LL‘s contribution which you allow was an “antisemitic” one, we won’t keep re-trying that case. There are some generalizable conclusions to be drawn from it, though, so I will just remind you of a few details: i) if you were not truly reluctant to call a spade a spade there (“antisemitc” remark), then it appeared you were, since I had to ask you several times to consider what he had said before you finally did; ii) you, who have always been very respectful of LL, in my view even unctious were he is concerned, told him his remarks were offensive and asked him to reconsider, to which he responded that he was sorry if he had caused any offense, but “facts” (my scare quotes) were facts; iii) this was not the only time that LL has made remarkable accusations against Jews (e.g., that Jewish pundits are disproportionately responsible for casting Muslims in a bad light). So, that is the essential background where these two individuals are concerned.
Now, it is one thing for you, Leo, to be unwilling to label someone an “antisemite” unless you are personally convinced that in their heart of hearts they really hate Jews and have not just made “antisemitic” remarks or favored the enemies of Jews over Jews. It is another, however, for you to insist that others employ something like your beyond-a-reasonable-doubt, or perhaps even more demanding requirement (must be certain what is in the speaker/actor’s heart), as you did when you chastised DG for intimating that Arthur could be seen as “antisemitic” (Leo: “As ridiculous as I [Leo] find his suggestion, associating him [Arthur Kirkland] with Jew-hating and ethnic cleansing is wrong and obnoxious.”) It may not be what is in your own heart, but some might infer from your condemnation of DG for his suggestion that Arthur Kirkland championed “ethnic cleaning” of Jews from what is undisputably Israel (a preposterous reading of him?) that your views were more different from those of the former than the latter. And similarly where LL and his views are concerned when stacked up against his antagonists (e.g., yours truly) and their views.
Are you willing to call “David Epstein” @ 1:30 AM an “antisemite,” or he hasn’t been explicit enough in his expressions or otherwise revealing of his “heart” for you to judge him one? Why jump on DG, who has at least a colorable case against Arthur for his own “volunary” version of “ethnically cleansing” Jews, while ignoring a “David Epstein“? You just didn’t get to him or that’s the perverse way your requirement of “intent” and/or reluctance to call out antisemitism works?
Leo: “As for my opinion that one doesn’t have to be a bigot to make a bigoted remark, and that one shouldn’t be labeled a bigot without evidence of one’s subjective opinions or feelings of bigotry, I stand by it. You’re entitled to disagree, but IMO that makes you the less reliable judge.” neurodoc: That’s a nearly impossible burden of proof to require; it leads to perversity (e.g., condemning a DG for calling “antisemitism” not in the absence of any credible proof, but when the proof of “intent” is insufficient in your view); it is excessively “courteous;” and it is unsuitable here.
April 3, 2011, 9:20 amDavid Bernstein says:
Please don’t feed the troll.
April 3, 2011, 9:30 ambailey says:
So, to cut to the chase, that three month old warrior of right wing jewry pretty much had it coming when that guardian against the oppressor infiltrated and murdered the family? Some of the “I’m not an anti-semite” commenter that populate this place sure seem as though they just hate jews. They don’t seem to mind dead ones, it’s the living ones they have a problem with.
April 3, 2011, 9:37 amArthur Kirkland says:
Forcible resettlement? Proposed by someone I know? The instinct is to dismiss that claim as ideologically driven delusion (or ideologically driven falsehood), but I suppose it is reasonable to provide an opportunity for DG to dispel the reasonable inference of delusion or lying.
April 3, 2011, 11:20 amDavid G Epstein says:
@david bernstein: “Please don’t feed the troll.”
I’ll sell you my bridge, if you’d like.
My detestation of Zionism, even if the conclusion is simply to call for US abstention from assisting it, obviously rankles. Fair enough.
But when are the commenters who want to replicate the fire-raids on Tokyo in Gaza, going to get the same treatment? Or is that sort of exhortation within the pale?
April 3, 2011, 11:30 amDavid G Epstein says:
@david bernstein: “Please don’t feed the troll.”
I’ll sell you my bridge, if you’d like.
My detestation of Zionism, even if the conclusion is simply to call for US abstention from assisting it, obviously rankles. Fair enough.
But when are the commenters who want to replicate the fire-raids on Tokyo in Gaza, going to get the same treatment? Or is that sort of exhortation within the pale?
April 3, 2011, 11:30 amSammy Finkelman says:
Second world was the name for the Communist countries. But nobody ever used the term “second world” (or first world, for that matter,
- the first world being the high-GDP Free World, when they tried to pretend that poor free countries had no concerns about this)
The only term used to any extent the “third world” which was nearly identical with the “non-aligned” nations, except for Marshal Tito’s Yugoslavia. Non-aligned dropped off and “third world” became the undeveloped countries.
It’s not so unreasonable that 20 years after the fall of European Communism that, in a back-formation, someone could put the U.K. and France in the “Second World” – probably reasoning these terms had a military or GDP meaning.
April 3, 2011, 11:32 amArthur Kirkland says:
You don’t know much, neurodoc.
I am in favor of giving people a chance to live safely.
You appear to propose positioning them to suffer and perhaps die for a cause you promote (so long as it isn’t your life on the liner).
I believe Israel’s current trajectory is unsustainable. I’d like to do something to improve the situation. Perhaps that is because I don’t have any superstition-based causes I am willing to buy with others’ suffering.
April 3, 2011, 11:42 amc. schultz says:
Unlike that of dispassionate discoursers such as yourself, clearly.
April 3, 2011, 11:47 amArthur Kirkland says:
I believe those Israelis who decline an opportunity to build a better life elsewhere are eventually likely to find that they are unable to maintain their current situation, regardless of whether others depart for a safer situation.
I propose to give people who are currently threatened, and currently dependent upon what appears to be an unsustainable situation, a better opportunity, for the choosing. By inviting them to join me as a United States citizen. Horrible, eh?
April 3, 2011, 11:50 ambeto alejandro says:
What- now we’re going to relocate the Jewish nation onto sacred Native American territories and historical La Raza claimed lands in the Southwest? At least Hamas, Hezbollah and al Qaeda will be able to waltz over the Mexican border and assist the new cause.
April 3, 2011, 11:53 amArthur Kirkland says:
I propose we let the next half-century or so of events inform us concerning whose expectations and proposals were silly. For today, however, we can rely solely on judgment, perception and probabilities.
I do not propose to relocate Israel. I favor offering every resident of Israel an opportunity to choose a safer, better future based on U.S. citizenship.
April 3, 2011, 11:53 amArthur Kirkland says:
Unless advocates of the current Israeli situation (which requires heavy reliance on the United States) are the most repulsive people one might imagine, it appears they can’t imagine a circumstance in which things end badly for Israel and its citizens. That, I believe, is a severe flaw in their reasoning.
Whether it is based on faith or a lack of imagination, it is nonetheless a flaw, similar to those which attended the design and implementation of four nuclear reactors at Fukushima, an invasion of Iraq, and two decades of Pittsburgh Pirates baseball.
April 3, 2011, 12:03 pmArthur Kirkland says:
It is a strange variety of “ethnic cleansing” whose victims are invited into the cleansers’ figurative home (a better home, from every subjective perspective, than the one they have inhabited for a couple of generations), in which new home they have immeasurably better prospects for a safe and productive life.
I gather you find Pell grants reprehensible, too?
April 3, 2011, 12:10 pmc. schultz says:
Can’t one not be a Zionist on grounds of its sense of religious and tribal exception and still support the establishment and security of the State of Israel on account of the historical prejudice, abuse, expulsions and genocide committed against Jews, culminating in 20th c. Germany and USSR pogroms and mass slaughter?
The Middle East did not prevail during WWII nor the Arabs against Israel in their quest to destroy the new nation. One side needs to absorb its losses, ratchet down its program of violent racism- historically stoked by both the Nazis and Soviets and trumped up to false offense, negotiate in good faith, and move on for sake of the next generations. Here’s an idea- maybe the Palis and other low self-esteem Arabs can try to prosper by their own constructive doings without having to zero-sumlike pull down The Other.
As if defending against outside attacks isn’t problematic enough, I still don’t understand how Israel is going to handle the demographic time-bomb of cultural and political values radically shifting and fairly soon, given the current rate of hate and babies Muslims are producing in the disputed territories and even within the original borders. In a less dramatic way, Europe and even the US face this intractable problem of immigration, non-assimilation and immigrant high birthrate.
April 3, 2011, 12:22 pmloki13 says:
I visit this thread, and, of course, I am not surprised.
Long ago I gave up hope of a peaceful endgame to the problems in the Middle East, most specifically the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There’s a reason that the punchline to the joke of a list of impossibilities (hell freezing over, pigs flying) always ends with, “And peace in the Middle East!”
As I have many times remarked, there is never any attempt to try and cabin ideas to the present, and look for solutions that might be workable. Instead, conversations always devolve into a lit of historical grievances (usually, but not always, ending with an argument over the Balfour declaration). People that are trapped in the past, fed with the resentments of history, unable to move on for fear that this will somehow “vindicate” the other side will be forever trapped in their own vicious cycle.
So it is with the comments. It is not enough for neurodoc to address the OP. Instead, we look to his simmering resentments over past comments made by other commenters (who are not even participating on this thread) for evidence of how awful the other side is. It is the same debate about the Israelis and Palestinians, on a smaller and more personal scale.
Anger is power. The ability to make someone angry, to provoke them, is the ability to control them. This is a lesson long ago learned by internet trolls. Some commenters allow their anger and resentments to control them, not realizing that as long as they carry that baggage, this is a power they have relinquished to the other.
I have no ability to judge the totality of history, and assign blame for every permutation that has happened.* I just know that the current situation has made both sides worse off, and it isn’t getting any better. And I don’t see a light at the end of this tunnel, except, perhaps, a train.
*Okay. Full disclosure- I do blame Arafat for the collapse of a possible attempt at a working peace in 2000, because he was a weak man, and thought that a Second Intifadah might strengthen his bargaining position. This is just a personal opinion, and I am sure many disagree with it, but I think that torpedoed the last, best chance for a decent resolution that could be made that I remember.
April 3, 2011, 12:24 pmSammy Finkelman says:
Since Goldstone actually wanted to be fair, even if he had a little bias and he did, it was a big mistake on the part of Israel not to at least partially co-operate with Goldstone, epecially if they thought the report would matter.
But the statement by Goldstone that he had no reason not to believe that civilians were deliberately targeted is not only profoundly wrong but totally ridiculous. That would ignore everything he knows about Israel and it culture and what Israel was capable of had it really wanted to hurt civilians. Or for instance the fact that Israel chose not to take the peaceful and relatively harmless to civilians course of cutting off most of Gaza’s electricity – a course that would have almost all the lives lost in that war and maybe ended Hamas rule.. But Israel was listening to the United Nations.
It was completely ridiculous to accept any Hamas claims about what was the purpose of various Israeli military actions or tactics.
Possibly, Israel may have felt that “rules” were rigged against it, and that the UN had no business putting them on trial, but that was no reason not to at least occasionally rebut serious libels. It is not like Israel afterward treated the Goldstone report like it didn’t matter. If what Goldstoone was doing mattered afterward then it mattered before too. The original Goldstone report would have been even worse had some people independently not set out to rebut some accusations.
At this point the Goldstone report is not a weapon against Israel. It really has no credibility and it does also accuse Hamas. For purposes of rebutting the Goldstone report, but for no other purposes, Hamas denies that its goals were to hit non-military targets.
The New York Times reports today that what Israel is worried about now, is that the United Nations will recognize a Palestinian state this September – with borders that include not only the entire West bank but also all parts of Jerusalem not under Israeli rule on June 4, 1967. While it might only be a starting point for negotiations, they don’t like that starting point. Although how that would be different from the way things are now I don’t understand, because that’s the starting point anyway of most peace plans.
Probably it is that while Israel is willing to offer an acre for acre exchange of territory for anything retained in the greater portion of the West Bank it does not want to give any compensation for Jerusalem and environs. Jerusalem was never really was supposed to be alienated from Israel in the first place.
Note: Under the 1947 partition resolution Jerusalem was supposed to be under international rule for ten years, followed by a referendum, which was expected to go to Israel. In 1968, Israel annexed and at the same time expanded the borders of East Jerusalem. Anyone living within those boundaries, some of which is now outside the security wall, has the option of citizenship in Israel, but for various reasons there are few takers although most of the residents are anxious to retain access to Israel and Israeli institutions and under Israeli law, to the point where some people have moved to make sure they wouldn’t be left outside Israel one day.)
The other side may have forfeited whatever rights they had to Jerusalem by the way it was administered by Jordan from 1949-1967 with all Jewish buildings and graves destroyed and desecrated. (with the possible exception of the temple and wall, which it has now become de rigueur for Arabs and Moslems to deny was the site of the temple. They also like to deny that there are any other sites of Jewish heritage in the West Bank. This doesn’t work if you are interested in truth and peace.)
Anyone with a grain of common sense has to know that if people of all faiths are to retain access to Jerusalem it has to remain under Israeli rule, possibly amplified with some treaty. To have anything else standing as the basis for peace is not to have a basis for peace, but rather a basis for war, which of course is probably the intention.
May all the revolutions in the Arab world achieve such a success by September that all this will be irrelevant.
April 3, 2011, 12:26 pmKen Arromdee says:
There’s an unstated “… and the ones who won’t go voluntarily will be forced out or killed” in any plans to get Jews to “voluntarily” leave the Middle East. That’s ethnic cleansing.
And if you don’t agree, just what exactly are you proposing to do with the ones who won’t leave “voluntarily”?
April 3, 2011, 12:27 pmSammy Finkelman says:
So your compromise is for everybody to accept the positions of the other side that they hate the most. The anti-immigration people get massive immigration, the pro-immigrant community get massive deportations, and the business community gets massive regulations and shutdowns of businesses both directly and indirectly. Everybody is equally unhappy – the perfect compromise!
April 3, 2011, 12:32 pmloki13 says:
That is a good compromise. Note that all sides are also getting what they really want-
Anti-immigration forces get to kick out illegals. For real!
Pro-immigration forces can point to an easier path to citizenship to those who are really willing to work for it.
Businesses can continue to get cheap labor.
(I think the unaddressed part of this compromise is whether OrenWithanE would propose looser-than-current immigration policy with a better worker visa program for unskilled workers so that they could work for a while then return home. But I’m not sure how this would work; while there are some areas that this would be beneficial, such as seasonal agricultural work, the experience of other countries with such programs, such as Germany, has not been positive; moreover, everyone believes that the scope of the program would depress wages in certain industries, whether it would depress them more than what we have with illegal immigration, be a wash, or actually boost them (since documented workers might command higher premiums) is an empirical question I don’t have an answer to.)
April 3, 2011, 12:51 pmRicardo says:
Actually, Muslim population and birth rates within the original borders aren’t alone the issue. The Haredi also have a very high birthrate — to the point that the Muslim and Haredi population combined will be the majority of Israel’s population within 30 years. That’s going to make for some awfully contentious politics.
That’s only true for first-generation immigrants in the U.S. American-born Latinas in California, for instance, have a fertility rate of 2.1 which is just a bit above replacement rate.
April 3, 2011, 12:57 pmAnonLawStudent says:
It’s unfortunate that the modern world doesn’t like for one side to actually win a war. Decades of low intensity conflict have turned out to be a much better solution.
“It is well that war is so terrible — lest we should grow too fond of it.” – R.E. Lee
April 3, 2011, 1:01 pmArthur Kirkland says:
We must evaluate differently the prospects that Israelis will be able to maintain the current situation (let alone anything better) over the long term.
Would be improper or immoral to offer U.S. citizenship to current residents of Israel? Is an Israeli resident who emigrates to the United States today, seeking a safer situation and declining to suffer for the cause of others more devoted to remaining in Israel for whatever reason, acting improperly?
April 3, 2011, 1:04 pmMDJD from NY says:
1. Like Jews were invited at various times in the past into Spain, Germany and, for that matter, the Arab nations in the Middle East.
2. In the course of my lifetime, the status of American Jews has markedly improved. I may be guilty of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, but the creation of Israel seems to have made it a lot easier to be a Jew here in the US.
3. Not everyone wants to live as a member of a minority, even if the majority consists of well-meaning people like you. Or maybe you also invision that the people who come to the US from Israel eventually will shed their Jewish identity. After all, it’s better to be Methodist than Jewish in America “from every subjective perspective,” to use your phrase (did you mean “objective”?).
4. What makes you think that Americans lead more productive lives than Israelis?
April 3, 2011, 1:05 pmDebrah says:
Good questions, which, of course, cannot be answered in any way that would not provoke both laughter as well as the brand of candor such rhetoric is designed to camouflage.
April 3, 2011, 1:12 pmGoldstone recants… sort of. | Augean Stables says:
[...] David Bernstein: Richard Goldstone: Chief Kangaroo [...]
April 3, 2011, 1:17 pmloki13 says:
MDJD from NY-
I think that all of your contentions have accuracy. One can certainly attack Mr. Kirkland’s plan from a basis that it is unrealistic, or from a more fundamental philosophical approach (that by solving the “problem” of Israel, it re-creates the problem that Israel originally solved- that there be a country where Jews were the majority, had power, and could make sure that the Holocaust – and other pogroms – were never repeated).
However, since this came up in context of another commenter who said this was tantamount to ethnic cleansing, and then compared the comments to another set of comments he found anti-semitic, I think that there is value to be gained from teasing out the differences.
I don’t think that asking a large group of people to come and live in your country is evidence of bigotry or a desire for ethnic cleansing. I do think that you can rightfully assert that plan is unworkable in either practice or as a matter of principle, without throwing in pejorative and incorrect terms (which to your credit you did not do).
IMO, I think his plan is unworkable, for many of the reasons you laid out.
April 3, 2011, 1:23 pmArthur Kirkland says:
1. Probably not much like that.
April 3, 2011, 1:26 pm2. If so, that’s probably good. I would welcome residents of Israel to the United States because I believe those people would encounter a good situation.
3. That preference is relevant solely to the extent it is sustainable. If it is better to be a Methodist than a Jew in the United States, that is among the points regarding which Americans need to improve their country.
4. Which country requires the other’s assistance?
Watson Ladd says:
The real lesson of Goldstone: when states choose to stonewall the initial investigation they are rewarded by the authors of the investigation retracting it later. What Israel does today, Syria will do tomorrow.
April 3, 2011, 1:27 pmChrisTS says:
I’m astonished by the degree of hostility being directed at Arthur K. What has he suggested? That Israelis could be invited to immigrate here and, if they wished, given a place to create a state. Maybe this is a silly idea, but it certainly isn’t anti-semitic or even unkind.
He does not suggest ‘doing’ anything to those who refuse the invitation. He expresses concern for the future of Israel and its people.
The history of the treatment of Jews is dreadful. But why is that history a reasonable basis for attacking the character of any person who sugggests an alternative to the very difficult situation of Israel?
Would those using this kind of reasoning support the same when a person of color claimed that any suggestion s/he disliked about improving the situation of blacks or latinos is racist?
April 3, 2011, 1:29 pmMDJD from NY says:
The worst one can say on the basis of what Arthur Kirkland is writing is that he is phenomenally patronizing toward Israeli Jews.
And phenomenally optimistic about the long term prospects of Jews in the United States (I would say this about any country in which Jews are a minority).
It is not patronizing per se to suggest that people leave their homes. It is patronizing, however, to believe that your nation is so much better than another that their people should be champing at the bit to leave the place they have grown up to live as a minority in your country, learn a new language, learn the ropes, etc.
All my relatives in the US in the generations before me were immigrants who left their countries to flee worse prospects than Israelis face. The experience of immigration left serious scars on all of them. I would never urge people to go live in another society unless the prospects at home are truly dreadful.
April 3, 2011, 1:51 pmSG says:
Would those using this kind of reasoning support the same when a person of color claimed that any suggestion s/he disliked about improving the situation of blacks or latinos is racist?
Let’s flesh out that analogy – it’s the early 1960′s and the civil rights movement is in full swing. Someone suggests that rather than struggle, blacks should all move to Africa. Would you consider the person making the “back to Africa” suggestion a racist? How does Arthur Kirkland’s proposal meaningfully differ?
The differences I can think of don’t actually help Mr. Kirkland – the US is not the Jews’ ancestral homeland and Jews migrating to the US would become an ethnic minority.
April 3, 2011, 1:53 pmMDJD from NY says:
Which country has more start-ups in hi-tech firms? Which has a higher educational level? Which has more stable families? Which has a generally stronger social support structure– civil society, families, and public safety net? Which has safer streets?
Yes. Israel is smaller.
April 3, 2011, 1:55 pmSG says:
In my opinion if you initiate hostilities, until you have offered an unconditional surrender and it has been refused, you have no grounds to complain about the use of disproportionate force by your enemy.
April 3, 2011, 1:57 pmloki13 says:
That’s not quite right. Imagine the civil rights movement is just beginning to start, and it doesn’t look good. A random Canadian says, “Hey, move up here! We have Tim Horton’s and we’d love to have you, eh!” Now, there might be many things wrong with that proposal, but bigotry and ethnic cleansing wouldn’t be the issues.
MDJD from NY-
Again, we agree on the substantive point that Mr. Kirkland’s plan is unworkable. But he is starting from the a priori position that the long-term viability of Israel is questionable, and things will get worse, not better. This may (or may not) be a correct supposition, but it makes his proposal understandable. And it addresses your point about the prospects being truly dreadful.
As for being patronizing, I thought about including that in my original post. I chose not to because it is no more patronizing than any solution that is proposed by an outsider would be. By its very nature, a solution that is proposed by someone other than the two parties will seem in some ways patronizing, because, by definition, it assumes that the person proposing it is coming up with a solution that either party can not / will not.
April 3, 2011, 2:07 pmSG says:
Now, there might be many things wrong with that proposal, but bigotry and ethnic cleansing wouldn’t be the issues.
It may not be bigotry (by either Arthur or the nameless person in the analogy), but it’s absolutely ethnic cleansing. I.e., those two ethnicities just can’t get along with each other – rather than even trying one of them should just remove themselves from the situation.
I’d guess Arthur Kirkland isn’t motivated by anti-Semitism (although his suggestion assumes that one shouldn’t expect anything other than endless violence from Muslims – an Islamophobe perhaps?), but it’s not unreasonable that other people could read his suggestion that way.
FWIW, I don’t actually think ethnic cleansing of this sort is the worst thing in the world. It wouldn’t be necessary in a perfect world, but we don’t live in a perfect world…
April 3, 2011, 2:18 pmArthur Kirkland says:
If I wanted to be patronizing, I would have pointed out that many ostensible adults view the relevant issues through the crippling filter of believing in (competing) fairy tales.
April 3, 2011, 2:30 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Distinct from the competing supernatural stories, most or all of the conflicting factions have motivations and grievances that are understandable — not because of their preference in fables, but because of their humanity.
April 3, 2011, 2:32 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Time likely will illuminate which points are unworkable — the offer of United States citizenship to Israeli residents, the maintenance of the several factors on which Israel’s current condition relies, and other points.
Faith (the type that credits the supernatural) is a powerful force. It can cause people observing people atop a boulder balanced on a marble in a windstorm to see a situation that is not only desirable but also sustainable. But faith is no match for reason, at least not in the reality-based world.
I see many people willing to put (or keep) others in harm’s way to indulge preferences that seem intensely unworthy of such sacrifice. I shall refrain from conceding moral superiority to those advocates of others’ risk in the service of their suspect preferences.
April 3, 2011, 2:38 pmneurodoc says:
Why doesn’t Arthur Kirkland make the same “gracious” offer of West Texas’s underpopulated (waste?) parts to the Palestinians? (By the way, has he cleared the idea with Governor Perry, those who reside there now, or many citizens of the US and their elected representatives? Or just mean to be provocative with his fantasy?) Does he regard the Palestinians as having a superior claim to all of “TransJordan” than the Israelis, or does he think them less worthy of his offer of resettlement in West Texas and US citizenship?
(And when neurodoc took Leo to task for jumping on DG, saying he was wrong and obnoxious to suggest that Arthur fantasy sounded like ethnic cleansing and smacked of antisemitism, neurodoc didn’t attempt to make an affirmative case to the effect that Arthur is an antisemite, neurodoc simply said that DG had the basis of a colorable claim.)
April 3, 2011, 2:43 pmDebrah says:
Why in the hell would Israelis want to leave their homes (and yes, ISRAEL is their rightful homeland!) and be transplanted to the desolate and arid Southwest of the U.S.?
I realize that unlike the other inhabitants of the Middle East, Israelis have created and cultivated an oasis and would of course be able to thrive anywhere; however, to suggest such a thing is wholly and purely condescending and moronic…..
……to the nth degree.
It’s not going to happen.
April 3, 2011, 2:51 pmArthur Kirkland says:
I would not condition citizenship on a particular place of residence. Suspecting that many immigrants would wish to be close to relatives, friends and former countrymen, I nominated two sections of the United States that appear to need the shot in the arm immigration could provide — west Texas and West Virginia — but would welcome better ideas.
Would offering citizenship to the Palestinians eliminate the factors underlying the current conflicts? I find that proposition weak, but again am open to education.
I don’t know who has a superior claim to the relevant land from a historical perspective. I strongly doubt most people, including those who argue most stridently, have a well-constructed opinion.
April 3, 2011, 2:53 pmArthur Kirkland says:
I have friends who have owned fraternity caps and autographed baseballs longer than Israel has existed.
You seem to consider stridency a substitute for substance.
April 3, 2011, 2:57 pmMDJD from NY says:
I’m not saying you want to be patronizing. I suspect it comes naturally.
April 3, 2011, 3:05 pmDebrah says:
I think this statement reveals all anyone needs to know about the kind of attitude you bring to your suggestions regarding this matter.
Well, Arthur.
I sometimes find that being a magnificent b!tch serves to make a point more…..how do you say?…..memorable for those who would offer absurdity for substance.
April 3, 2011, 3:10 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Two men say they’re Jesus.
One of them must be wrong.
— Mark Knopfler
April 3, 2011, 3:12 pmArthur Kirkland says:
‘IT IS THEIR RIGHTFUL HOMELAND’ is, in the context of a nation that has existed for roughly the retirement age, hardly a winning or substance-based argument, regardless of the number of capital letters or punctuation marks employed.
I don’t know which competing claim is superior. To the extent it could be determined, I am confident exceedingly few people have determined the answer by anything other than lottery-like luck.
April 3, 2011, 3:15 pmArthur Kirkland says:
If it develops that your plans for the current residents of Israeli are misguided (some might say absurd), do you plan to position yourself to share their misery? Or are you gambling with others’ chips, in a manner reminiscent of American chickenhawks?
April 3, 2011, 3:19 pmcaptcrisis says:
What loki13 said (at 12:24). It’s hard for me to get interested in any problem concerning Israel because it seems like 60 years of the same pictures. Let’s focus only on what’s now, and do the possible.
April 3, 2011, 3:24 pmDebrah says:
I’m not a gambler.
And Israel isn’t going anywhere.
Your alliance with the sand-scratching side of the desert isn’t a winning hand.
April 3, 2011, 3:28 pmByung Kyu Park says:
Or at least one of them is Hispanic (or Spaniard, I guess).
It’s an interesting cultural contrast: English-speaking people generally don’t name their children “Jesus”, out of respect for Jesus. Spanish-speaking people often name their children “Jesus”, out of respect for Jesus.
April 3, 2011, 3:32 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
Completely OT, but… “generally”? Are there any instances of non-Hispanic people naming their kids Jesus? (First person to say “Mary and Joseph” wins the booby prize.) None comes to mind.
April 3, 2011, 3:43 pmThe International Jurist › Richard Goldstone’s Hindsight on the Goldstone Report says:
[...] demanded repair damages from Goldstone. In a post over at The Volokh Conspiracy, David Bernstein attempts to twist this story (citing NGO Monitor on the way – bad idea) by implying that Richard Goldstone was from the [...]
April 3, 2011, 3:49 pmHarry Eagar says:
That statement revealed a lot more about Goldstone than he probably thought. Surely his statement that he changed the initial terms of reference because they were biased is strange behavior for a judge.
Any independent observer would have walked away at that point.
April 3, 2011, 3:54 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Shorter Debrah: “Mission accomplished.”
Shorter Debrah: “Bring ‘em on. Heh Heh.”
And how much more ass-kicking must Americans sustain from the sand-scratching side of the equation in Iraq before it gets to be enough for some people?
April 3, 2011, 3:54 pmDebrah says:
Knopfler must have been in real dire straits if he wrote that.
April 3, 2011, 4:04 pmDebrah says:
Perhaps it might be enough when this brand of 7th century barbarism is no longer.
Just one of countless examples.
And don’t be squeamish, Arthur. Stay for the entire video. They wanted the world to view it.
Humor them.
April 3, 2011, 4:17 pmHarry Eagar says:
Commenting in the Internet would be a lot simpler for Alex, Arthur and the like if the Muslims had just WON the ’67 war, wouldn’t it?
At least Arthur wouldn’t have to worry about where to put the Jews.
April 3, 2011, 4:20 pmArthur Kirkland says:
The song is Industrial Disease. A good one, to my taste, but not his best.
(Telegraph Road apparently is too long to fit in a single YouTube file.)
April 3, 2011, 4:21 pmArthur Kirkland says:
What’s worst? The beheaders? The cowards whose CIA torture videos were destroyed by other cowards? Or the pre-video burning of witches and deployment of Crusades-era torture devices at least as bad as beheadings?
Not sure any of it is relevant to the United States lining up to get its butt kicked all over Iraq for no reason, though.
April 3, 2011, 4:34 pmDavid G Epstein says:
While the namesake of the Costco house-brands and his critics debate offering visas to Israelis, hundreds of thousands of them have been voting with their feet. You can find them in the San Fernando Valley, Brooklyn, and yes, Berlin.
Even their worst enemies don’t think Jews as a group are stupid. Wave 5,000 US visas in front of them, and they’d line up around our Embassy for blocks to enter the lottery.
Nor do I see the Bernsteins of the world lining up to emigrate.
April 3, 2011, 4:36 pmArthur Kirkland says:
No reason to worry, eh Harry? You’re safe, right?
April 3, 2011, 4:42 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Excellent stores, and damn fine brands. Thanks for the plug, especially given Pacino’s reluctance to endorse them.
April 3, 2011, 4:45 pmDavid G Epstein says:
@Arthur–I swear by Kirkland products myself.
April 3, 2011, 4:59 pmDavid G Epstein says:
@Arthur–I swear by Kirkland products myself.
April 3, 2011, 4:59 pmMDJD from NY says:
Does James Jesus Angleton count? (Well, his mother was Hispanic.)
April 3, 2011, 5:45 pmByung Kyu Park says:
I guess it depends on how he pronounces his middle name. Is it “Hey-sus”, or is it “Gee-jus”?
April 3, 2011, 5:49 pmMDJD from NY says:
Well, I guess Mr. Kirkland takes it upon himself determine whether the inhabitants of a country (the vast majority of whom were born there and who know know other home, and who have no other citizenship) rightfully belong in that country.
I reiterate my comment about being patronizing. I suppose living in Israel is to him a bit like owning a fraternity cap.
BTW, how long have Syria and Palestine existed? The L of N mandate over Syria was established from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire at the same time as the Palestine mandate, and the independent state of Syria about the same time as Israel. As for Palestine, there has never been a state.
If you’re not equating states and nations, the Hebrew/Jewish nation has existed for 3500 years, with continuous residence of Jews between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, though not always as a majority. That’s more than twice as long as Arabs have lived there. Arabs seized the place. How long do people have to live there to get legitimate title?
April 3, 2011, 5:56 pmMDJD from NY says:
This site says he pronounced it the Spanish way, but I don’t vouch for its accuracy.
April 3, 2011, 6:02 pmBob (from Ohio) says:
What are you talking about?
We may not have accomplished our political goals in Iraq but we took the country in 3 weeks and we put down the insurgency, rather easily once we committed enough resources with the right general. Our losses were 4500 and theirs were 75-100 thousand (another 200,000 civilians). That was with restrictive rules of engagement.
Most of our losses were due to IEDs. How Arabs are going to destroy Israel with IEDs is beyond me. In actual combat, we never lost a skirmish or battle. In a real war, our planes would have leveled the insurgent positions and our armor crushed the survivors.
The ass kicking you speak about exists only in your mind.
April 3, 2011, 6:10 pmMark Buehner says:
Hasn’t this been debunked enough?
April 3, 2011, 6:30 pmArthur Kirkland says:
We fought to an awkward draw with a bunch of rag-taggers. We lost thousands of people for nothing, at great expense, while causing untold misery (mostly involving innocents) in a manner that will haunt and harm us for many years. We will leave, eventually, with our tail between our legs.
For a country in the United States’ position, that constitutes getting our asses kicked.
April 3, 2011, 7:23 pmChrisTS says:
@SG:
Loki started with this, but I think the analogy itself deserves more consideration.
1) Israel is a nation surrounded by hostile nations (and peoples). African Americans living (free or not)in the U.S. were not a distinct nation among nations.
2) For Israelis to move to the U.S. would not, in many cases, be the same as descendants of Africans moving ‘back’ to Africa. There is no ‘back’ to it, and there is no idea of shipping any one out of anywhere against their will.
3) The idea that African-Americans should be shipped to Africa was raised by people who wanted to get rid of them. Inviting people from another country to live in ours is quite the opposite.
I realize you were just picking up on my annalogy, but yours is just inapt in every way.
April 3, 2011, 7:43 pmChrisTS says:
BOB from Ohio:
I don’t know or care how we got onto Iraq, but this series of claims is, at the least, a remarkable distortion of facts. I suppose your comment about ‘taking the country in 3 weeks’ is a “Mission Accomplished’ moment? And, we ‘put down the insurgency easily’?
April 3, 2011, 7:47 pmChrisTS says:
‘Analogy’ not ‘annalogy,’ above. I’m not allowed to edit.
April 3, 2011, 7:49 pmChrisGreen says:
Are you absolutely sure you want to maintain that we are getting our butts kicked in Iraq? I’ve followed events over there for a long time, read many books and followed war correspondents for a while now. Are you absolutely sure you want to maintain your position about this? I just want to know so that if I respond, I know weather you are serious, or were just exaggerating out of disgust for the whole Iraq war.
April 3, 2011, 8:04 pmChrisGreen says:
Are you absolutely sure you want to maintain that we are getting our butts kicked in Iraq? I’ve followed events over there for a long time, read many books and followed war correspondents for a while now. Are you absolutely sure you want to maintain your position about this? I just want to know so that if I respond, I know weather you are serious, or were just exaggerating out of disgust for the whole Iraq war.
April 3, 2011, 8:04 pmKen Arromdee says:
All by itself? Of course not. In a way useful for your goal? Yes, since that would mean killing or displacing the ones who refuse to leave voluntarily.
April 3, 2011, 8:21 pmluagha says:
just to let you all in, in the initial fighting to take Iraq, the US suffered less than 1000 casualties and the Iraqis approximately 23,000 according to our military. The 100,000 number is based on a Lancet survey with a very very wide confidence margin – from 5000 to 195000.
As one moves from the ‘taking Iraq’ to the insurgency, the casualty rate rises to the 4500 number and the casualties to Iraqis rises as well from the insurgent attacks on civilians.
April 3, 2011, 8:27 pmleo marvin says:
You asked me if I “care[d] to say what [I] think of the “riff” by Litigator London back on 1/16/11.” In my very next comment I said I found it “gratutious and offensive.” You then asked whether it was “[o]ff the mark to characterize it as antisemitic expression.” Again in my very next comment I said “I’d call it antisemitic.” Two questions, two immediate, direct answers. It’s interesting that you think that makes me “reluctant to call a spade a spade,” and that you remember having “had to ask [me] several times.”
Wrong again. I do occasionally lose my temper, but I don’t defend it. I think being disrespectful in this forum is irresponsible and unproductive.
I may disagree with calling someone a bigot when the bigotry is subject to reasonable doubt, but I don’t criticize anyone for doing it, and I certainly don’t “insist that others employ” my standard. I criticize calling someone a bigot when the evidence of bigotry is barely or non-existent, as is the case with AK’s suggestion to offer Israelis US citizenship.
People are more complicated and difficult to judge than actions and words. The bar should be a lot higher for calling someone a “bigot” than for calling a statement “bigoted.”
Odd that you see a double standard. I called DG’s comment “wrong and obnoxious,” and LL’s “gratuitous and offensive.” I declined to call LL an antisemite and I decline to call DG anything. Seems pretty consistent to me.
April 3, 2011, 8:41 pmJonathan D says:
What did the kangaroos ever do?
April 3, 2011, 8:45 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Which goal?
April 3, 2011, 8:54 pmneurodoc says:
One need not be “deferential” when deference isn’t appropriate, as when addressing an apologist for that which deserves condemnation, and that doesn’t require being “disrespectful,” at least not when disrespectful would be inappropriate. And much, much greater weight should be given to “accuracy” over “courtesty.”
But your responses here have caused me to reconsider, so I will retract what I said and you were responding to and offer you an apology for “misrembering” our earlier colloquy, which I did find frustrating because I thought you weren’t coming down on what deserved to be come down on. And Leo, though I may disagree with you at times, I never feel that discourse with you is other than a good use of time.
[BTW, re DG on Arthur, I would note that while you labeled what DG said as "offensive," while I thought there was a colorable basis for it, Arthur clearly doesn't give a cr*p about being offensive himself, making a point of being so on more than score. I could care less what he thinks about the religious beliefs of others, and think that his "analysis" of the role of religion in the the I-P conflict is just another of his stupidities, but it isn't necessary for him to make such a big deal about his disdain for those religious beliefs of others. Perhaps you should take that into account when you would chastise someone for failing to show Arthur respect or give him the benefit of the doubt as to what is in his heart.]
April 3, 2011, 9:32 pmOrenWithAnE says:
But the conclusion is not in order — the fact that the report was damaging doesn’t prove anything in the absence of the reporter having access to exculpatory evidence.
I don’t think it caused the damage (and I don’t think he was biased, except insofar that the principles that he was tasked with applying are not favorable to the State side of an asymmetric conflict) but it certainly contributed to it.
It’s a sad story on all ends — Israel may have been justified in shunning Goldstone but that does not change the fact that withholding cooperation makes the report come out worse for your end.
(1) You must not be familiar with common usage of the word ‘as’ in English which (in the form used) means ‘since’ or ‘because’.
(2) That aside, how can the fact that the report came out poorly for Israel partly due to their lack of cooperation be justification for not cooperating? That’s utterly circular. It’s like firefighters at the scene of a burned down house saying “It was too late when we got here so we didn’t try to save it and look, it burned down, so that confirms for any doubters that we were right”.
The fact that the report came out poorly proves neither that Israel should or should not have cooperated.
Everyone is unhappy with the status quo as well. Reshuffling unhappiness is the heart of compromise, and I think all groups are better off in a legal unhappiness than in the defacto-but-illegal unhappiness.
I would prefer citizenship-or-nothing.
April 3, 2011, 9:44 pmArthur Kirkland says:
When religious belief causes concrete problems — such as running interference for systematic commission, concealment and facilitation of sexual abuse of children; or fanning bigotry toward homosexuals; or complicating the situation in the Middle East or Northern Ireland; or breeding disdain toward science, particularly in public schools — it deserves disdain. Too few people are willing to fault religion and the religious in those circumstances, a point on which the religious capitalize effectively..
If someone wishes to worship without hurting or imposing on others, I would object to any interference with the right to engage in that worship. I accept parents’ indoctrination of children, even in most of the cases in which when it harms the children, and many of the “free passes” provided to religion with respect to televangelical fraud and the like. But I do not give religion a pass when it causes important, concrete harm.
And I do not regard “just because” as a legitimate argument in reasoned debate. That really seems to piss off some people.
April 3, 2011, 10:18 pmneurodoc says:
Now you’re going beyond obtuse. The ethnic cleansing of Sephardi Jews by Arabs from those parts of the Ottoman Empire where they had lived since ancient times is immediately relevant to the I-P conflict, whereas the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492 is not. And those Sephardim were not “deported for cause,” whatever might amount to “cause” for such an action, nor did they “relinquish” their citizenship.
April 3, 2011, 10:25 pmBlue says:
It really bugs you that we didn’t have video of helicopters fleeing the embassy from Iraq like we did in Vietnam, doesn’t it Arthur?
April 3, 2011, 10:31 pmneurodoc says:
Arthur, the word “gratuitous” pertains to many of your remarks about religious beliefs, and “uninformed” to your discussions of the attachment Israelis have for their country which ignore reasons other than religious ones. “Uncomprehending,” if not “delusional,” encompasses a good deal more where you and your idee fixe are concerned, and that’s being generous in deference to Leo Marvin‘s sensibilities. But feel free to natter on and reveal yourself further.
["When religious belief causes concrete problems — such as running interference for systematic commission, concealment and facilitation of sexual abuse of children; or fanning bigotry toward homosexuals; or complicating the situation in ... Northern Ireland; or breeding disdain toward science, particularly in public schools — it deserves disdain." How does any of that pertain here?]
April 3, 2011, 10:38 pmArthur Kirkland says:
What bugs me is the misery we inflicted on Iraq, the blood on our hands, and the way in which most of the warmongers avoided personal sacrifice or accountability (or even, in some cases, profited).
April 3, 2011, 10:45 pmArthur Kirkland says:
You criticized the manner in which I disdain religion, and advanced it as justification for refraining from demonstrating respect for me giving me the benefit of the doubt. It was about an hour ago.
April 3, 2011, 10:48 pmneurodoc says:
Surely you know the meaning of “gratuitous.”
April 3, 2011, 10:53 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Should Israelis’ attachment to Israel trump the prospect that their current condition seems unsustainable over the long term, or frustrate an opportunity to improve the lives of Israeli citizens? I believe it would be worthwhile to offer those citizens a choice other than sticking around to see whether associating Israel’s right-wing politics with American right-wing politics accelerates and/or promotes the diminution of non-right-wing Americans’ willingness to risk great volumes of blood for, and devote billions of dollars to, Israel — one of the elements that seems indispensable to Israel’s survival.
April 3, 2011, 10:58 pmleo marvin says:
Thanks, but no need to apologize. We all have memory lapses.
Likewise.
April 3, 2011, 11:00 pmneurodoc says:
Perseverative, too.
April 3, 2011, 11:06 pmRicardo says:
The status of Asians, African-Americans, Latinos, Catholics, etc. have also markedly improved over the same time period. In the 1940s, it would be have been difficult for a Jew to rent an apartment in certain parts of New York — same with an ethnic Chinese or Filipino in San Francisco. I’d chalk that up to the civil rights movement and the wider culture of tolerance that got underway in the 60s and 70s.
April 3, 2011, 11:09 pmHarry Eagar says:
No, I’m not.
April 3, 2011, 11:16 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Throw in The Rolling Stones, The Beatles and Motown, and it’s difficult to understand the antagonism toward that period.
April 3, 2011, 11:16 pmOrenWithAnE says:
How?
Agreed but confused as to relevance.
(1) How would it be an improvement for Israeli citizens, currently sovereigns, to submit to the authority of another sovereign?
(2) Assuming you can answer (1), are you the proper party to which this question is posed? Or is that in the hands of those citizens that are skeptical (if not outright hostile) to the notion that your scheme is an improvement?
April 3, 2011, 11:35 pmDebrah says:
This is really the issue for you, isn’t it?
And when you frame the argument that way, the fact that you don’t much care for Jews, in general, is mitigated a bit.
Those on the left will always make allowances when you frame it just right.
April 3, 2011, 11:35 pmMitchell J. Freedman says:
The Goldstone Report was released on September 15, 2009.
In October 2009, Goldstone was already trying to explain that it was a preliminary finding and that further investigation was necessary, which was consistent with the report. See:
http://www.forward.com/articles/116269/
And here is also an article from the same time where Goldstone says an internal Israeli investigation would put pressure on Hamas to do the same, which explains why Goldstone has NOW said Hamas’ failure to investigate should be noted and criticized:
http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1255694848458&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
Too bad the braying Likudniks like an Alan Dershowitz or the folks at AIPAC, who claim to speak for most Jews in America, are going to have their field day…They overstated the criticisms of the Goldstone Report in order to justify the Israeli government’s abject and contemptuous refusal to cooperate with Goldstone, and now they will argue that there was never any truth to any charge against Israeli conduct during the Gaza incursion. And please, folks, I supported the incursion so don’t make assumptions about me on that one…:-)
David, you are a lawyer. If a judge denies a defendant’s summary judgment motion, does he believe the plaintiff’s case is a winner? No, he just believes there is a prima facie case and it needs a trial. If at the trial, the same judge tries the case, he may well find against that same plaintiff. I’ve seen it happen, and so have plenty of trial lawyers. That is what Goldstone was doing, and obviously too many of us couldn’t ever get past the political rhetoric surrounding the report.
April 3, 2011, 11:40 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Bigger issues include the clustermuck and its likely course; the cost to Israeli citizens, which seem likely to be severe; and the cost to the United States of America (including funds, military commitments and the warping of American policy).
April 4, 2011, 12:08 amArthur Kirkland says:
I might care for the Jews (at least, those currently residing in Israel) more than you do, if you are willing to watch them risk their lives in the service of your ideological, self-preservative or religious fantasy. With some of their “friends,” they scarcely need enemies.
April 4, 2011, 12:12 amdavod says:
While I don’t think the evidence points to Israel employing that damnably subjective and self-serving coined concept of “disproportionate force”
Proportionate force is that force required to neutralize the threat.
April 4, 2011, 12:35 amMitchell J. Freedman says:
David, the issue of “proportionate force” is precisely where we agree, and precisely why I supported the Gaza incursion. No nation on Earth would have accepted rockets flying into its space and against its citizens, even if most of them never hit a human soul. Certainly our nation would have hit hard against Mexico or Canada had one or both did what the Gazan radicals did from Gazan soil against Israel.
Still, on the other issues, had Israeli leaders cooperated with Goldstone’s inquiry, as Brad Burston at Ha’aretz has rightly said at the time of the report being released, and again this evening, there was a real chance Goldstone would have reached similar conclusions as he is reaching with further evidence today. And it could have had more salutary consequences in the halls of the U.N.
But as I am saying, the political rhetoric overwhelms any subtlety here, and Goldstone is himself caught in that cauldron.
April 4, 2011, 12:42 amSarcastro says:
This is why I kill any dog that barks at me.
April 4, 2011, 1:08 amByung Kyu Park says:
That is the sufficient force, not the necessary (i.e. “required”) one.
You can probably just taze it or something.
April 4, 2011, 1:12 amED Maven says:
What is this “proportionate force” jazz? Who uses it? Did we use it in WW II when we flattened Germany? Nuked Japan? Destroyed the Iraqi army?
The object of war is victory and suppression of an enemy’s war-making capability, not the gratuitous sacrifice of lives of one’s own tropps and civilians for . . .For what? So your enemies and their sympathizers can say you’re a nice guy? What a crock. In this case they never say it and never will no matter what feats of self-restraint Israel displays. Israel displayed self-restraint in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973. Also when it withdrew from Lebanon, when it allowed Arafat and the PLO to escape from Lebanon to Tunis, and when it withdrew from Gaza. What did it get in return?
April 4, 2011, 1:27 amSarcastrato says:
Like you I limit myself to biting the dog that is mauling my child!
April 4, 2011, 1:33 amSarcastro says:
Mercy, restraint and the respect of others are for weaklings who don’t know how to beat their way to peace and popularity! I mean, America nuked Japan once, so that proves it’s all good.
April 4, 2011, 1:38 amByung Kyu Park says:
Hey, we nuked Japan and it became a prosperous First World country. Only if we had nuked North Korea when we had the chance …
April 4, 2011, 1:41 amSarcastrato says:
Peace through inferior firepower always works. Also respect. Look at Gaza! Turning the other cheek since 2005!
April 4, 2011, 1:53 amDG says:
{Even their worst enemies don’t think Jews as a group are stupid.}
I bow to your expert knowledge.
—
In so far as Arthur Kirkland – the history of the Jews is replete with forced migration. The “solution” to any particular area’s “Jewish problem” is for them to decamp to some other, more hospitable clime – at least, for a while. Then, lather, rinse, repeat. The re-establishment of a Jewish homeland (yes, Arthur, this is a do-over, not a first run), is designed to break that pattern of oppression. There are no fairy tales necessary – just the right of a people to self-determination.
No ethnic cleansing. The right to self determination. These are inalienable rights for everyone but Jews, seemingly.
April 4, 2011, 3:29 amwalt kovacs says:
well, goldstone is now getting cover from at least one of his remaining friends, who is saying that he was constantly harrassed subsequent to the release of the report…and that he and his wife have become social pariahs in jewish circles
i can buy it…but its not a reason for him to retract
i mean, was he so naive to believe that he could publish a blood libel and there would be no reaction from the israeli and jewish communities?
thing is…he didnt really retract…he just restated his conclusions in a different way
it doesnt matter…retractions never do
what is imprinted on the world’s mind is that israel is a ruthless, woman and child killing country
April 4, 2011, 4:50 amwalt kovacs says:
would you care to note the israel/jew haters who noted that the initial report was not the end of the story?
the goldstone report has been used for the past two years to justify the bds movement, jvp and msu actions against visiting israeli dignitaries and demands for a war crimes tribunal
the pro israel crowd has a right to cheer
the report is a fraud
goldstone is a fraud
April 4, 2011, 4:54 amMDJD from NY says:
Yeah, you know better than they or their elected government what they need. And you’re free of ideology. You just write the truth, huh?
You love Jews, as long as they don’t do anything uniquely Jewish. Sort of like Queen Isabella and Torquemada.
April 4, 2011, 6:13 amprogressoverpeace says:
I think, additionally, that Goldstone took Israel’s refusal to participate in this “game” as a personal affront, rather than causing him, as he should have, to question the whole enterprise.
That sounds like a malignant heart, to me. Goldstone is about as low as humanity goes. It’s a shame that he will never receive the punishment he truly deserves.
April 4, 2011, 9:01 amBob from Ohio says:
“I suppose your comment about ‘taking the country in 3 weeks’ is a “Mission Accomplished’ moment?”
We were in Baghdad in 3 weeks. The fact that a civil war/insurgency then broke out doesn’t negate this accomplishment.
“And, we ‘put down the insurgency easily’?”
After the “Surge”,yes. As I said, after we committed the right resources and the right general.
April 4, 2011, 10:00 amAxel Edgren says:
YES! One previous example that was actually quite different and the right-wing PSYCHOPATH and bloodhungry MANIAC thinks he has THE ANSWER.
These people: they n-e-v-e-r deny themselves a supposed triumph of their sickening armchair theorizing.
Park, you represent the kind of man that uses his brain the way children use the increasingly ready-made and low-quality toys of today – to play pretend and dabble for only a moment, never reaching down and finding something less superficial. You seem an utter coquette.
April 4, 2011, 10:17 amSarcastro says:
Agh, I am unmanned by the answer! Because if you aren’t for wholesale slaughter, you’re basically for surrender.
[And Park, I don't think you're a coquette. You're like a muse for liberals.]
April 4, 2011, 10:35 amyankev says:
Is it lower than lying about why Cast Lead occurred? Hamas was not sending missiles into “settlements” in the disputed territories. It was sending them into towns within the 1949 armistice lines (sometimes mistakenly called the 1948 or pre-1967 borders) long after Israel forcibly removed every last Jew from Gaza at great economic and social cost, in the deluded hope that doing so would either bring peace closer or that the world would at least recognize Israel’s right to defend itself against attack from Gaza.
Sadly but predictably, neither aspiration panned out. No surprise given that Hamas and the PA both consider every square cm of Israel to be occupied territory and seek the expulsion or death of all Jews between the Mediterranean and the Jordan.
April 4, 2011, 10:41 amyankev says:
No, Arthur, we’ll know them by their opposition to some crackpot’s plan to pick them up and move them all to Texas.
April 4, 2011, 10:44 amyankev says:
You don’t get it. Axel, Pres. Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, both Presidents Bush, most of Europe, and the entire town of Kenilworth, Illnois agree with the Arabs on one basic issue: No Jew should be allowed to buy land, or live, in any place where the neighbors object to having Jews live among them. The moreso if the neighbors are willing to back up their objections with deadly force.
April 4, 2011, 10:49 amyankev says:
The report hadn’t happened yet but the stacking of the deck had, and so had the announcement of the conclusion by one of the judges.
April 4, 2011, 10:52 amNeo says:
Whay am I not surprised ?
April 4, 2011, 10:57 amyankev says:
What sovereign state would that be? Jordan never had legal title to the “West Bank” nor did Egypt to Gaza. Jordan’s annexation was never recognized by anyone except the UK and Jordan rescinded the annexation in the 1980s. The last legal authority there was the British mandate, which ended in 1948. Many of the ‘settlements’ are on land legally purchased by Jews from the record owners, or on land that had the status of government owned land under the Ottomans or Jordan. And Resolution 242 does not require the return of any land absent a comprehensive peace treaty with secure and mutually recognized borders, which, as you know, has not occurred. The principle here is not international law or sovereign states, for all the pretty words to the contrary. The principle is that Jews should know their place and not live where they are not wanted.
April 4, 2011, 10:58 amyankev says:
Yeah? Show me. He’s still a bum as far as I’m concerned, for waiting this long, for his issuing a flawed and lying report, and for agreeing to be part of a kangaroo court in the first place.
April 4, 2011, 11:00 amyankev says:
Okay, but can we speculate about his real name?
April 4, 2011, 11:06 amyankev says:
Sounds a lot like Herzl, except that WWII and the USSR had not yet occurred, and he based his support on pre-WWI anti-Semitism, massacres, expulsions and show trials (e.g. Dreyfuss).
April 4, 2011, 11:09 amyankev says:
It is also interesting that as Israel’s position vis a vis the rest of the world appears to weaken, anti-Semitic statements become more and more frequent and more and more acceptable even in respectable venues.
April 4, 2011, 11:13 amyankev says:
Go a step further — the proposal includes depriving them of police protection against the Klan, the Citizens Council, etc. and making it more difficult for them to defend their own lives against the attackers, because they were so selfish and unrealistic as to stay in the US.
April 4, 2011, 11:16 amKen Arromdee says:
The goal of stopping Middle East conflict.
Offering Jews citizenship elsewhere is only a meaningful step towards that goal if you plan to kill or kick out the ones who won’t voluntarily take the offer.
April 4, 2011, 11:20 amloki13 says:
One last time-
There are two separate issues with Mr. Kirkland’s proposal that I see- the first is whether it is evidence of anti-semitism, the second is whether it is workable.
I have discussed above why I believe it is not evidence of anti-semitism. Furthermore, it does nothing to advance the conversation or debate to hurl insults (such as anti-semitic) or loaded terms (such as ethnic cleansing) around when you can just look at his proposal.
First, there is no way that the majority of Israelis would accept it, so it’s a non-starter.
Second, it would put whatever percentage of Israelis who chose not to accept it in even more danger, so it’s a non-starter.
Third, I doubt that the United States would set aside a large tract of land for a huge influx of people. Even though they would be amazing citizens.
Fourth, you are asking people to give up everything they have built for… nothing. Starting over isn’t easy.
Fifth… are we talking statehood? What would be the language of, say, the court system? If not statehood, what political protections would they have compared to what they are giving up?
Sixth, what message are you sending out- if you are hostile enough for long enough, we’ll just uproot the people you’re angry with? What about not giving in to terrorists?
Seventh, considering that the Jews have a long history of being uprooted and re-settled, often to their great detriment (and this is an understatement), is this really a great idea?
I have a bunch more, but most importantly-
West Texas? Really? I’ve driven through West Texas, and I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemies. I thought this was a reward, not a punishment.
Stupid (IMO)? Yes. Bigoted? No.
April 4, 2011, 12:04 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Sovereignty over the West Bank resides in The People of the West Bank in the exact same sense that sovereignty over France resides in the French and sovereignty over Australia resides in Australians.
If the Palestinians do not have the right to government by consent then I cannot imagine why Israelis, Germans or Egyptians do.
April 4, 2011, 12:25 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Statehood? Anything less than sovereignty is a non-starter anyway (for the million reasons that AK’s plan is a nonstarter, although I agree it’s not necessarily bigoted just incredibly idiotic).
April 4, 2011, 12:27 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Even if the deck was stacked, you cannot use the result as a justification for an act that may have changed the result. If non-cooperation was justified, it would have be justified solely based on evidence that was not (directly or indirectly, in whole or in part) the result of non-cooperation.
This is pretty basic logic — if X effects Y, you cannot use Y to justify choosing X. X might be correct on independent grounds (certainly this is not evidence of ~X) but Y is of zero probative value.
April 4, 2011, 12:30 pmByung Kyu Park says:
Huh. And I thought I had hard time telling sarcasm …
April 4, 2011, 12:41 pmSarcastrato says:
Not to mention that Gaza was slaughtered wholesale! Because the gratuitous non-sacrifice of Israeli troops is equivalent to operating an abattoir!
April 4, 2011, 12:43 pmSarcastrato says:
Don’t mince words. Tell the fascist what you really think.
April 4, 2011, 12:49 pmArthur Kirkland says:
The Jewish participants in this conflict have understandable claims, aspirations and grievances. So do the other participants. Neither side has a monopoly on justification or truth, and neither side appears to be capable, over the long term, of enforcing its position (particularly without a remarkable degree of help from others) in a manner that creates a stable situation. This probably derives from weakness in the original foundation of the current arrangement as much as from anything that occurred later, or any culpability among the participants.
One side has the upper hand today. I believe the likelihood that the worm will not turn is remote. People who see things differently appear to be relying on faith (in the sense of ‘something I really, really want to see’) rather than reason, and to dangerous degree.
From several perspectives, it seems worthwhile to explore opportunities to avoid misery that could accompany a change in circumstance. From an American perspective, beyond the humanitarian considerations, it seems reasonable to consider the various costs associated with striving to maintain Israel’s current condition, as well as the prospect that American public support of Israel might wane over time, for various reasons. Wanting to lessen the harmful consequences of such a change, whatever its precipitate, seems appropriate in a circumstance in which Americans have created a reliance interest.
Until someone identifies a realistic path toward a stable situation, I will probably continue to wonder about ways to improve the situation or at least lessen the harmful consequences of severe, unpredictable, chronic conflict.
April 4, 2011, 12:55 pmSarcastro says:
Some might think I was mocking some of our more bloodthirsty commenters like ED Maven, DB, and SG in my discussions of proportionate response. But it is true, the fact that I quoted them in my very comments is only a smoke screen – I was really talking to Israel.
My plan to say one thing and think another has been foiled again!
April 4, 2011, 12:57 pmArthur Kirkland says:
I would expect west Texas to thrive in ways we haven’t seen (and are unlikely to see without the emigration). It is understandable, hwoever, that this point evokes a great line from Beano Cook, who, upon learning that some released hostages would be rewarded with lifetime baseball passes, asked: “Haven’t they suffered enough already?”
West Texas (or West Virginia, or any other spot of U.S. soil) would be safe, a prominent point in my analysis.
Does my plan continue to be idiotic if one fears that Israel will find it difficult to navigate its massive risk factors successfully for another half-century? Many of the factors that have been expressed as reasons to disparage my plan — self-determination, attachment to homeland, historical points and others — would become intensifiers of tragedy if Israel were to lose its upper-hand grip on a delicate situation.
April 4, 2011, 1:09 pmYou’ve Got a Lot of Feathers To Pick Up, Rich « The Return of Benjamin says:
[...] Richard Goldstone: Chief Kangaroo (volokh.com) [...]
April 4, 2011, 1:27 pmDG says:
{c. schultz: Can’t one not be a Zionist on grounds of its sense of religious and tribal exception and still support the establishment and security of the State of Israel on account of the historical prejudice, abuse, expulsions and genocide committed against Jews, culminating in 20th c. Germany and USSR pogroms and mass slaughter?}
There have always been plenty of secular – even anti-religious – zionists. I don’t even know where to start for a cite – there are so MANY references to this, in almost all serious histories of the zionist movement.
As far as “tribalism” – there, you have stepped over the line. There is an idea, especially on the left, that denying the peoplehood of the Jews, that denying a Jewish ethnicity, and only focusing on religion – a rather bankrupt concept for leftists – is the way to mentally handle the “Jewish Question”. Any claim to peoplehood is derided as “tribalism”, the ultimate sin against the multi-cultural state. Of course, no one calls Germans “tribal”, and certainly not the Japanese or Koreans. What of Persians or Kurds or Armenians?
This is exactly my issue with people like Mr. Schultz – what is acceptable for other groups is condemned in the Jews. We even invent new ethnicities – “latino” or “hispanic”, but never allow that the Jews may be a People. (as to why “latino” is not an ethnicity – ask your “latino” friends)
April 4, 2011, 1:55 pmDG says:
As far as West Virginia and west Texas – I have been to both of these garden spots, and that’s another reason why I am deeply skeptical of Kirkland’s intentions. When an area makes the Pale of Settlement look like high priced real estate, you know you’ve ended up in a nasty situation.
In anyone else, I would assume the suggestions of west Texas and West Virginia would be tongue in cheek – I mean, where ELSE would you dump the people who create Intel microprocessors, cutting edge pharmaceuticals, and advanced medical devices, not to mention more high tech startups than anywhere in the world? However, the idea of dumping Jews somewhere economically blighted in the hopes that they would clean up the neighborhood is not a new one.
April 4, 2011, 1:59 pmSarcastrato says:
Some might think that ED Maven was talking about Israel, in a thread about Israel, in a comment several times mentioning Israel, when he speaks of the “gratuitous sacrifice of . . . troops” in the same paragraph that he mentions Israel. But he wasn’t! Right-wing maniacs like ED Maven are truly the masters of the bait and switch!
April 4, 2011, 2:24 pmArthur Kirkland says:
West Virginia is well-located from several perspectives, and possesses a number of attractive physical attributes (water, topography, natural recreational opportunities and beauty). It strikes me as underdeveloped rather than naturally desolate. If Pittsburgh — which has been leaking population for several decades, and is running on some handsome fumes — seems preferable, I would not argue with moving the focus 60 miles to the north.
I also would not mind seeing a convincing, reasoned argument indicating that Israel is likely to continue to roll sevens (and maintain the uninterrupted support of the United States) throughout the lifetime of today’s youngest inhabitants of our planet. A rational, reliable path toward a stable situation would reduce the value of contingency plans or safety valves.
April 4, 2011, 2:33 pmSarcastro says:
[Me: You know, saying that total war is the only way to fight is a bit silly.
SarCastrato: You must want Israel to surrender!
Me: There are more than 2 choices - one can be against barbarism yet not for capitulation
Sarcastrato: But Israel isn't barbarous!
Me: Sure, but these commenters seem to be advocating that they go all total war:
Sarcastrato: But those people were talking about Israel, so you must be mocking Israel and not them!
What is this, an object lesson in logical fallacies?]
April 4, 2011, 2:38 pmyankev says:
Arthur has stated that the language would be English, that US law would apply, and that he finds the idea of a Jewish state unnecessary and superstitious at best. As to the rest of your post I agree. There is no reason to insult Arthur by saying that he’s anti-Semitic just because he is willing to deny Jews the right to a self-governing ethnic state, misrepresents the relationship between that state and the US, and is willing to shrug off the slaughter of those Jews who do not give up everything they have and accept his brilliant offer. It may be delusional, impractical, downright dangerous and a precursor to genocide by the Arabs, but that does not make it anti-Semitic instead of patently and contemptibly ridiculous.
April 4, 2011, 2:39 pmByung Kyu Park says:
But I thought you guys were both talking in sarcasm when not in square brackets. If you don’t exaggerate and make everything either-or proposition, it’s not sarcasm.
April 4, 2011, 2:41 pmyankev says:
Fine. Then there is no reason to exclude from that group those Jews who live in “the West Bank”, unless you are willing to countenance the acquisiton of land by war. And if you are willing to reward the Arabs for their war of offense, why is the same right not extended to the Jews for recapturing the territory when they won their war of defense? Other than the Bensky corrollary, of course.
April 4, 2011, 2:42 pmuh oh says:
LOL.
April 4, 2011, 2:56 pmHarry Eagar says:
Loki, proposing to make parts of the world judenrein is in itself evidence of antisemitism, or jew-hatred.
Proposing to put Jews on ghettos, ditto.
April 4, 2011, 2:56 pmdavod says:
You don’t get it. Israel has been accepting these conditions
April 4, 2011, 4:13 pmloki13 says:
Huh. So if I ask a friend who lives in a bad neighborhood to come move in with me, that is per se evidence that I don’t like him, and have friend-hatred?
Now, it might be something else if my suggestion to his problem was that he should die or something and stop texting me already… but I don’t think that was the proposal.
April 4, 2011, 4:14 pmloki13 says:
PS- My house is not a ghetto! West Texas, on the other hand… I’ll never have that time on I-10 back. :(
April 4, 2011, 4:15 pmArthur Kirkland says:
If a Jewish state is necessary, and if there is a reasonable prospect that such a state can not be maintained in the current location and condition, what is the next step? And when (and how) should it be taken?
Regarding the U.S.-Israel relationship, how has it been misstated? Does Israel receive and require extraordinary support from the United States? Is it inconceivable that the United States might reconsider the relationship, particularly if the needed support becomes greater, the issue becomes infused by partisan politics, or an unexpected factor develops?
Just as many supporters of Israel, focused on Israel’s claims and grievances, appear to deny any flaws in the foundation on which the current situation was established, many opponents of Israel seem unlikely to ignore the countervailing claims and grievances.
Without a novel approach, the destiny of the region appears to involve hideously expensive instability punctuated by a series of wars and lesser violence, with suffering all around and a likelihood that Israel will, at some point, lose the upper hand. Does anyone see a realistic, sustainable, affordable, just resolution?
April 4, 2011, 4:15 pmSarcastrato says:
Turns out, that’s not true. Sarcasm is an argument, to which the rules of propositional logic apply!
ED Maven was totally only for barbarism. There is no other possibility, such as forcefully waging war short of barbarism: the non-sacrifice of one’s troops can only entail total war! ED Maven, logic is on my side.
April 4, 2011, 4:28 pmArthur Kirkland says:
How much must one hate Jewish children, I wonder, to be prepared to
April 4, 2011, 4:41 pmdiesee those children die in service to one’s devotion to an imperfect ideological and practical position?neurodoc says:
Orin Kerr says otherwise, and neurodoc agrees with him on that, not with the several devotees of sarcasm who post here. http://volokh.com/posts/1165813933.shtml
It may be a reflection of his limited intellectual horsepower and/or simple his unwillingness to make the effort given the low likelihood of any gain, but when neurodoc bothers to read posts by the sarcasm devotees, he often doesn’t even know what point(s) they are trying to make. neurodoc suspects that he is not alone in regarding most of those attempts at argument by means of sarcasm as something akin to static on the line.
April 4, 2011, 4:55 pmKen Arromdee says:
If you do so as a neighborhood improvement plan it might be.
Even then, your friend is one person. There is a chance that 100% of him will move–the plan could succeed. If you’re asking millions of people there’s no chance that 100% of them will move, and the plan only succeeds if you ethnically cleanse the rest.
April 4, 2011, 5:01 pmChrisTS says:
I had a student from West TX who did not like Houston – because she found it “too lush.”
Thanks for your continuing calm and sensible posts.
April 4, 2011, 5:04 pmleo marvin says:
Reminds me of a very old, very bad joke:
Priest (“P”) is quizzing aspiring convert (“C”) on Biblical history.
P: “Where was Jesus born?”
April 4, 2011, 5:05 pmC: “Pittsburgh?”
P: “No”
C: “Monongahela?”
P: “No. Jesus was born in Bethlehem.”
C: “Damn. I knew it was someplace in Pennsylvania.”
Asher says:
I wonder if Arthur Kirkland has equal dis dain for all fairy tales, including those asserting thbat goverment cn pass laws significantly lowering the cost of healthcare while increasing its quantity and quality.
April 4, 2011, 5:38 pmyankev says:
Unfortunately you’re right, including Netanyahu. But it’s time to stop. Netanyahu has from time to time taken timid steps toward stopping (there’s a mixed metaphonr) but has stil been too willing to accept the idea that the nations of the world can tell Jews where they can live and where they can’t.
April 4, 2011, 5:58 pmneurodoc says:
And loki13 has told us before what he requires before he will agree that there is “antisemitism,” saying, “I will call out evil in two instances – holocaust denial and Yankees fans.” Now, because he threw in “Yankees fans” there, it might be thought he didn’t mean to be taken seriously about any of it. (Another poster had suggested that there were a number of “politically and/or socially charged categor[ies], including “Red Sox fan.”) But then there was more context to what loki13 said, which should be taken into account, including that loki13 made a point of the fact that he had not called out evil in the course of any threads except when it was in response to a Holocaust denier, and more tellingly, loki13 also said:
Now LL had broken into a conversation about the BBC’s objectivity (lack thereof), which touched on health care elsewhere, with some unprovoked, inexplicable riff about tax-cheating Jewish physicians and corrupt rabbis. The very temperate Leo Marvin, who had always been very deferential to Litgator London, the VC’s resident apologist for all things Islamic, told LL that his antisemitic remarks had given offense. LL told Leo that he regretted hurting anyone’s feelings, but something to the effect that “facts are facts,” and he wasn’t recanting anything. That was good enough for loki13 to clear LL of any charge of antisemitism “absent other evidence” that he loki13 would accept as probative. (We could get into “other evidence,” but it isn’t immediately relevant here.)
loki13 clearly didn’t like what neurodoc to say in response to the advice loki13 urged upon him in the course of that thread, which may explain lok13‘s charge above that neurodoc harbors “simmering resentments over past comments made by other commenters (who are not even participating on this thread).” [neurodoc denies "simmering resentment" for apologists for all things Islamic when they go to far with it, since he makes very clear what he thinks of the unspeakable when it is not in pursuit of the uneatable.]
April 4, 2011, 6:06 pmTed says:
Reading these comments makes me wonder if I have to choose being a pro-semite or anti-semite. That is, must I append comments about Israel or Jews with language such as this:
If I don’t, am I bigoted Jew-hater?
Arthur,
As I understand your opponents, they would like you to explain how you West Texas exodus would affect those Israelis that don’t partake if your offer. I think the fear is that the remaining people would be less able to defend themselves against violence direct at them by their neighbors. Answer?
P.S.: I agree with loki13, that relocation is a non-starter.
April 4, 2011, 6:07 pmDilan Esper says:
Your point is valid, but you compromise your credibility when you refuse to acknowledge Israel’s occupation of the territories and place the term “settlements” (itself a euphamism invented by Israel because they didn’t want to call them “colonies” for obvious reasons) in scare quotes.
You need to acknowledge at least minimal Israeli responsibility for where we are now.
April 4, 2011, 6:11 pmneurodoc says:
Maybe if you work your timing and on the delivery. (Please don’t come back to tell us why it was that Jesus didn’t get admitted to college, lest fisticuffs break out.)
April 4, 2011, 6:14 pmNow MDJD says:
There are Jews on the West Bank as well as Arabs. Does the Arab majority have the right to kick out the Jewish minority?
April 4, 2011, 6:29 pmneurodoc says:
Oh, and Leo, don’t come back either with the one about knowing Jesus was Jewish because he lived at home with his parents into adulthood, he went into his father’s line of work, and his mother thought he was G-d.
April 4, 2011, 6:33 pmNow MDJD says:
I’m not sure why I’m even giving this idea sufficient credence to analyze it, but…
West Texas would have to support about 6,000,000 Jews if all Israelis were moved/emigrated/deported there. It is desert. It does not have the water to support this. Any new nation there would be utterly dependent on the US for water, and would therefore, de facto, have no independence.
Furthermore, this entity would be adjacent to the narcokingdom in northern Mexico, and would have a battle on its hands from the get-go.
If you want to be so generous to Israeli Jews, why not someplace habitable, with water and energy, like the Dakotas? (I’m not advocating this, of course)
Your plan sounds a lot like what the US did to the Cherokees.
April 4, 2011, 6:38 pmNow MDJD says:
Oh yes– what happens to the people who are in West Texas now? Do they agree to take in all the newcomers?
April 4, 2011, 6:44 pmTed says:
There are 450 million people in the U.S. There is not enough oil in the U.S. to supply energy for that many people. The U.S. is utterly dependent on foreign sources of oil. Therefore, it is, de facto, not an independent state. The only question is whether we are subjects of the Queen or of the Sheiks, right?
April 4, 2011, 6:44 pmloki13 says:
neurodoc,
Funny you should bring that up! My point about evil wasn’t about anti-semitism… what I wrote was:
3. I have engaged in a few personal vendettas against other internet commenters over the years. One (1) made me feel good. That person was a holocaust denier who was completely lying about the law and misquoting facts. The ones I didn’t feel good about were just evil, annoying, or wrong. So my rule of thumb is that if the person doesn’t rise to the level of repeatedly and maliciously lying about the murder of millions of people, it’s best to let it go.
Since my only comment directed to you was that I found it instructive that you brought back a personal grievance against another commenter who wasn’t even posting on this thread (as I wrote- “It is the same debate about the Israelis and Palestinians, on a smaller and more personal scale. . . .”) I happened to find it enlightening.
Keep fighting your fight! I’m sure that any day now, you’ll get the vindication you’re looking for. I’ve heard that’s how the internet works. I’ll go back to hating on the Yankees.
April 4, 2011, 6:52 pmneurodoc says:
On what is/isn’t antisemitic, this by Alan Dershowitz in last Tuesday’s WSJ:
Then there was a letter-to-the-editor in reply by Professor Trond Adresen (can’t find it online for whatever reason) protesting that Dershowitz had taken his words out of context and portrayed him unfavorably. In defense of himself, Adresen observed that he had said nothing that Jews like Israel Shahak and Gil Atzmon had not said, and thus he couldn’t be accused of antisemitism.
Must we assume Professor Adresen’s “good faith” belief that if he can cite Jews like Israel Shahak and Gil Atzomon, who are oft cited by unabashed antisemites for support and to give themselves “cover,” and conclude he is no antisemite? Afterall, the man is a university professor, not some uneducated yahoo. neurodoc doesn’t think so, because unlike loki13, neurodoc doesn’t require proof of mens rea and employ a beyond-a- reasonable-shadow-of-doubt standard in these matters.
April 4, 2011, 7:03 pmArthur Kirkland says:
People who desire unfettered discretion concerning where they live should be prepared to pay their own rent.
April 4, 2011, 7:17 pmneurodoc says:
How about the mens rea part, did we get that wrong? And does “antisemitism” not count as “evil” in your book?
April 4, 2011, 7:46 pmloki13 says:
No, we didn’t. You did.
A teacher discussing Huckleberry Finn, who engages the class about the use of the “n” word is not being racist. Intent matters. A five year old child who happens upon an account of holocaust and can’t believe people would do that might technically be “holocaust denying”, but intent matters. If you jump on everyone by labeling the person as a bigot regardless of what their intent was, telling them to shut up because DAS RACIST you end up with people talking about nothing.
I know- it’s kind of a conservative position to take. So be it.
(Note that certain statements can be evidence of bigotry, anti-semitism, and the like. One can certainly draw inferences. Some people are just *really* quick to draw those inferences.)
April 4, 2011, 7:58 pmTed says:
I understand that stereotyping Jews in a derogatory way qualifies. I don’t necessarily agree that disagreeing with Israeli Jews on Israeli entitlement to land qualifies, unless it is based on a derogatory stereotype of why Jews do not deserve the land.
Like loki13, I don’t see how Arthur was invoking a negative stereotype about Jews. He seems to focused on all Israelis, and the only hint of disregard for them is what would happen to those who do not accept the invitation. Even then, he certainly has not condoned or advocated for such an result.
If an asteroid is heading toward earth, and Star Fleet offered evacuation services, does Star Fleet show disdain for those who refuse and stay behind? That’s a strange conclusion to arrive at.
April 4, 2011, 8:01 pmloki13 says:
Anyway, I’m really done now. Unlike the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, or whatever neurodoc’s current war is, I’m going to let this one go. So neurodoc- you win. Whatever it is you think you’re winning. You can have the prize. No hard feelings.
Seriously- with the Red Sox current performance, I have a lot of hate I need to unleash on the Yankees. I just don’t have the time for festivus and an airing of grievances. :)
April 4, 2011, 8:02 pmArthur Kirkland says:
I believe it is likely that they would encounter the same circumstances they could expect to encounter if no Israeli citizen accepted an offer of United States citizenship. The timetable would likely differ, to their detriment, or perhaps they could continue to win the probability (or improbability) lottery without fail, or perhaps a stable resolution could be arranged. The greatest likelihood would seem to be diminution of aggregate harm (and a more equitable apportionment of that harm), consequent to provision of a choice, all in a bad, regrettable situation.
I would like to hear an explanation of how the situation improves, and resolves in a manner favorable to Israeli citizens (and, if possible, those who help Israel maintain its current situation) in the long term. Is the current trajectory sustainable, or is there reason to expect a change for the better?
April 4, 2011, 8:26 pmOrenWithAnE says:
If it were even imaginable that the Jews in the West Bank would agree to live in a sovereign Palestinian State, as opposed to moving back into Israeli territory, this would be a reasonable point.
Let’s just say I have serious doubts. Just the same as the majority of Jews in Israel will not surrender their sovereignty to Arthur’s cockamamie scheme.
April 4, 2011, 8:59 pmMDJD from NY says:
Slight difference: there are many places to go for oil. And water is a bit more basic.There is no substitute. Coal and nuclear power won’t assuage thirst.
April 4, 2011, 9:24 pmneurodoc says:
Ted: I understand that stereotyping Jews in a derogatory way qualifies.
Professor Adresen, who was among those who tried to keep Dershowitz from speaking, wrote:
Do you think we can fairly call him an “antisemite”? In his letter to the WSJ today (again, sorry I can’t find it online), Adresen justified what he had written by saying he criticized Muslims too when they deserved to be criticized, and besides he was saying nothing that Jews like Israel Shahak and Gil Atzmon (two favorites of undeniable antisemites) haven’t said. Since he seems to believe that what he has written/said is justified, and no doubt would vehemently deny being a Jew-hater, does he lack the mens rea required for a criminal conviction that
loki13 requires before pronouncing someone an antisemite? If we took it still further, would a Syrian citizen convinced by high-level representatives of their government that Jews really did drink the blood of others count as antisemites because they believed the blood libel to be true? http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/syrian-rep-promotes-blood-libel-un-human-rights-council
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/06/syrian-blood-libel-revival-at-human-rights-council-a-follow-up-to-the-1991-damascus-affair-blood-lib.html
Not sure what to make of the hedging (“don’t necessarily agree…unless”), but some do see derogatory stereotypes in narratives that represent Israelis as in effect thiefs, with no legitimate claim to any land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, ruthlessly oppressing non-Jews as an expression of racist supremacism.
Arthur may be seen as simply whacked and no more, unless the more is his insistence on making clear his disdain for religion. neurodoc stepped in when DG was told it was wrong and obnoxious of him to suggest that Arthur was tainted by bigotry, saying that in defense of DG that he (neurodoc) had a colorable case against Arthur and his advocacy of ethnically cleansing (yes!) all Jews from the Middle East (note, it the rest of the Middle East was rendered effectively judenfrei previously by the Arabs; but neurodoc hasn’t argued that whacko Arthur with that crazy movie he can’t get out of his head qualifies as an antisemite.
April 4, 2011, 9:43 pmneurodoc says:
True as to the teacher and the 5-year-old, also wildly inapt here.
And you’re free to adopt that position as your own.
And some people are just *really* reluctant to draw those inferences though the evidence is there, insisting upon nigh unto impossible burdens of proof before agreeing to them.
April 4, 2011, 9:51 pmByung Kyu Park says:
To some approximation you are right.
But suppose energy was abundant enough and water was scarce enough. Then you can use coal and nuclear power (well, or at least something that doesn’t need water as part of power generation) to “make” water: Build a refrigerator somewhere, and condense water out of moisture in air (or if the air is too dry, there might be some endothermic chemical processes one can use to make water).
The only problem is efficiency, to a lesser degree, it’s the same problem when you want to substitute coal for oil (e.g. for combustion engine fuel; there are processes to convert coal to liquid hydrocarbon, but that takes energy and time).
BTW, there was this study that said if you count all sources of energy (like coal), U.S. is the most resource-rich nation, with proven reserves alone.
April 4, 2011, 11:47 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Lots of Jewish Israelis emigrate to the US. One American might be in favor of making this easier, and some other American might be in favor of making this harder.
If all I know about two people is their position on that question, and I am asked to guess which one is more likely to be an anti-Semite, I think it’s obvious that the logical answer is the latter.
Kirkland’s proposal is close to the former, and contrary to the latter, but he’s being accused (either explicitly or by insinuation) of being an anti-Semite. Pretty ironic.
And this dynamic is not new. There is a long history of Zionists expressing opposition to the idea that countries other than Israel should admit Jews:
http://www.frumteens.com/topic.php?topic_id=8064&forum_id=45&topic_title=Rabbi+Avigdor+Miller+ZTL+on+This+Topic&forum_title=&M=0&S=1
Those examples are from a book by Avigdor Miller, a good example of a prominent rabbi who was anti-Zionist.
The logic behind those events is similar to the logic that motivates many of the criticisms here of Kirkland.
kirkland:
Indeed. I think the people mocking your idea are obliged to come up with a better idea. I don’t hear that. I hear either no idea at all, or I hear a suggestion that Israel use more force. Which brings us to this:
SChaser:
According to Krauthammer, Iraq is a “functioning democracy.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/261278/baghdad-benghazi-charles-krauthammer
But let’s put that minor issue aside for now.
Compare SChaser’s statement to this, from another supporter of Israel (ED Maven):
What did it get in return? It got the right to say, with credibility, the kind of claim we just heard: that it has “concern about human rights.” So when you say “what a crock,” you are claiming that being able to make that claim has no strategic value for Israel. But if that was true, people like SChaser wouldn’t bother making the claim.
The essential problem has been nicely summarized here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_threat#Posed_by_the_Arab_citizens_of_Israel
So via SChaser, we are reminded that Israel argues for international support (especially from the US) by pointing out that it’s a democracy and shows concern for human rights. Meanwhile, via ED Maven we are reminded that there is a school of thought which says that Israel should use more force and care less about international approval and human rights. Trouble is, if Israel follows ED Maven’s advice, SChaser’s argument for why we should support Israel tends to become inoperative. And the natural demographic course is also going to tend to undermine SChaser’s argument that Israel is a democracy. These dynamics lead to a situation where “the state will face an unprecedented level of international isolation, including sanctions, that might prove fatal.”
This is a complicated problem, and there aren’t a lot of good reasons to predict a happy ending. The people who glibly mock Kirkland’s suggestion should tell us what they think is a better idea. And yelling that ‘everything would be fine if everyone would realize that the blame lies entirely with the people I don’t like’ isn’t a solution.
April 5, 2011, 1:28 amHarry Eagar says:
Demanding that Jews commit suicide is not as novel as you thing, Arthur. Gandhi already had that idea.
As for Oren’s ungrounded speculations about Jews living in a Palestinian-governed West Bank, we already know that’s a non-starter, since the PA has said it will cleanse (by murder, if history is any guide) the West Bank of Jews.
If people are to leave the West Bank because of who their grandparents were, I say move the Arabs. Problem is, no state will have them, because while not everybody hate Jews, nobody can stand the Palestinians.
April 5, 2011, 2:13 amRicardo says:
That’s painting with a rather broad brush. There is a certain amount of American innocence at work, especially if you are dealing with people under the age of 35 or so. Since I am part of that generation, I can say that there really was very little thought among the people I was growing up with that Judaism was an ethnicity — that would have been like telling us that Methodism or Mormonism is an ethnicity. Certainly, “Jewish” is not one of the check-boxes available on various forms or surveys asking for ethnicity — Americans just don’t think of it that way anymore.
I’m sure people who were born before the civil rights movement — when discrimination against Jews really was institutionalized and pervasive — would find this fanciful but American society really has changed dramatically. Much of the rest of the world where Jews live — especially, Russia and the Muslim world — is not like that and Americans would do well to keep that in mind.
Still, you attributing bad faith where ignorance and a certain degree of innocence play a role.
Sure they do. Again, many Americans tend to not know much about other countries but I can name several people I know who’ve lived in these countries and described them as just that.
April 5, 2011, 8:21 amArthur Kirkland says:
Which of us is demanding that Jews commit suicide? That might depend on whether one believes Israel can continue to sustain the status quo (or better) forever.
If adults wish to devote their lives to the cause of Israel, that is one thing. If adults wish to devote others’ lives to that cause, that is something else. It is a severe flaw of reasoning or character, however, in my judgment, that tolerates or promotes placing a child in that position.
April 5, 2011, 9:27 amArthur Kirkland says:
Anyone who wishes to support Israel and has a single functioning synapse remaining should stop aligning American right-wing politics with Israel in general and Israel’s right-wing politics in particular. They should also attempt to muzzle the brain-dead wingnuts.
April 5, 2011, 9:35 amneurodoc says:
It is not clear to me whether you are allowing or denying, in whole or in part, DG‘s point. When, for example, you say he is “painting with a rather broad brush,” are you or are you not acknowledging that “(t)here is an idea, especially on the left, that denying the peoplehood of the Jews, that denying a Jewish ethnicity, and only focusing on religion — a rather bankrupt concept for leftists — is the way to mentally handle the ‘Jewish Question’.? If acknowledging, then are you only countering as to how many would or would not deny the peoplehood of Jews or a Jewish ethnicity, or are you taking issue with him on such an approach to the “Jewish Question” being a one more identifiable with the left than the right?
When you speak of “American innocence,” do you mean true “innocence” as in guilt-free, or “ignorance,” or “naivete,” or what? Do those “various forms or surveys asking for ethnicity” you allude to have check-boxes for “Polish” or “Polish-American;” “Irish” or “Irish-American;” “Indian” (Southeast Asia) or “Indian-American;” etc.? If they don’t, then the implication is what, that those and a huge number of other possibilities don’t amount to “ethnic” groups; that most Americans don’t see them as ethnic groups in their midst; that those responsible for the forms/surveys weren’t trying to collect data on them, leaving it for respondents to count themselves “Caucasian,” “African-American,” “Hispanic” or “other”? The FBI compiles statistics on “hate crimes” and for those purposes Jews are an important grouping, so does that mean that the FBI (and the perpetrators of those crimes, and the much larger universe of antisemites) recognize Jews as an “ethnic group”?
DG is wrong because you “can name several people (you) know who’ve lived in these countries and described them as just that.”?! If that is what you are saying, then you are reading his “no one” so literally that your thinking can be fairly labeled “concrete.” (And would those you know who have lived in Japan and Korea, or in Germany, and see Germans, Japanese and Koreans as “tribal,” do they recognize a “peoplehood” there? Would they accept the Jews’ claim of “peoplehood”?)
You do or do not believe there is a determined effort, most notably by the left, to delegitimate Israel? Do you think denial or disparagement of the concept of “peoplehood” when it comes to Jews dovetails with such an effort?
Finally, Ricardo, do you see what Professor Adresen of Trondheim, Norway, who tried to ensure that Alan Dershowitz not be allowed to speak at universities there, wrote as antisemitic?
April 5, 2011, 9:41 amyankev says:
I notice you omit the crucial part about what he thought his father and mother were.
April 5, 2011, 9:49 amneurodoc says:
Because that’s the way the Grey Lady in its majesty operates, especially where Israel is concerned? And ought it not be noted that when asked about it, the NYTimes’ comment is “no comment.” (Actually, what the Times said is that they don’t discuss editorial decisions. Affirmation that they did indeed refuse to publish it?)
April 5, 2011, 9:54 amyankev says:
If so many leaders and supporters of Democratic party had not shown a willingness to throw Israel to the wolves and an insistence that Israel commit suicide to gain the world’s approval, and in some cases downright anti-Semitic positions (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the nut who blamed her failure to be reelected to the Congress on “the Jews”), there would not be so many supporters of Israel aligned with the Republicans. Paradoxically, these characteristics were more associated with the Republican party a few decades ago.
In short, it is the Democratic party, and not the supporters of Israel, who have turned this into a partisan issue. Wasn’t this issue discussed at great length in another thread some months ago?
April 5, 2011, 10:02 amneurodoc says:
DG: There is an idea, especially on the left, that denying the peoplehood of the Jews, that denying a Jewish ethnicity, and only focusing on religion — a rather bankrupt concept for leftists — is the way to mentally handle the “Jewish Question”.
Did you mean that as a response to DG on the subject of denying the “peoplehood” of Jews? If you did, can you please explain, because it is not clear how it relates. And do you think DG‘s comment shows him to be a “brain-dead wingnut,” or did you have others in mind with that epithet, perhaps yours truly?
April 5, 2011, 10:07 amyankev says:
I took it to mean naivete, epsecially in the context of his discussion about the decrease of anti-Semitism since the beginning of the civil rights era. And we’ve all met Americans — including American Jews — who are adamant that being Jewish is simply a matter of religion. This was a basic tenet of the original reform movement in Germany (we saw how well that worked) that made its way to the US, where it was embodied in the Reform movement’s Pittsburgh Platform. Ironically, that position contradicts a basic tenet of traditional Judaism, and is held by many who find even serious Reform Jews to be religious fanatics, but the holdrs of that position, depsite thier rejection of Jewish religious beliefs and practice, would be (rightly) incensed by any suggestion that they themselves are not Jewish.
April 5, 2011, 10:08 amArthur Kirkland says:
Was that comment directed toward you?
April 5, 2011, 10:13 amyankev says:
Yesterday I challenged amnis to give an example. The pro-Israel blogs and columnists I have seen have all condemned Goldstone for having gone along with the charade in the first place, for accepting Hamas claims at face value, for falsely positing a moral equivalence, and for his self-serving protestations of his own lack of responsibility for what happened and of his supposed inability to predict that the report would be libelous and harmful.
Amnis has given no examples to the contrary and has not returned since his initial post. As they say in aviation law, Tango Romeo Oscar Lima Lima.
April 5, 2011, 10:15 amneurodoc says:
Whether you are serving up accolades or epithets, it would be helpful if you would make clear to whom exactly you are directing yourself.
April 5, 2011, 10:22 amyankev says:
Ah, I misunderstood. You are correct — I have more than a single functioning synapse remaining, so I am not included in your generalization.
Having only a single synapse would explain why anyone who wants Israel to survive would make common cause with the likes of Barack Obama, J Street, Jeremy Ben Ami, George Soros (but I repeat myself), Samantha Powers, Susan Rice, or put the slightest trust in the woman who listened to Suha Arafat’s (yemach sh’ma) slanderous charges of nerve gas and responded by kissing her, and whose husband invited Yasser Arafat (yemach sho) to visit the White House more frequently than any other visitor.
April 5, 2011, 10:28 amOrenWithAnE says:
I would gladly take any odds on the Israeli State that have it submit to American authority. So there’s a really simple one that’s manifestly better.
This is like Arthur telling the colonists in 1775 to just accept George’s terms because if they don’t there is a chance there will be a nasty war. War is not pretty, but it is better than some instances of peace.
Reading comprehension is key Harry, I said that it was unimaginable.
April 5, 2011, 10:36 amRicardo says:
I’m not sure how I could be clearer in my original statement — but I’ll give it a shot anyway. There is a section of America’s population — I would say non-evangelical gentiles under the age of 35 (easily a majority of people in that age bracket) — who really just don’t think of the adjective “Jewish” as identifying an ethnic or national group.
There are lots of reasons for this but I see virtually no evidence that any of them are nefarious. On the contrary, they are directly linked to the decline of anti-semitism in American society and also to the Christian idea of religion as being defined by faith and prayer (rather than seeing it as a way of life and a community). Talk to some people in this age bracket and you will see what I mean — you will very frequently get the question, “So wait, how come you are Jewish just because your mother was Jewish even if you are atheist? I thought Judaism was a religion.”
Not at all. One could make lots of statements in similar form to the one DG made: “Of course, no one calls Basques tribal. Of course, no one calls gypsies tribal. Of course no one calls the Bangsamoro tribal.” Etc. Now, one possible explanation for why “no one” says these things is that the issue comes up in conversation so little and that relatively few people think to venture an opinion on the subject.
My point was that in the subset of informed opinion — those that follow international affairs and/or visit or live in other countries — there is indeed a lot of opinion on the insularity of German and Japanese society (I should back-track on Korea a bit — my sample size isn’t big enough to say). There has been a very heated debate within German society over at least the past 10 years on the country’s immigration policy with the left wanting to sever or weaken the link between ethnicity and nationality. Among non-whites, living in Germany even as a citizen is frustrating because of their tendency to see any dark-skinned person as an Ausländer. Same goes for Japan where Korean immigrants who have lived there for 20 years, who have naturalized as Japanese citizens and who speak Japanese fluently are systematically discriminated against. There are plenty of articles in the international press — and I would imagine, academic studies — attesting to this. The Japanese I know who have moved abroad are frustrated by this same attitude and prefer the openness and cosmopolitanism of the U.K., U.S., or Australia.
Both anti-semitic and factually wrong, I would say. It seems to me there has been a lot of debate within the Jewish community itself over what exactly Jewish identity means — probably more so than in most groups.
April 5, 2011, 10:41 amArthur Kirkland says:
I have observed several episodes in which American right-wingers have attempted to use issues concerning Israel (and in particular those involving Israel’s right-wingers) in an attempt to arrange partisan advantage. This strikes me as foolish and counterproductive, from the perspective of attempting to promote support for Israel. (It also assumes that the policies and practices of Israel’s right-wingers are not wrong or even counterproductive.)
Statements such as ‘especially the left’ and ‘the bankrupt leftists’ also strike me as poorly chosen among those who claim to support Israel. Without support from Americans who are not right-wingers, Israel’s position appears to weaken.
April 5, 2011, 11:00 amArthur Kirkland says:
Anyone who believes Israel will survive on a base composed exclusively of right-wing elements has moved beyond reason-bereft faith and entered the realm of delusion.
April 5, 2011, 11:09 amyankev says:
1939: “Die Juden sind unser Unglück.”
2009 (and 2011): “Der jüdenStaat ist unser Unglück.”
Walt Kelly, Ten Ever-Lovin Blue Eyed Years with Pogo: “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.”
April 5, 2011, 11:10 amyankev says:
As opposed to the J Street/Clinton/Obama threat that VP candidate Clinton would pull out of a bi-partisan anti-Iran protest, and the accompanying threat to challenge the tax exemption of the sponsoring non-profit groups, if VP candidate Palin were allowed to attend, because Palin’s attendance would make the demonstration a partisan event?
Don’t make me laugh.
It is not the supporters of Israel who have turned this into a partisan issue. AIPAC, among others, is still trying to keep support for Israel a non-partisan issue, but the Soros Democrats are making it harder and harder.
1939: “Die Juden sind unser Unglück.”
2009 (and 2011): “Der jüdenStaat ist unser Unglück.”
Walt Kelly, Ten Ever-Lovin Blue Eyed Years with Pogo: “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.” yankev
April 5, 2011, 11:16 amArthur Kirkland says:
Yeah, but you’ll take the money and military skirts funded by Americans who don’t swallow right-wing dogma, right? I’d love to hear the case for the sustainability of that proposition.
April 5, 2011, 11:20 amjukeboxgrad says:
yankev:
How surprising to notice that Jews vote D, overwhelmingly. What a shame that they seemingly just don’t know all these things that you know.
I have a feeling that most members of that group (“supporters of Israel aligned with the Republicans”) are fundamentalist Christians, not Jews. And there are good reasons for Jews to have mixed feelings about that group.
http://volokh.com/2011/03/31/multiculturalism-of-an-important-sort-as-an-american-constitutional-value/#comment-1166016
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/02/my-heroes-have-always-been-hebrews/joe-carter
OrenWithAnE:
This is a little too cryptic for me to follow.
I agree. I just think there’s a failure to think clearly about the relative likelihood of various long-term outcomes.
April 5, 2011, 11:40 amOrenWithAnE says:
No, but surviving based on nuclear deterrent (of course, where the utility is in not using them) is a fine bet.
How is it cryptic to follow? In order to accept Arthur’s scheme, Israelis would have to surrender their sovereignty to the authority of the United States. I opined that a better option (given that you asked for one) would be to take her chances on her own.
And I wrote a while ago and received no response about to whom this question is properly posed — whose judgment of “better option” is to control here.
If some options (surrendering sovereignty) are simply not acceptable, then it doesn’t matter what the odds are. Any chance of surviving as a free people beats even the certainty of life in submission to another authority.
April 5, 2011, 12:57 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Should we arm every nation in the world with nuclear weapons, so that everyone’s safety and survival is a fine bet?
If it is Israel’s nuclear arsenal, rather than America’s military and financial backing, that safeguards Israel, have we identified a great starting point for reducing spending and the deficit in the United States? If Planned Parenthood is expected to survive on its own two (no-federal-dollars) feet, does Israel have a greater claim to federal dollars, particularly if Israel can arrange its own security?
April 5, 2011, 1:34 pmyankev says:
Yeah, Arthur, you’ve told us any number of times that us greedy Jews will take anything from anybody, and will demand that you pay for it with blood and money, as long as we can get away with it. You put a few more words on either side of it so that what you’re saying doesn’t look quite as blatant, but that’s the gist of several of your comments.
April 5, 2011, 2:22 pmHarry Eagar says:
Arthur, so long as you and I agree that the policy of the Arabs is to exterminate the Jews, we agree. After that, we diverge.
April 5, 2011, 2:22 pmyankev says:
Why is it surprising? Marty Peretz, Ed Koch and others have admitted to ignoring the warning signs because they did not want to believe them.
78% of Jewish voters voted for Obama in 2008 because they either fooled themselves into thinking he would not weaken Israel’s ability to defend itself or because they simply did not care. 80% of the Jews died in Egypt during the 9th plague because they did not want to leave Egypt; they identified more strongly with the Egyptians than they did with G-d and the Jewish people.
Allowing for a 2% sampling error in 2008, that’s a pretty striking correlation. Cf. comments of Walt Kelly quoted above.
April 5, 2011, 2:28 pmTed says:
It must suck to fell like you have to twist everything you read to be an attack on Jews. Is it intentional or subconscious?
April 5, 2011, 2:38 pmyankev says:
Well, duh. Given the relative size of the Jewish and Christian populations in the US, why should that be surprising?
The fact remains that the Soros wing of the Democratic party has abandoned support of Israel, and that President Obama, for whatever reasons, has been more destructive of the US-Israel than any sitting president of the last 50 years, including Carter’s deliberate encouragement of Black anti-Semitism during the Andrew Young affair, and the discussions between the US and the PLO in the lame duck years of the Reagan administration. The fact that a majority of American Jews vote Democratic does not change either of those facts.
Your links about Joe Carter are rather silly. There is equal or greater anti-Semitism among leaders of the mainstream churches, particularly those who embrace the Sabeel movement. For some reason, Jews who do not believe in G-d and do not practice the Jewish religion tend to be highly phobic of religious Christians. Many of them also tend to be highly phobic of religious Jews.
April 5, 2011, 2:39 pmneurodoc says:
That was at 6:07 PM yesterday (4/4/11). Then today at 2:38 PM, you returned to say…
So, it would appear that if you hadn’t in fact already made that choice long before your first post above, then you did so within less than 24 hours.
April 5, 2011, 4:03 pmyankev says:
Everyone knows that those Jews falsely label people as anti-Semites.
April 5, 2011, 4:29 pmOrenWithAnE says:
That’s not what I suggested.
Try to sail that one past the American voter. Please.
Or because we believe that reconciliation makes for a stronger, not weaker, Israel. Your disgusting disdain for anyone (even your fellow Jews) that disagrees with your political positions is a regular feature here — just don’t be so predictable.
Try to maintain at least a semblance of respect for the opinions of others — it goes a long way towards helping people respect yours.
April 5, 2011, 4:57 pmTed says:
I’m not sure I get what you mean. I wrote my first comment because I was sensing that any opposition or withdraw of support to Israel, on any grounds, would earn you a anti-semite merit badge amongst some of the commenters. I wondered if a more nuanced approach might not be more productive in stead of a “your with us or against us” mentality.
The second was in response to Yankev’s harsh, unwarranted criticism and mis-characterization of AK’s position and comment (at least those on this thread). I intended my comment to be as harsh, and to parody his own comment, in the sense that I was accusing him of adopting a victim complex. I obviously was too brief, and not clear.
But to answer your question, I suppose I would rather be labeled an anti-semite due to my willingness to consider reasonable opposition to Israeli actions, that to avoid the label and be completely closed to any reasonable positions that oppose support for Israel. And just to be clear, I’d rather not take a label at all, and just evaluate the relative positions on their merits, and side with those that appear to be more reasonable in a neutral sense.
I acknowledge the possibility that my ignorance of the various facets of the Israeli/Palestinian/Arab situation could so great that I fail to realize that one side is so patently unreasonable that it justifies unconditional support of the opposing side in every instance, but I don’t think that possibility is particularly significant. Feel free to inform me otherwise.
April 5, 2011, 5:06 pmArthur Kirkland says:
I have said that supporting Israel has been very expensive for Americans, in several ways.
I also have said that the expense becomes less attractive for many Americans when the related issues are used to attempt to push right-wing politics in the United States, and that right-winger supporters of Israel display a lack of judgment when they make the attempt. The lack of self-awareness associated with expecting American liberals and moderates to help prop up Israel when right-wingers are calling the shots in Israel and right-wingers are using the issue for partisan advantage in the United States is especially striking.
Whom are your ham-handed efforts at editorial embellishment (“greedy,” “demand”) intended to persuade, and of what?
April 5, 2011, 6:49 pmArthur Kirkland says:
I believe American voters would be at least as likely to support the traditional level of funding for Planned Parenthood-provided services in the United States (all accurately described) as they would be to provide the various levels of support for Israel (accurately described). I perceive reasonable doubt that at least some elements of American support for Israel would survive an up-or-down vote among American electors. I would have similar expectations concerning many countries.
April 5, 2011, 7:03 pmTed says:
Agreed. While I don’t know the numbers, but the financial cost of supporting Israel would make a lot of Americans balk, especially when they getting their Social Security and Medicare benefits cut. I think most Americans would rather cut Israel’s social security benefits before their own.
April 5, 2011, 7:17 pmyankev says:
Few would disagree with that. But there has to be someone willing to reconcile with. And the signs were there in plenty that Obama subscribed to a view that blamed Israel and Israel alone for the failure to achieve peace, and that he surrounded himself with advisers (both spiritual and political) who demonized Israel, accusing it of building ethnic bombs to target Arabs and Blacks (Rev. Wright’s newsletter), of controlling and manipulating the US (Rev. Wright), and of planning genocide against the Palestinians (Samantha Rice). The evidence was also abundant that Obama’s faction was willing to turm support of Israel into a partisan issue (the threats against letting Palin speak at an anti-Iran protest, the use of AIPAC and Likud as epithets). Anyone who thought that Obama would not try to force Israel into suicidal one-sided concessions was in denial.
That’s no more disdainful than your snide observation that I must be wrong because the majority of the Jewish electorate disagrees with me.
April 5, 2011, 7:18 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Unless effective supporters of Israel can find a way to keep opinions such as these from the attention of the American public, I would expect a professional to lay an over-under line on Israel of about nine years. Which means it would be about time to start evacuating the children.
Fortunately, I believe these opinions are rare and even more rarely expressed.
April 5, 2011, 7:18 pmChrisTS says:
Ted:
And now you have your answer.
Actually, the real answer is worse, to judge by the treatment of Arthur: if you are for the Israeli people in any way other than having them stay put and/or having someone eliminate the Palestinians, you are an anti-Semite.
April 5, 2011, 9:26 pmneurodoc says:
In a word, horsesh*t!
When you propose to “ethnically cleanse” the Israelis from their sovereign country because you see it as best for them, to say nothing of the Arab world, to relocate to Uganda, or Madagascar, or West Texas, or wherever you would put them, you are not likely to be seen by fair-minded people as philosemitic. Now, if you proposed the same thing for the Palestinians, some of whom themselves migrated from elsewhere after Jews made something out of what had been a wretched place before, we could see whether the idea was well received by them and their supporters or you were denounced as a bigot, if not crazy.
April 5, 2011, 9:51 pmleo marvin says:
I didn’t realize that one was a joke.
April 5, 2011, 9:51 pmneurodoc says:
Maybe that’s because I left out a key element, namely what he thought of his parents. (You’ll have to ask yankev for that part.)
April 5, 2011, 10:00 pmneurodoc says:
That’s almost 50% more than the Census Bureau estimated the number to be.
Did you mean to say Samantha Power, or Susan Rice?
April 5, 2011, 10:14 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Would it constitute “ethnic cleansing” for the American taxypayer, or anyone else, to stop sending assistance — military, financial, diplomatic — to Israel?
Would that not have an effect similar to providing U.S. citizenship to as many Israelis as wished to accept it?
What is the conservative or libertarian case for taking money from an American citizen and shipping it to another country? Is that the “small government” part? The “fiscal conservatism” part? The “live within our means” part?
April 5, 2011, 11:31 pmneurodoc says:
Do you propose to cut off foreign aid to other countries too, or just that which goes to Israel? What military and diplomatic “assistance” to Israel would you cut off? To whom would you continue giving that same military and diplomatic assistance, and why? And why is it that you don’t wish to make the same offer to the Palestinians?
I don’t count myself as either of those, so you will have to ask someone else for an answer to those questions.
April 6, 2011, 12:14 amOrenWithAnE says:
Your perception on the matter is at odds with nearly every poll done on the matter.
I never questioned your motives.
April 6, 2011, 12:19 amArthur Kirkland says:
I do not propose to cut off foreign aid to any country. I believe it is worthwhile, taking Prof. Bernstein’s cue, to question everything. I question in particular larger foreign aid expenditures, arms transfers, military commitments, foreign aid records of extended duration, foreign aid trajectories that seem endless, and foreign aid for governments that deserve to be overthrown.
Our record concerning many elements of foreign aid, in contexts from Egypt to Iran, from Colombia to Iraq, from Central America to the Phillippines and beyond, deserves questioning.
It appears that some debaters might consider assistance to Israel to be a duty for the United States, or perhaps a moral imperative, consequent to a conclusion that refraining from enabling Israel to maintain its current condition could constitute ethnic cleansing. That argument would be odd, but the term has been used in this discussion, so I wanted to know why and how.
April 6, 2011, 10:04 amHarry Eagar says:
What do YOU think the result would have been if Israel had lost the ’67 war? What is your reading of the Hamas charter?
April 6, 2011, 3:08 pmneurodoc says:
Well, if we step into your fantasy with you, then I will say that I am not one of the some you imagine “consider assistance to Israel to be a duty for the United States, or perhaps a moral imperative, consequent to a conclusion that refraining from enabling Israel to maintain its current condition could constitute ethnic cleansing.” (And the only thing that would make “odd” people’s use of the term “ethnic cleansing” in connection with you re-location plan is if what you are proposing is 100% “carrot,” 0% “stick” (especially the “stick” part). If there is to be a “stick” or coercion, then “ethnic cleansing” is not inapt.
You originally mentioned the possibility not only of withholding “financial” assistance, but also of not “sending assistance — military, …, diplomatic.” Though I asked you to elaborate on what exactly you contemplate when you speak about not “sending assistance – …military, …, diplomatic (emphasis added),” you did not answer. How about it, what exactly would follow?
April 6, 2011, 4:46 pmArthur Kirkland says:
The United States helps Israel in myriad ways. At great cost (not expressed solely in dollars), the United States signals that it will defend Israel with force (and, I gather, prepares itself for performance). The United States expends enormous diplomatic capital in running interference for Israel at the United Nations and in diplomatic contexts around the world.
The United States, I expect, would place soldiers and equipment in harm’s way to defend Israel.
Is the United States bound by duty to continue to provide such assistance in perpetuity, regardless of cost? If we knew Israel could not survive the withdrawal of any or all of this assistance, would the failure to continue to provide it constitute “ethnic cleansing?”
This is my final contribution to this thread. Some posters’ avatars are causing repetitive downloading while I attempt to type in the “reply” box, making any reply difficult.. With a thread of this length it moves beyond annoying, through aggravating and into infuriating.
April 6, 2011, 10:24 pmDebrah says:
Krauthammer blasts Goldstone retraction.
Saw this on cable the other evening and it’s now referenced at Instapundit.
Excellent analysis as usual. But what else can you expect from such glistening brilliance as the hammer?
April 7, 2011, 9:51 amTed says:
Does your response, and the relevance of your link, change is by “support” AK is referring to financial/military support, rather than diplomatic support?
April 7, 2011, 11:32 amTed says:
Wow, I’ve really let this editing thing go, haven’t I? I think we need to start a petition to have EV bring back the working preview and editor function.
April 7, 2011, 11:42 amneurodoc says:
Thank you. neurodoc things that further clarifies your thinking on this subject. He won’t go further in an effort to interpret it for others, he will just add to what has been said previousl that it sounds rather like those “realists” Mearsheimer and Walt (except for the fantasy part about relocating the population of Israel to West Texas or West Virgina, which is decidedly “non-realist”).
Now, do you think this a fair way to conclude this, so that we can agree to disagree on this, having at least a general sense of what each other thinks and our reasons for disagreeing?
April 7, 2011, 2:29 pmneurodoc says:
neurodoc thinks this of some relevance to this thread about the Goldstone report, which dealt with Israel’s response to missile attacks on it from Gaza. And note, this is the “moderate” candidate to replace Mubarak!
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4051939,00.html
April 7, 2011, 3:12 pm