Since it's been a while since we had an Israel/Palestine thread...
- Thread starter Mr. Tea
- Start date
-
- Tags
- barf emoji basking perchance childlike tripe craner's been mossad from day one dissensus gets fatwa'd fatwa sex hmt govt hat keinen schwand jamaican voodoo gang from predator 2 knob v cretin linebaugh's balls ground into dust mixed biscuits is a virgin but he has clamydia nastiness new tab for trotsky proxy wars pussyclaat voodoo gang from predator 2 strictly for the consequentialist tea and biscuits the cancellation of stan the fundamentalist core of mr tea the hegel reference the lust to execute oliver craner the mythifus of sisyphus third cares for his okra third neglects his okra third puts okra up his bum underschooled undergrads
vimothy
yurp
That article draws attention to something interesting (and name-checks the great bitterlemons.org). It isn't just that people don't level war crimes charges at other, more brutal regimes that surprises me, but that they can understand, can think about the structures, perspectives, conflicts, contexts, etc, from both sides in almost every other case except the Israel-Palestine conflict. As soon as Israel enters the debate, all rational thought ceases.
Consider Iran, a regional power with strategic alliances with Syria, HAMAS, Hezbollah, PIJ, Iraqi groups and others. What we must remember is that Iran is not a unitary and un-conflicted subject, that, within the regime power struggles and political-institutional structures determine policy outcomes, and that Iran's power projection and strategic culture is an extension of its regional and historical context. Yes, it's belligerent, it's undemocratic, but we can understand it as a boundedly rational agent. We don't agree with its actions, but we can subject it to dispassionate analysis.
Or consider the recent operations against the LTTE. Who is the bad guy in this story? Perhaps no one even cares. But merely to draw attention Israel's aims, desires, fears, security concerns, is a kind of betrayal of the Palestinians. As As'ad AbuKhalil says, "for them, anything and everything". Israel can't have legitimate complaints, rather, they are trying to ethnically cleanse the occupied territories and everything else must be seen in light of that fact. The stories about the t-shirts that snipers were getting printed are presented as revealing and confirming what we already knew about Israel and the IDF. They aren't meant to be understood in isolation, as particular incidents. We are invited to draw inferences and to generalise.
Consider Iran, a regional power with strategic alliances with Syria, HAMAS, Hezbollah, PIJ, Iraqi groups and others. What we must remember is that Iran is not a unitary and un-conflicted subject, that, within the regime power struggles and political-institutional structures determine policy outcomes, and that Iran's power projection and strategic culture is an extension of its regional and historical context. Yes, it's belligerent, it's undemocratic, but we can understand it as a boundedly rational agent. We don't agree with its actions, but we can subject it to dispassionate analysis.
Or consider the recent operations against the LTTE. Who is the bad guy in this story? Perhaps no one even cares. But merely to draw attention Israel's aims, desires, fears, security concerns, is a kind of betrayal of the Palestinians. As As'ad AbuKhalil says, "for them, anything and everything". Israel can't have legitimate complaints, rather, they are trying to ethnically cleanse the occupied territories and everything else must be seen in light of that fact. The stories about the t-shirts that snipers were getting printed are presented as revealing and confirming what we already knew about Israel and the IDF. They aren't meant to be understood in isolation, as particular incidents. We are invited to draw inferences and to generalise.
This syndrome you note is not really confined to this issue. Thinking is hard. Condemning (or praising) is easier. The idea of Good sides and Bad sides is very comforting, though in some ways paradoxical, given that everyone appears to be united against the Bad side, thus raising the question of why it has not yet been defeated. I like what Lil' Wayne has to say on this subject:
What interests me is the fact that narratives are not incidental to conflicts, but intimately involved in them. The idea of the conflict between "Israel" and "Palestine" is a narrative idea - where did these two "characters" emerge from in the first place? Each stands at the end of a long history of encodings, identity-formation, accumulated resentments, self-understandings, plot twists and demarcations. Many people on both sides now see the other side as fundamentally evil (and their own side as fundamentally good, but victims, and so on). Which side is more right about this is debated endlessly and fruitlessly. For my own part (which means nothing) I think that this "binarization" - and its associated syndrome of a complete inability to understand the other - and therefore to fear them - is a main engine of this conflict. And therefore it needs to be deconstructed. Through initiatives like Bitter Lemons...
D
droid
Guest
I see. Well next time you need to measure how much time has passed,might I suggest looking at a calender?
Sorry Vim, i di'nt realise it was my role to keep you updated. Obviously some people might be shocked by the idea that the IDF is allowing new recruits ot make public displays of hatred and murderous intent towards Palestinians in the wake of a massacre of hundreds of civilans, but not you.
Your other point is just a bit too silly to address really.
Yes, the IDF which you claim has 'no moral equivilance' with Palestinian terrorists because they don't intend to kill civilians.
vimothy
yurp
I'm not sure that I really had a point, though I may have acquired a small one now. The IDF are not allowing recruits to wear these t-shirts in public, do not sanction them, and they aren't worn to any kind of graduation. They are privately made t-shirts printed to celebrate graduation by young soldiers. I submit that this is pretty obvious if you think about it. And, yes, they are reprehensible.
D
droid
Guest
Er.. I realise history isn't your strong point Josef, but Cordesman has been vocally criticising Israel's strategy for years. In fact, he was labelled as anti-semetic by the anti-defamation league for this about 30 years ago. There have also been serious concerns expressed in intelligence, planning and policy circles about the conflict between the strategic aims of the US and Israel since the Israeli nuclear programme became public knowledge - if not earlier.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's true, I was never very good at history. I actually have a degree in it. A painful story that.
D
droid
Guest
Is this posted as satire?
This is demonstratably untrue as anyone with a passing knowledge of current events in the ME and even a scant grasp of the history of Israeli/Palestinian negotiations.
But please, dont let facts intrude on this fascinating discussion about the irrationality of leftist critics of Israel.
scottdisco
rip this joint please
cheers Josef, good article that
"Israeli assault injures 1.5 million Palestinians"
there is such a thing as psychological injuries, of course
Last edited:
D
droid
Guest
vimothy
yurp
Israel may have negotiated for a two-state solution, but it is obvious, obvious to anyone with a grasp on the story that they never sincerely wanted one. What they want is "a new State of Israel with broad frontiers, strong and solid, with the authority of the Israel Government extending from the Jordan to the Suez Canal."
I agree that the Israeli government has mostly filibustered on this issue... though it is true that they are at least nominally committed to a two-state solution.
Personally, I can't really see how a two-state solution could be achieved, given the spatial entanglements at work in the region... And a one state solution remains politically impossible at the present time.
In any event, I remain sympathetic that Brociner's central point that Leftist condemnations of Israeli have achieved very little. Or, to be precise, nothing.
D
droid
Guest
"Oh hello Mr Fact, come in.
May I introduce Vimothy? I don't believe that you have met..."
D
droid
Guest
Perhaps, with your startling grasp and knowledge of the peace process you can outline exactly what kind of Palestinian state Israel has negotiated for?
Here's something to get you started. The map of the state offered to Palestinians as a result of the Oslo II agreement, widely regarded as the most generous, fair and complete peace deal so far:
Area A are areas under full Palestinian civil control. area B are areas under joint Palestinian and Israeli military control.