it's all gone

[piranha]

not gonna be saying much about the israel/lebanon war. this is mostly tangential.

i was struggling with words to express how very much my attitude towards israel has changed between 1967 and now, how i was once a staunch, extremely loyal supporter, and am now a strong critic sometimes overwhelmed by sadness, and WTF happened?

except that somebody has done a much better job of that than i could, and luckily i came across a link to a very insightful editorial by tony judt in ha'aretz that comes close to perfectly matching my own experience. (thanks to velochicdunord for the link.)

i was very young in '67, and was filled with guilt about the holocaust, shame that my birth family did nothing to help jews, disgust at so many countries who turned down the refugees; the grand unfairness of it all, the persecution and move to eradicate an entire people. it took many years, two and a half more decades, for that to be worn down by israeli humanitarian violations.

but worn down it has been, ground down to small nubs. i don't want to see israel destroyed. i don't think its creation was a mistake (how it was done, that was filled with mistakes). i am not anti-semitic by a long shot, i am actually somewhat of a semitophile (though i realize that the wholesale appropriation of the term now bothers me; arabs are semites too, of whom i am negatively prejudiced) -- when i started to raise myself, a lot of what i read and appreciated was written by jewish thinkers, and before i lost my faith in god entirely, i was contemplating conversion to judaism. i still wish no ill to come to israel. i despise hizballah and hamas. i cringe when i think of iran. there is not even a comparison for me between a modern egalitarian democracy and a repressive islamic state. but i resent that i have to defend myself with lengthy disclaimers before i can say anything critical of israel. the take-over of the public sphere by the lobby who screams "anti-semitism" at the slightest negative word against israel is stifling. and you know what? i am done with it.

i can to some degree empathize with the siege mentality, based on my personal experience growing up as i did. but it must be broken. even against adversity, it must be broken, and human rights must be respected. israel has not grown up. it's been pissing away goodwill all this time, and it's showing no sign of waking up. what about auschwitz? yeah, what about it? some of us learned from it -- that we never again want to let anyone get away with that sort of thing. israel has apparently learned nothing from it but that might makes right.

sad. the world is filled with too many people who're doing so much less than humanity is capable of.

Comments

[swerved.livejournal.com]

This pretty much sums up what I believe about Israel. I think it should exist, that shouldn't be a question anymore, but I don't believe that it has the moral imperative anymore. I read the article that you linked to, and I have to agree that the Israeli leadership really isn't doing a good job of creating a stable and peaceful relationship with its neighbours, no matter how hostile they are. The death toll on both sides in this continuation of a very old war is sad, and very unnecessary, but the people of Israel aren't seeing the death toll as anything but a regretable necessity of survival. That mentality is understandable, but it's really only going to hurt them in the long run.

I don't think much about Israel is going to change until the people of Israel realize what their leadership is doing to their credibility in the international arena and put people in charge that are more open to working with its neighbours rather than dictating to them. Whether that's going to happen any time soon or not is anyone's guess, but it doesn't look like it from this side looking in.

[snippy]

no matter how hostile they are

That's a pretty high standard you're holding Israel to. Her neighbors want to eliminate her as an entity, but it's her responsibility to create a stable and peaceful relationship? How much responsibility is theirs? Any? Where are the editorials decrying Syria and Lebanon's failure to create a stable and peaceful relationship?

[swerved.livejournal.com]

Where are the editorials decrying Syria and Lebanon's failure to create a stable and peaceful relationship?

There are many:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9368/
http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/syria_b.htm
http://www.cedarland.org/terror.html
http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/st_terror/syrian_terror.htm
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9516/
http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm1159.cfm

If you'd like to use a google search, I'm sure you could find many more.

And you're right, I do hold Israel to a higher standard, because I believe that Israel is capable of so much more. The onus is on Israel to be the initiator of peace, and the onus is on Israel to create relationships with its neighbours, because its neighbours won't be the ones to do it. The reality is that Israel is under the threat of attack constantly, and as long as Israel pursues the military option of retaliation, that threat will never go away. The simple fact that Israel is trying to destroy Hezbollah (and the fact that civilians are dying in the crossfire) means that while Israel may get a small period of breathing room, the support for Hezbollah and terrorist organizations like it are only going to increase. This new wave of violence in Lebanon and Palestine isn't going to destroy Hezbollah or Hammas, it will only force their military wings more underground for awhile, while at the same time giving those terrorist organizations a rallying call for people angry at Israel to join those same terrorist organizations.

Israel might get a year or a few of a cease-fire out of this latest action, but in the long run the resistance in the middle east to the entire notion of Israel as a nation is only going to increase, and with that resistance will come more resources and supporters for the terrorist organizations that Israel wants to eliminate as a threat.

Of course Syria and Iran, who fund the terrosist operations in Lebanon are to share the blame, in fact, a large portion of it. It's also the Lebanese government's fault, for not taking action against Hezbollah in the first place, but if it's Israel's existance at stake, what on earth will the greater build-up of terrorist support do for it in the long run but hurt it?

Israel needs to be smarter than this. It needs to understand that while the military option is used and while civilians die (on both sides), the terrorist organizations that attack it and the threat to its existance will never go away.

[snippy]

You hold Israel to a higher standard because you have higher expectations of her? That's circular reasoning. Why is the onus on Israel? What reason? Because the bullies behave badly, the victim has to make all the compromises? As Charles Krauthammer said in 1990, that's racism.

That is a double standard. What does a double standard mean? To call it a high standard is simply a euphemism. hat makes it sound like a compliment. In fact, it is a weapon. If I hold you to a higher standard of morality than others, I am saying that I am prepared to denounce you for things I would never denounce anyone else for.
If I were to make this kind of judgement about people of color - say, if I demanded that blacks meet a higher standard in their dealing with others - that would be called racism.

Alan Dershowitz points out that when other "civilized, Western" countries do the same thing as Israel, there's no worldwide condemnation, no UN resolutions: Japan announced that it was considering a preemptive strike on North Korea's missile bases. This is what appeared in today's The Japan Times article "First Strike Permitted if Attack Imminent: Abe Hitting Missile Bases Seen as Self-Defense". Abe, Chief Cabinet Secretary and the frontrunner for Japan's next Prime Minister, said overseas strikes would fall within the legal parameters of self-defense 'if there is no other way to prevent a missile attack on Japan.'"

Whenever Israel has considered a preemptive strike against the Iranian nuclear capacity, the international community again goes bonkers, claiming that such a strike would violate international law, the UN charter, and basic decency. There is of course a difference between the threat posed by North Korea against Japan and the threat posed by Iran against Israel.

North Korea has never threatened to use its nuclear weapons against Japan whereas the leaders of Iran have repeated and specifically said that if they develop the capacity to destroy Israel they would do so.

Holding Israel to a high standard is one thing; holding her to a higher standard than you do Japan, Russia, Great Britain, France, or Spain is a whole 'nother thing, and it's both unjust and unjustifiable except as Jew hatred.

[swerved.livejournal.com]

Ah, yes, there it is, because I disagree with Israel's actions, I am apparently a Jew hater.

I'm curious, do you just automatically think 'anti-semite' whenever you hear criticism about Israel? That's fairly stupid of you, if it's the case. Have you ever before spoken with me to determine if I am in fact an anti-semite? No. You haven't. So sit down and let me educate you so that you can stop throwing around ignorant and baseless accusations.

I am in fact decended from a mix of very different peoples and cultures, some of whom were Jewish. My great-grandfather was a Jewish immigrant to Canada. There is an entire branch of my family living in B.C. who are Jewish. I personally am not Jewish, but neither am I a member of any religion. I'm simply a gay man (who, by the way, suffered as much as the Jews during the holocaust) who disagrees with the actions currently being taken by the state of Israel. Whether that state is governed by members of the Jewish faith or any other isn't the issue that's central to my arguement that military retaliation will only exacerbate the issue.

I also have to tell you that telling me that I hold other, more developed nations to a lower standard than Israel is again wrong. I am referring to the situation in the middle east right now, with the neighbours that Israel is having conflict with.

I hold Israel to a higher standard than Lebanon because it is a country that is still recovering from civil war, and its government does not have control of the entire country. I hold Israel to a higher standard than the Palestinian government, because its people do not have the same level of prosperity or stability as Israel, and many of its people are in a position that they will look for any group or movement that they believe will deliver them from the position they are in right now. I hold Israel to a higher standard than Syria, because it's government is a corrupt body that believes that terrorism is a good way to acheive its goals. I hold Israel to a higher standard than Iran for the same reason.

I do hold Jordan and Egypt to the same high standard. Race has nothing to do with it. The actions and stated goals of the various governments are what makes me hold Israel, Jordan and Egypt to the standard of peaceful resolution.

I should also note here that I do hold Japan, Great Britain, France, Spain, Canada and the United States (etc) to that same higher standard, and I will and do criticize those governments when they do not aspire to or achieve those standards.

Accusing me of being a racist because I think that the course Israel has embarked on is only going to hurt it is ignorant and counter-productive. I want Israel to have a strong, healthy state, that lives in peace with its neighbours. My point was that I believe that this is the wrong way to do it. Why shouldn't Israel work to acheive those goals without the use of military force that will only bring more destruction and death to its people? Are you so ready to cry 'anti-semite' whenever you hear criticism of Israel's actions that you're willingly blinding yourself to the fact that perhaps Israel may not actually be acting in a way that is going to bring it the peace that it wants? Bravo, how very well thought out of you.

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

I'm curious, do you just automatically think 'anti-semite' whenever you hear criticism about Israel?

Based on previous observations, yes, she does.

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

*nod*. that's fairly similar to how i feel, and it has indeed nothing to do with religion or ethnicity. it's not an absolute belief -- ideally i'd like every country to live up to a high standard of civilization -- but a more practical one, one that assesses what i think can realistically be achieved within the constraints given.

it's not just about countries -- i hold myself to a higher standard than children and teenagers, and i hold myself to a higher standard than people with less privilege and less opportunity, for example.

i overall hold freely democratically elected governments to a higher standard than non-democratically elected ones, and i hold older democracies to a higher standard than newer ones. i hold governments with a fairly heterogenous political population to a higher standard than those that are threatened by violent factions from within.

something that does make a difference when maybe it shouldn't: whether i think of a country as "one of us". that's similar to not wanting personal friends to do unethical things, and being much more disappointed when i find out they do. i have no respect whatsoever for syria, for example, and when syria does something abominable (like, when does it not?!), i never experience an emotional dilemma; i expect them to behave like hoodlums. but i don't expect that of israel, and there are instances where israel has indeed not disappointed me. i have to constantly work to not extrapolate from syria's government to syria's people, while that's not a problem at all for israel. israel to me is "one of us", a country that should be a force for good. this is also why i am so horrifically disappointed in the bush administration -- the US, too, is slipping over the line.

of course this isn't about my personal disappointment, and this isn't at all about standards; they're just means to an end. it's about reaching a goal -- of living civilized in peace with one's neighbours. just that one won't get there without high ethical standards. and if one's neighbours are truculent, one has to IMO work harder within those standards, not sink to their level. otherwise we'll bomb each other back to the stone age.

speaking of living up to higher standards: thanks for not beating on snippy in return to that nasty bit.

[swerved.livejournal.com]

and if one's neighbours are truculent, one has to IMO work harder within those standards, not sink to their level. otherwise we'll bomb each other back to the stone age.

Yes, exactly. The way it's playing out right now, there never will be any peace in the Israeli-Lebanese-Palestinian conflicts, because (cliched or not) violence really does beget violence in this case. No matter how many targets Israel destroys in this offensive, the very fact that civilians are dying while they do it means that recruitment for Hezbollah is only going to increase, and it's just going to start all over again.

speaking of living up to higher standards: thanks for not beating on snippy in return to that nasty bit.

Well, if it were *my* journal... *g*

[sinanju.livejournal.com]

So why is the onus on Israel to "work harder within those standards" while the Palestinians get a pass? We could just as easily point out that no matter how many targets the Palestinians kill, the very fact that civilians are being targeted means that recruitment for more Israeli retaliation is only going to increase and it's just going to start all over again.

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

did you see anyone saying the palestinians get a pass? no, you didn't, because nobody said that. did you actually read my comment to which derek was responding? i already said why i expect more from israel. do pay attention. it so happens that this is a thread started about my feelings regarding israel. i am not writing a book on the arab/israel conflict here.

and i gotta say i find it pretty weird that you're confronting my guests after never posting here before -- do you even read this LJ normally? anyway, this isn't usenet's free-for-all public discussion; this is my personal sandbox where i talk about a tiny fraction of what goes on in my mind. as such, you don't get to decide or shift the agenda, i do. clear?

now that we have that out of the way:

indeed, the continued killings and murders by the palestinians don't help their cause one little bit. i despise "suicide" bombers (the term alone gives me hives; they're murderer-bombers who happen to kill themselves as well). this is not the type of resistance i would ever join, or help directly. and yes, of course those deaths cause israelis to want to retaliate. any sensible person i know calls this a "cycle of violence". somewhere in this thread is a fine rant by russ (allbery) about how these opposing sides have trained each other into perfect enemies.

i feel despair and sadness at that. and pragmatically i don't see any way out other than israel taking the high road for an extended period unilaterally, because i don't see anyone else doing it, i am not sure anyone else is capable of doing it (give me a charismatic SANE arab leader and i might believe) and because i think enlightened self-interest has got to accept that as the most workable method, because i am sure that we're heading for mutually assured destruction in the middle east otherwise. coincidentally, there are people within israel who think so too, so i don't feel completely out in left field here in my safe and comfy armchair.

what israel is doing now instead is playing into the hands of the true jew-hating hardliners within hezballah and hamas, and the powers supporting them in syria and iran. and it's hurting itself more than it can hurt them. they initiated this conflict precisely because they needed a relief valve from internal pressure about recognizing israel. and look, they got it, they got it better than they expected. more martyrdom is just what they need, more dead and suffering children to be plastered all over the arab newsmedia. brilliant.

fuckers. i can't stand it. they whistle, and israel jumps down their throat right into the damn trap.

i am not gonna get into the civilian distinction here because i'm not in the mood and i'm about to go offline and read something totally escapist.

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

it's both unjust and unjustifiable except as Jew hatred.

yo! stop that particular shite in here. i can't believe i even have to say this.

[(Anonymous)]

It's also racism against the Arab Muslims that you think only Israel is capable of initiating piece and relationships with its neighbors. What, are they less human than Israelis?

civilians are dying in the crossfire Civilians are dying because (a) Hezbollah and Hamas *target* civilians, intentionally, and (b) Hezbollah and Hamas *hide* in civilian populations, so if Israel goes after them at all, it is Hezbollah's and Hamas's fault that there are civilian casualties of Israel's attacks targeted on terrorists.

[snippy]

Fogot to login--that response about civilians and racism against Arab Muslims was from me.

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

Fascinating and eloquent editorial. Thanks for the link. I too think of myself as more pro-Jewish than not -- of the People of the Book theirs is the religion I've often felt the most attraction to -- but I don't know exactly how to come down on the Israel's right to exist issue. In one sense, that is one of the few ways in which Israel still does lay legitimate claim to uniqueness. I can't think of another country whose "right to exist" is ever even mooted, even Uganda under Idi Amin. But was it right to found Israel? To me that depends on what you mean by Israel. Is Israel fundamentally a state that must grant only Jews full rights of citizenship? Does it cease being Israel if Palestinian arabs are granted identical rights to Jews, including right of return? If so, then there is a species of rot at the core of what it means to be Israel -- that Israel is founded on injustice. On the other hand, if by Israel one means a state where Palestinian arabs and Jews can enjoy exactly the same rights and privileges, at least *in principle* and that principle is an explicit goal, well, then, mazel tov.

[crystlyte.livejournal.com]

I don't think I'm as far along as you are, but I am seeing Israel's actions as way over the top and am embarrased by the unqualified support given by the US. If nothing else, we should be calling for a cease fire for humanitarian reasons.

Terrorism makes me despair, and I think that has been a part of what has made me come down on the side of Israel in the past, but they've blown that bit of good will with me. It would be interesting to see if more calls for cease fire would have occurred in the US if the Iraq war was not going on at the same time.

[sinanju.livejournal.com]

The last thing the civilized world ought to be pushing for is a ceasefire (http://bogieworks.blogs.com/treppenwitz/2006/07/thanks_i_needed.html). How about calling for the thugs to stop murdering civilians in Israel? How about calling for the thugs to stop hiding amongst civilians?

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

though i realize that the wholesale appropriation of the term now bothers me

Just for the record, it was appropriated by antisemites like Treitschke and Marr.

Israel

[(Anonymous)]

I wrote a post entitled "Israel- Overreaction and Appeasement" on July 24th, which appears on my abovementioned blog. Read it as it might change your opinion. As for the those who are against the establishment of Israel because of its affect on Palestinians. What about Jordan which was created by Britain in 1921 on 80% of Palestinian land in 1921 The Land was given to the Hashemites who came from Saudi Arabia. Although it was a protectorate of Great Britain. Abdullah, a Hashemite, became King and ruled Jordan, in spite of the fact that the majority of the population was Palestinian. In 1946, the United Nations granted Jordan Independence and the Country became known as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, although the majority of the population was still Palestinian.
I have never heard anyone in west ever complain about the rights of the Palestinian People which were compromised because the Hashemites took 80% of their land. I guess the reason for this, is the fact that the Hashemites were not Jewish.

Re: Israel

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

what aforementioned blog? and who are you? a quick google search for the title you gave finds nothing.

I have never heard anyone in west ever complain about the rights of the Palestinian People which were compromised because the Hashemites took 80% of their land.

i have heard plenty of it. i am old enough to remember the PFLP and black september as well. the palestinian people have been hung out to dry by just about everyone who could mistreat them, and they have not been helped by the zero sum mentality of their own leadership. i wasn't writing a comprehensive treatment here (as if anyone actually could); i was talking about my feelings regarding israel.

I guess the reason for this, is the fact that the Hashemites were not Jewish.

see, i am not gonna even bother, if this is the type of argument with which you come equipped. tired of it. and precisely the type of argument i was just decrying -- and i don't think i was in the least unclear. please spare us both the effort unless you can be more thoughtful.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link. Definitely worth reading.

[aquaeri.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the interesting link.

Consider the death toll

[(Anonymous)]

Quite frankly, I think you are holding Israel to an impossible standard. No western democracy has ever been able to fight terrorism without inflicting civilian casualties. Consider that over 20 unarmed Muslim rioters were killed by the French police during the riots in Paris, about 1000 Iraqis per night of American bombing in Baghdad, over 100 in a terrorist bombing of a train in India or London.

During the last two weeks of fighting the death toll in Lebanon was only 300 people, light by any military standards. If you consider that during that time Hizbullah has fired over 2000 rockets into Israeli towns and villages, you should be surprised that Israel is holding back and the death toll isn’t in the range of 15,000 to 20,000. When similar terrorist attacks were carried in Jordan, the Jordanian army killed 15,000 people. Syria did the same for the city of Hama, killing over 20,000 residents.

The main problem is that by being careful not to harm civilians, Israel is prolonging the conflict, and hence the news coverage of the situation. I fail to recall people being angry at Syria or Jordan for any length of time.

Re: Consider the death toll

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

i've decided to no longer reply to anonymous comments in this thread since they seem like drive-by postings (you didn't even respond to anyone who said what you claim to reply to). sign your name and say who you are and why you're here, and then we'll see.

[huashan.livejournal.com]

I was told an interesting aside from all of this by a very close friend a few days ago. She was raised basically as a non-religious new york jew. She lived in the culture, went to temple mostly regularly, but wasn't strongly religious. In college she became more interested in studying the religion and culture from an anthropological angle. But as she says, she's a terrible jew...can't answer a lot of questions about the religion or culture, forgets holidays, loves bacon/lobster, etc. She jokes about it a lot, but has a tremendous amount of respect for her culture.

Anyway...the other day we were talking about how things have once again escalated and she mentioned that sometimes she'd find herself sort of day dreaming about maybe she should go to Israel and serve her time in the military, etc. Even though she's very much not an Israel apologist and comes down against Israel whenever they perform any sort of military attack. She's very strongly anti-violence although she's certainly not a pacifist. And yet...she still occasionally has the idea of going to Israel and serving in the military. The point being, that if even someone like her has such ideas occasionally, it must be significantly stronger in people more immersed in the culture and religion and especially for people actually in Israel or who personally know someone that has been harmed in all the violence. I thought that was a very interesting insight.

"right to exist"

[eagle]

I read all the comments and was then going to come back here and make a point about this phrase "Israel's right to exist" and then noticed that you never used it, just the people making comments. I am so happy to see intelligent commentary around these issues that doesn't use that obnoxious phrase.

One of the ways in which I come at this whole thing sideways is that I have real problems with the idea that any country has a "right to exist." What does that actually mean? Does the United States have a "right to exist" even though we stole and conquered our way across the continent? Does one somehow acquire a "right to exist" if one holds one's empire for long enough, no matter how one got it? Does China have a "right to exist" that's even stronger because they've been a country for longer than anything else? Is there some "right to exist" that vests in the chaotic boundaries of Europe that are, to some extent, just wherever a bunch of politicians happened to draw lines after the last war?

And when the same piece of ground has been conquered and reconquered by innumerable people through history, how can one say that any one ethnic government of that region has a "right to exist" over any other, unless we're resorting to pure king-of-the-hill arguments about how Israel is the most recent? (And if we're trying to avoid racism, shouldn't we be saying that an ethnic and religiously biased government of any stripe is immoral, whether that ethnicity be Arab or Jewish, whether that religion be Judaism or Islam?)

I don't think Israel has a "right to exist." Neither does a Palestinian state. Neither does the United States. States acquire moral justification only insofar as they do right by the people living within their geographic territory. Neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis have a right to an ethnic state just for them; both have the right to a government that represents their legitimate interests and rights, protects them, and provides the conditions in which they can engage in peaceful industry and commerce.

That doesn't mean that I think Israel should be destroyed; like you, I'm pretty disgusted with every player in the region. I don't have the past affinity with Israel and the initial store of good will; Judaism is just yet another religion to me (although one that seems less offensive than many), and whatever belief I had in Israel disappeared when I got over the strange religious beliefs I had that were driving it. So when I look at Israel, I see a US puppet state that regularly engages in war crimes in retaliation for war crimes, who is an active participant in creating and sustaining a cycle of violence, and which is propped up by the United States for a combination of amoral (note: not immoral) political reasons and millienialist claptrap. I have no affinity for or sympathy for their government; I do have affinity for and sympathy for the people who live there, of whatever ethnicity or religion, and think that none of them should be driven out of their houses or killed for their ethnicity or beliefs.

There is no political side in that region I'm willing to take. I don't think the US should be funding a government that targets civilians whether that was in retaliation for targetting civilians or not. It would be better to put neutral troops on the ground to prevent genocide rather than support the systematic destruction of Lebanon. If only we had neutral troops we could trust to not be as bad; the leadership of the US military has proven they're not above the same.

The civilian casualties on all sides are hideous. The nature of the groups trying to destroy Israel is both deplorable and completely predictable given the economic mix and the years and years of reciprocal violence. Israel has fought her enemies into a type of enemy that can fight back; Israel's attackers have fought Israel into a military and political model that can viciously defend itself. And, into this mix, the US has chosen to give one of the sides an unlimited weapon supply which they're currently using to target civilian infrastructure. Feh. Terrorism is not a question of from what altitude you deploy the bomb.