Apropos to Morning’s Minion’s Post on Israel Last Week
Deal Hudson from Inside Catholic has a good piece on the terrible situation surrounding a Bethlehem University Student, Berlanty (Betty) Azzam, who went on a job interview in Ramallah. On her way back to Bethlehem, she was stopped by the Israeli military, handcuffed, blindfolded, and shipped to Gaza. It’s the kind of thing which needs to stop — not just now, but yesterday.
No one is saying Israel does not have a right to exist. What people are saying is that the state of Israel needs to be reformed. This does not mean the Palestinians are doing good, either. They too need a reformation from within. But it is clear that Israel holds the blunt of the moral guilt because they also hold the majority of power within the region. To those who have been granted much, much is expected.
Comments are closed.
No one is saying Israel does not have a right to exist.
Henry. Please.
Kurt,
It’s one of the first accusations which one sees if one points out the abuses of the Israeli state. I am for a one state solution which follows the example of South Africa. But I fear it won’t happen.
No one is saying Israel does not have a right to exist.
Hamas is saying Israel doesn’t have a right to exist. Hezbollah says it, too. And so do their sponsors in Iran. You may not be saying it, but the claim that “no one” says it is flatly false. In fact, if there was universal acknowledgement of Israel’s right to exist, we would have peace.
Mark
No one is contextual (i.e., on Vox Nova, on Inside Catholic, etc). Hermeneutics helps one understand the meaning of the words used. So the “no one” was in reference to Deal Hudson, Morning’s Minion and myself as we discuss what is happening in Israel.
This “you don’t support the right of Israel to exist” is one of the great straw men which is always brought up if people point out the moral failure of the state of Israel. I wanted to make it clear from the get go that this is not what is being argued. This is not a discussion against the right of Israel to exist. It is a discussion of the ethical stand that state should take. That I pointed out that the Palestinians need reform should also be indicative of this.
“Hamas is saying Israel doesn’t have a right to exist. Hezbollah says it, too.”
So what? Aside from your inability to read contextually (a malady which Karlson has already diagnosed), what point is this counter-example supposed to serve? That there are *some people* who deny that a particular state has a “right” to exist? I wasn’t aware that any state had such a “right.”
“If there was universal acknowledgement of Israel’s right to exist, we would have peace.”
This statement is undoubtedly correct, if by “we” you mean Zionists and their enablers in our military-industrial complex. After all, when “we” bomb civilians and invade countries and commit war crimes, “we” are doing it all for the purposes of “peace.” And if only those whom we bomb and invade and murder would recognize this, there would be an end to strife.
I recommend to those courageous enough to read it an *actual* Israeli’s recent take on the machinations of his state, machinations in which Americans are materially implicated. Because the title of Gideon Levi’s article is “America, stop sucking up to Israel,” one suspect that he has a rather different view of the matter than Gordon.
I forgot the link: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1124928.html?
OK. We’ve established that Henry doesn’t deny Israel’s right to exist. The question remains, can Israel continue to exist without the heavy-handed policies they currently have.
I spent the weekend at the annual investiture weekend of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre. We heard once again about the great work that Bethleham University is doing, and how the Israeli policies are hindering the movement of students. The Gazan students simply cannot go home, even for family funerals. Its heartbreaking. And its the same story with the seminarians.
We need to keep a close eye on the immense suffering that continues in Gaza, even if off the radar of world attention. What we don’t often hear is that after the war, the Israeli policy of collective punishment through restricting aid into Gaza continues. Before the blockade (which amounts to a war crime), about 600 trucks a day would enter Gaza. It’s now 100. Israel has completely banned the importation of cement, as it can be used to build rocket launchers. It also can be used to re-build the homes, schools, and hospitals destroyed by Israeli bombs.
It is incument upon American Catholics to put pressure on their government to adopt a more even-handed policy when it comes to Israel. This is not a partisan issue – which is why it is heartening to find Deal Hudson taking a strong position on it. For despite the talk, it looks like the Obama administration is about to cave to Israeli pressure, yet again.
The question remains, can Israel continue to exist without the heavy-handed policies they currently have.
I think the answer is that of course they can. But if any country has to resort to injustice and brutality to continue its existence, then perhaps it doesn’t have a “right to exist.”
So what? Aside from your inability to read contextually (a malady which Karlson has already diagnosed), what point is this counter-example supposed to serve? That there are *some people* who deny that a particular state has a “right” to exist? I wasn’t aware that any state had such a “right.”
Well, reading “contextually,” I suppose we’ve found the first person here at Vox Nova who would indeed argue against Israel’s right to exist. ‘wj’ apparently holds that no state has such a right, which not only obviates the Israeli claim, but likewise undermines any any appeal on behalf of a future Palestinian state.
A broader point: we see again here in wj’s comments the “curious intensity” I wrote about in a comment on an earlier post by MM. All the signs are there of something else lurking below the surface: the barely concealed rage, the inflamed language, the psychological projection, the guilty conscience. Curious indeed.
Mark,
Now you are engaging equivocation.
Henry,
I never meant to suggest that you don’t think Israel has a right to exist and I accept, based on your subsequent statements, that you were referring to a limited group when you wrote “No one.”
But I really think you should amend and clarify your original post. The idea that, posted on an open and public forum, the claim “No one…” Followed by an unqualified “People…” simply leads fair minded English readers to a conclusion different from what you claim to mean.
There are people, many people, who say Israel has no right to exist.
Having said that, I agree that we should work to convince Israel to make certain reforms. Mostly because Israel is the sole actor in this tragic situation in which rational dialogue has some hope of making a positive impact.
If I say, “No one is arguing that hunters shouldn’t have guns, but I think we need much tighter controls on assault rifles,” do I have to verify that no one — PETA, for example — has ever made an argument that hunters should not keep their guns?
David,
I am not demanding a verification but suggesting that since some people (myself incldued) found the statement unclear, it should be revised. I will be the first to agree that those who deny Israel’s right to exist are outside the bounds of legitimate discussion on this issue.
Kurt,
While people might have found it unclear, the conversation in the comments section has, I hope, made it more clear to those people. I do not think there is the need to change the text for many reasons, one of them being, no matter what I would write, there could be people who misinterpret it. Look to how St Paul’s texts are written and misunderstood. Active communication and dialogue is, imo, better than seeking for a perfect text (which is impossible because of how words function). And thus showing the active communication and keeping the original help show and demonstrate this, instead of trying to make something out of a text which cannot be done. I hope you understand?
I’m always about the spirit instead of the letter for this reason. Indeed, your response with Israel as the “sole actor” in which rational discussion can influence it could be read in such a way as to deny the United States, the Vatican, and others as being “rational.” Of course, that’s not the spirit, but shows my point of why I emphasize the spirit and explain it if people are confused. Though I do wonder what you mean, even in spirit, here — can you elaborate a bit more?
That Mark Gordon would rather speculate about his opponents’ psychological pathologies instead of responding to their arguments is, no doubt, ample proof of his own intellectual seriousness, but not much more besides.
To speak of a state’s “right” to exist is to apply a contested and philosophically problematic concept to an arena which renders the meaning and implications of the concept even blurrier. Do states have the “right” to exist as you and I have the “right” to life, or as we have the “right” to vote? Can the “right” of states to exist be forfeited by the actions–domestic or foreign–undertaken by such states? If so, what kinds of actions undertaken to what degree would nullify the “right” of an existing state to continue to exist? If the actions of such a state do entail the nullification of its “right” to exist, what then? Are the “rights” of states given by God? Encoded in the UN Charter? etc. etc. etc.
The purely theoretical problems that attend speaking of the “rights” of states to exist are good reason to jettison such talk completely, and so I am perfectly willing to deny that Israel, or America, or the-future-Palestinian-state-not-yet-in-existence-but-hypothesized-by-Mark-Gordon-for-the-purposes-of-his-own-self-serving-argument has any such “right” to exist.
Of course, as we all know, the *real* point about insisting on Israel’s “right” to exist in contemporary discourse is not to commit oneself to a dubious metaphysics, but rather to ensure your audience that you are not one of *those* opponents of Israel–the very very bad ones, the members of [gasp!] Hamas or [the horror!] Hezbollah–and thus that you can be taken seriously by Serious People, who all agree that, despite the arguable overzealousness with which Israel is forced, now and again, to defend its shining democracy against the impoverished hordes that surround it on all sides, it nonetheless retains a “right” to exist. The fact that any such discussion of Israel must be prefaced by qualifications of this sort functions rhetorically to defang, from the outset, the extent of the critique–after all, you have already decided that what *those* people say about Israel can’t be right–and so reinforces the status quo.
I think the answer is that of course they can. But if any country has to resort to injustice and brutality to continue its existence, then perhaps it doesn’t have a “right to exist.”
David, one wouldn’t argue that Philadelphia lost the right to exist in the 1970′s, when crime forced the city government to crack down. It was the criminal element that believed the city didn’t have a right to exist; they were the ones who tried to make the city uninhabitable. The city response was brutal, and there were specific moments of injustice, but the restoration of order was a just cause.
On the “right to exist”, I think the foundation of Israel was a grave mistake. It displayed all the errors and fallacies of 18th/19th century nationalism (what zionism is). Just as Europe had come up with false understandings of the nature or peoples and nations, so did some (secular) Jews began to conceive of themselves in similar terms.
The creation of Israel led to grave injustice. The radical upheaval it caused in the middle east suggests that a true “conservative” (the one who eschews revolution and notions of earthly perfection) would have opposed it. Recall, the Vatican opposed the creation of Israel.
But, it exists, and those who seek to be rid of it are guilty of the same kind of injustice, promoting the same kind of radical upheaval. The only just solution is to accept its existence (while drawing a sharp distinction between this state and the Jewish religion), while fighting against the grave injustices committed against the Palestinian people. Following the Vatican’s lead is not a bad starting point.
The city response was brutal, and there were specific moments of injustice, but the restoration of order was a just cause.
Pinky,
My point is that if injustice and brutality are necessary for a political entity to maintain its existence, then maybe it doesn’t have a right to exist. When fighting a war, brutality and injustice may be unintended and yet may almost inevitably result. I am not a pacifist, so I don’t take that to be a reason never to fight a war. But if a political entity plans brutality and injustice because it believes it is necessary to prevail, then maybe it doesn’t have a right to exist.
David, that’s a valid point. One of the criteria for a just war is that is has to be winnable. Otherwise, you’re creating havoc for no purpose. That raises the awkward question, will there ever be anything like peace in the Holy Land, given the historical fact that the majority of civilizations have opposed it? I believe that the Jewish people have the best chance for a establishing a peaceful Jerusalem.
The example someone gave above is illustrative. Given the opportunity to bring in cement, the Palestinians could use it to rebuild schools. But they will use it to rebuild mortars. A war against that kind of enemy is going to be long, and it’s going to be awful.
I’m not sure what sense it makes to say that you favor Israel’s right to exist and that you favor “a one state solution which follows the example of South Africa.” You might as well say that Ahmadinejad believes in Israel’s right to exist, he just thinks it should exist as a Palestinian state.
Blackadder,
So, South Africa no longer exists? The United States no longer exists now that we have given African Americans rights instead of made them slaves?
On the “right to exist”, I think the foundation of Israel was a grave mistake.
This raises the question: if the “foundation” of Israel was a mistake, was should have happened instead? Off the top of my head, the options in 1948 were 1) partition, 2) independence without partition, or 3) continuation of British rule. Since I doubt MM thinking it would be feasible or desirable for the Brits to still be ruling Palestine, and partition is what actually happened (which he views as a grave mistake), he must think that independence without partition would have worked out better. Given the experience of Lebanon, I’m not sure this is very plausible.
I believe that the Jewish people have the best chance for a establishing a peaceful Jerusalem.
I’d really like to know why you believe this. Why, for instance, does the Roman Catholic Church, under the auspices of the Vatican’s making of it an international city, not have the “best chance for establishing a peaceful Jerusalem”?
“a one state solution which follows the example of South Africa.”
Since, in consideration of the Arab demographic time bomb inside the State of Israel, which dooms the country to becoming, inevitably, an apartheid state, if present conditions continue to prevail, why should Israel NOT become a unified, pluralist and secular state? I used to believe in the “two state solution,” too, but no longer do, because it now seems to me to be as politically immature a course as keeping Ulster under British occupation. These people need to learn to live together in peace, and, if they can’t, then the Western powers who contain the Jewish diaspora need to ask that Jewish diaspora to consider abandoning the intransigent Zionists to their fate–which seems to be to be swallowed up by the Arab demographic which increases exponentially, compared to them.
Digby
Right, the two-state solution is no solution. I used to think it was, until I started to think, how would they establish that Palestinian state, and I realized what would be needed for true independence and sovereignty would be denied by Israel (who would control most of the access to that state as they do now). History shows groups like this can and do merge — keeping them artificially separate is what causes the violence and dehumanized conditions we see now
So, South Africa no longer exists?
As I said before, if all it means to affirm Israel’s right to exist is to say that there should be a country occupying a particular patch of ground named Israel then Ahmadinejad believes in Israel’s right to exist. If you told the average Israeli that the solution was to turn all political power over to a group of corrupt former terrorists, with a resulting Jewish exodus comparable to what you’d expect from “widespread disease, mass natural disasters or large-scale civil conflict,” I somehow doubt he’d agree with you that this is the model to follow (and I think that South Africa is actually an optimistic take on how a “one state solution” would work in Israel).
As Matt Yglesias noted recently, it’s not clear that a one state solution is workable in places like Belgium and Canada. Why you think it would work for Israel is beyond me.
Not sure what Blackadder is getting at. The obvious solution would have been a Palestinian state. As for Lebanon, one can trace its instability to the creation of Israel. Lebanon always had a delicate balance of Christians, Shia, Sunni, and Druze. What upset the applecart was the massive influx of Palestinian refugees (predominantly Sunni), and this was made worse when Arafat set up base there in the early 1970s after theing thrown out of Jordan by King Hussein. It was the PLO’s actions that prompted the rise of Pierre Gemayel’s militant Phalangist movement. It was skirmishes between the Phalange and the PLO that sparked the 15 year civil war.
Why, for instance, does the Roman Catholic Church, under the auspices of the Vatican’s making of it an international city, not have the “best chance for establishing a peaceful Jerusalem”?
About a third of the population of Jerusalem are Muslims, many of whom believe that their rule over the city is God’s will. Likewise with a significant number of the two-thirds of the population which is Jewish. If you’re proposing a third religion with a negligible population should govern the city, you’d better raise a Crusader army to implement your plan.
if you’re proposing a third religion with a negligible population should govern the city, you’d better raise a Crusader army to implement your plan.
hahahahaha! Nice try to make me sound like an idiot–and a typical debating tactic at this often very vicious “Catholic” blog!
What I’m suggesting–and I believe you understood it very well indeed–is an internationally “open” city, governed by an international commission, such as one set up by the U.N., which would grant to an internationally-minded, but politically sovereign power, such as the Vatican City State, great authority in administering the city–especially such parts of it as are considered “sacred.”
This has been suggested before, by others.
Digby – Don’t assume that I understand anything. You’ll always be disappointed. (Wait, that didn’t come out right.)
Seriously, I don’t understand what you mean. Where does the Vatican enter into the picture? And why? And why would such a solution be met with any less resistance?
Look, Pinky, it’s a little known fact–covered up furiously by the mainstream media in America–that the PLO, under Arafat, ACCEPTED all of the Israelis admittedly many concessions at the Clinton-brokered Camp David negotiations, but one. That one was the remaining “5%-10%” that the neoconservative Zionists in America are constantly ballyhooing about when they speak of the “intransigence” of the Palestinians in refusing to agree to the compromises that Clinton came so close to clinching.
Know what that “5%-10%” was all about? It was ALL about the eventual determination of possession of Jerusalem and its holy sites. Even though Arafat was himself a secular Muslim, he knew full well that, if he traded away Jerusalem, the al Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock, and came back to Palestine waving such an agreement in the face of Hamas and other Islamists, his life would have been immediately forfeit.
Possession of Jerusalem IS the chief stumbling block, along with the so-called “right of return” (both Zionist and Palestinian) to the settlement of this conflict. And this conflict MUST be at least begun to be settled, because of its potential for engulfing the whole world in war, and time is running out: the fanatic mullahs in Iran WANT to be attacked by the Zionists and America, in order to bolster their faltering choke hold on their people, and the mad Likudniks who dominate Israeli politics actually believe that Iran, a country that hasn’t instigated a war in centuries, is about to commence a second Shoah of the Jews. Iran and Iraq’s vast oil fields bring in China and Russia as interested parties to the looming conflict. This–and especially Jerusalem–is the powder keg for a Third World War.
And you think that the world, the West, the Catholic Church don’t have an interest in defusing this situation? It is you who are madly deluded.
Henry,
I am interested in your One State idea and its comparison to South Africa.
Some are saying this is exactly what is happening…and I am part of that some. Expect, rather than the contemporary, unified South Africa we are seeing the Apartheid aspect of that scenario being played out again. Except this time, physical walls are being built to section off “Their” part of the country. The effect is a complete economic disenfranchisement of the Palestinian population within Israel and the Occupied territories. Does this mean that the region needs to travel through the entire trajectory of South Africa before there is a peaceful single state? Unfortunately, religion on all sides has been co-opted into a struggle for power, money, and land.
I am of the opinion that all parties need to return to the original ‘48 boundaries. Only then can we even start the conversation about any state solution. Currently, Israel (the modern nation-state) is in violation of Internationally recognized boundaries.
If any are interested, Christian Peacemaker Teams has had a long established presence within the occupied territories. They have established common practices of accompaniment of students going back and forth to school. This could be a practical, and realistic consideration in the case you highlight in the post.
Josh
True, just because it is one state would not mean it is a just state; when I mean one-state I mean one which is not walled off into parts, with ghettos, but one which is pluralistic like in the United States, without distinctions based upon race/creed.
As for the boundaries, that is a complex question. I think a one-state solution would be able to deal with the boundary issue better after all the disenfranchised are given a full voice in decision making policies (and justice is enforced for all). If the Palestinians are given full, equal status, and all the negative practices hindering them are removed, what would their view be in regards to boundaries? I don’t know the answer to that.
Digby – Perhaps you shouldn’t complain about the viciousness of this site then call me “madly deluded”. I don’t believe I’ve said anything negative about you; I’m sorry if I have.
You didn’t address my point. Why would the Vatican in particular get involved in running Jerusalem? How would it do so? Why do you think that could happen without massive negative response? I don’t dispute that peace in Jerusalem would be preferable to conflict, but I can’t imagine how your scenario could play out without making things worse.
Why would the Vatican in particular get involved in running Jerusalem? How would it do so? Why do you think that could happen without massive negative response?
How could I possibly have made it any clearer to you? It would be ASKED to by international organizations like the U.N., and it would NOT be the only ecclesiastical body to be asked to by the proper international authority: the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the Chief of the Rabbinical Organization–all of them could become involved in the municipal governance of what should be an “open” international city.
Digby – while I happen to not share your third world war doomsday scenario you certainly are not the only voice painting that picture. Still I find your prickly responds above in bold a bit over the top – if you think that what you wrote in bold could ever be a realistic scenario for Vatican involvement your obvious emotions regarding this issue got the better of you in my opinion. ( By the way that would still be no justification to call you deluded- madly or otherwise).
You have your strong opinions – great you currently live in a country where strong opinions are much appreciated – nevertheless – do not get carried away -I think you are not smarter than the next one around here.
That’s a terrible idea. The OIC bloc at the UN would never sign off on a 60% Christian rule. Neither would the majority-Jewish population of Jerusalem. If it would ever happen, it wouldn’t last a week.
Then, in my honest opinion, the right-wing Christian Fundies in America are correct in their intuition that Jerusalem is the powder keg that will set off the Third World War.